TB Baba Metzia17-9 Virtual Ketubot and Returning lost Gittin

TB Baba Kama 17 A virtual Ketubah

We live in a world that knows all about virtual documents. Even though a woman should always have her ketubah handy for her protection in case of the death of the husband or divorce, she should not fear if the document is lost. Because the rabbinic courts have established the minimum amounts found in the ketubah, she can demand those sums as payment even case of death or divorce without the ketubah. It is as if she has a virtual ketubah and that is exactly what Rabbi Yoḥanan is claiming.

“§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to one who claims to have repaid a debt that has already been established by a court enactment, i.e., a rabbinic ordinance obligating one to pay a debt, e.g., the main sum in a marriage contract, but he has no witnesses, he has said nothing. His claim is not accepted. What is the reason that he is not believed? It is because one who is owed any money based on a court enactment is considered like one who is holding a promissory note in his hand, against which a claim of repayment is not accepted without supporting evidence.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Without proof that the former husband or the heirs have paid the ketubah, they cannot just claim that “I paid it.” Otherwise the rabbinic decree is unenforceable and useless.

TB Baba Kama 18-9 Retuning a lost Get, a bill of divorce

The Mishnah on TB Baba Kama 18a states “If one found bills of divorce…, he may not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided not to deliver them.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara then asks what happens if the husband says that he gave his wife the found get.

Rabba teaches that the lost get may be returned to the wife unless two conditions are met. If these two conditions are not met, then the get may be returned to her. To understand his two conditions we have to remember what we learned back in massekhet Gittin. The get has to be written explicitly for the couple (leshma-לשמה) mentioned in the document. The first condition is “a place where caravans passing through are common, and there is a concern that the found bill of divorce belongs to someone else with the identical name. ” In other words, a very public place where many people gather. The Gemara cites two other such places that are equivalent to the concept of caravans passing through are common. They are a court and a place that sells cotton (this could be comparable to the mall in its heyday). The second condition is “And even in a place where caravans passing through are common, there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, and this concern is only where it has been established that there are two men named, for example, Yosef ben Shimon in that one city.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Yirmeya provides the second explanation when you may return a lost get to the wife. The witnesses who signed the get will testify and determine whether one may return the get or not. “Rabbi Yirmeya states A found bill of divorce should be returned only in a case where the witnesses who signed the bill of divorce say: We have never signed a bill of divorce of a person named Yosef ben Shimon other than this one, in which case there is no concern that the bill of divorce belongs to someone else.” (Sefaria.org translation) The probability that there are two couples with the exact same names and divorced with the exact same two witnesses are so small that the rabbis felt they didn’t need to refuse to return the lost get.

Rav Ashi provides the third explanation when you may return a lost get to the wife. “Rav Ashi stated another resolution to the contradiction: The bill of divorce should be returned only in a case where the person claiming to have lost it provides a clear-cut distinguishing mark, e.g., he says: There is a hole in the bill of divorce next to such and such a letter. The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi permits one to return such a bill of divorce specifically when the one claiming to have lost it says that the hole is next to such and such a letter, as that is a clear-cut distinguishing mark. But if he said only that it had a hole without mentioning its precise location, one should not return the bill of divorce, as that is not considered a clear-cut distinguishing mark.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Alternatively if a Torah scholar can recognize this specific get as kosher then it may be returned to the wife. His recognition is as good as a clear-cut distinguishing mark. “The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar Ḥana lost a bill of divorce, which had been given to him to deliver, in the study hall. When it was found, he said: If they request a distinguishing mark, I have one for it. If it depends on visual recognition, I have methods of recognition for it. They returned the bill of divorce to him. He said afterward: I do not know if they returned it to me due to the distinguishing mark that I supplied, and they hold that distinguishing marks are used to return lost items by Torah law, or if they returned it to me due to my visual recognition, and it was specifically because I am a Torah scholar, as Torah scholars are relied upon when they say that they recognize an item, but an ordinary person would not be relied upon to recognize the item and have it returned to him.” (Sefaria.org translation)