he can also say: I divorced her and gave her the payment of her marriage contract.

The Gemara asks: From the fact that the last clause of the mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects payment without a prosbol, apparently we are dealing with a case when there are witnesses to the divorce. As, if there are no witnesses to the divorce, with what proof does she collect the marriage contract? The mishna must be referring to a case where there are witnesses present, and therefore the husband cannot claim that he never divorced her.

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and explains: The entire mishna is according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete and is this is what it is teaching: These debts may not be collected. In what case is this statement said? It is when there are no witnesses to the divorce present there. However, if there are witnesses to the divorce present there, she collects the additional sum listed in the document and not the main sum, lest she later produce the bill of divorce and demand payment a second time. And as for the main sum of the marriage contract, if she produces a bill of divorce, she collects it. But if she does not produce a bill of divorce, she does not collect it.

The Gemara continues the modified version of the mishna: And from the time of danger and onward, even if she does not produce a bill of divorce, she collects the main sum of her marriage contract as well, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects payment without a prosbol.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: According to your opinion, that you said that a woman who produces a bill of divorce collects the main sum, then in the case of a widow from marriage, with what proof does she collect the main sum of her marriage contract, as she has no bill of divorce? She can claim the main sum with witnesses to his death. But shouldn’t we be concerned that perhaps he divorced her before he passed away, and after receiving her marriage contract by means of the witnesses to his death, she will produce the bill of divorce he gave her and collect payment with it a second time? Rav answered: She can collect payment with witnesses to her husband’s death only when she was living under the jurisdiction of her husband the entire time, and it is clear that he did not divorce her.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps he divorced her near his death, in which case it is not known that she was divorced. She could then demand payment for her marriage contract twice. The Gemara answers: In that case, it is he who caused his own loss, by failing to inform others of the divorce, and it is not necessary to be concerned that such a situation could occur.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav another question: With what proof can a widow from betrothal collect her marriage contract? She can collect the payment with witnesses to his death. But once again, shouldn’t we be concerned that perhaps he divorced her beforehand, and after receiving her marriage contract based on the evidence of the witnesses, she will produce the bill of divorce he gave her and collect a second time with it? Since a betrothed woman does not live with her husband, there would be no indication that he had divorced her.

Rather, it must be that wherever it is not possible otherwise to know if a woman already received her marriage contract, one writes a receipt, as if you do not say so with regard to the witnesses to his death themselves, we should be concerned that perhaps she will bring out witnesses to his death in this court and collect payment for her marriage contract, and again bring out witnesses in a different court and collect payment for her marriage contract a second time. This could continue many times. Rather, it must certainly be the case that wherever it is not possible otherwise to know if a woman already received her marriage contract, one writes a receipt.

Mar the Elder, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: From where do we know that a widow from betrothal has a marriage contract? Perhaps the Sages instituted the marriage contract only for married women. If we say that it is derived from this mishna (54b): If a woman is widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or whether from marriage, she collects the entire amount of her marriage contract, including the additional sum, this mishna is not proof. Perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her on his own accord. That does not prove that there is an enactment of the Sages that a husband must write a marriage contract for his betrothed.

And if you would say in response that if that mishna is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, what is the purpose of stating that she collects the entire sum, since it is clear that she receives the full amount, as she has the document in her possession; perhaps this is meant to exclude the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said that a betrothed woman who was divorced or widowed is not entitled to the additional sum written in the marriage contract, as the groom wrote this additional amount for her only in order to marry her.

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, that it is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, as it teaches: She collects the entire amount. Granted, if you say that he wrote a marriage contract for her, it is due to that reason that she collects the entire amount, both the main sum and additional sum written in the marriage contract. But if you say that he did not write a marriage contract for her, and she collects a payment only because of the rabbinic ordinance, what is the meaning of: She collects the entire sum? She has only one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, as enacted by the Sages, and no more. The phrase: Entire sum, is inappropriate according to this opinion.

But rather, the proof that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract is from that which was taught by Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: Upon the death of one’s betrothed wife, he does not receive the status of an acute mourner, one whose close relative has died but has not yet been buried, nor become impure if he is a priest. And likewise, she neither receives the status of an acute mourner nor becomes impure for him. If she dies, he does not inherit from her. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract. This shows that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract.

The Gemara refutes this proof in the same manner as before: Perhaps this is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her on his own accord. And if you would say in response that if that mishna is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, what is the purpose of stating that she collects the payment, as this is obvious and teaches nothing new; perhaps it was necessary for him to mention that despite the fact that the man wrote a marriage contract for her, if she dies, he does not inherit from her. The discussion concludes without a source for the halakha that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: According to Rav, who said that if she produces a bill of divorce she can collect the main sum of her marriage contract, shouldn’t there be a concern lest she produce the bill of divorce in this court and collect with it, and again produce it in a different court and collect with it? And should you say that we tear it, as the court does to other documents that have been paid, she will not let us do so, for she will say: I do not want you to tear the bill of divorce because I need it, so that when I want to marry again I can prove with it that I am divorced.

Rav Huna responded: The solution is that we tear it and write the following on its back: We tore this bill of divorce, not because it is an invalid bill of divorce, but in order that she not return and collect with it another time.

MISHNA: If a woman had two bills of divorce and two marriage contracts as a result of her divorce and remarriage to the same man, the fact that she is in possession of these documents proves that she was never paid for her first marriage contract, and she collects two marriage contracts.

If she was in possession of two marriage contracts and only one bill of divorce; or if she had one marriage contract and two bills of divorce; or if she had a marriage contract, a bill of divorce, and witnesses to her husband’s death after their remarriage, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because there is a presumption that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, and she agrees that she collects payment of only the original document. This is the presumption, unless he wrote another marriage contract for her.

GEMARA: The mishna states that if she had two marriage contracts and one bill of divorce, she can collect only one marriage contract. However, it does not specify which marriage contract she can claim. Does this mean that if she desires, she can collect payment of the marriage contract with this one, and if she desires, she can collect payment with that one? In that case, if she prefers she can use the document that promises the larger sum, and if she prefers to use the marriage contract with the earlier date in order to be able to collect property that her husband had sold to others between the dates on the two documents, she may collect with that one.

The Gemara asks: If that is the case, let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of a statement that Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said, as Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: If there are two documents that are issued one after the other, each recording the same transaction of a sale or a gift and they are separated by a few days, it is assumed that the second document cancels the first one. Why not say in this case as well that the second marriage contract voids the first one?

The Gemara answers: Was it not stated with regard to the halakha Rav Naḥman quoted in the name of Shmuel that Rav Pappa said: And Rav Naḥman concedes that if he added to the transaction detailed in the second document a palm tree that was not mentioned in the first document, this shows that he did not intend to cancel the first document. Rather, he wrote the second document as an addition to the first document. Here too, the Gemara is dealing with a case when he added an additional sum for her in the second marriage contract. This proves that he wanted to add to the first marriage contract, and not to void it.

The Sages taught: If she produced a bill of divorce, a marriage contract, and witnesses to her husband’s death,