Bava Batra 132B

ומקולי כתובה שנו כאן.

And A baraita states here one of the leniencies that apply to a marriage contract. This manner in which the wife loses her right to receive payment of her marriage contract is a leniency for the husband, as an ordinary creditor does not lose money he is owed in this fashion.

תנן, רבי יוסי אומר: אם קבלה עליה, אף על פי שלא כתב לה ⁠– אבדה כתובתה. מכלל דתנא קמא סבר: כתיבה וקבלה בעי!

The Talmud questions this statement: We learned in the same Mishnah that R' Yosei says that if she accepted the distribution upon herself, even if he did not write a document granting her any amount of land, she has lost her right to receive payment of her marriage contract. By inference, it can be stated that the first tanna holds that both his writing a document granting her a piece of land and her acceptance of the distribution are necessary for her to lose her right, contrary to the interpretation of all 3 amora’im, i.e., Rav, Shmuel, and R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, all of whom assumed that she need not affirmatively accept the distribution and that her silence is sufficient.

וכי תימא: כולה רבי יוסי היא; והא תניא, אמר רבי יהודה: אימתי ⁠– שהיתה שם וקבלה עליה; אבל היתה שם ולא קבלה עליה, קבלה עליה ולא היתה שם ⁠– לא אבדה כתובתה! תיובתא דכולהו! תיובתא.

And if you would say that the entire Mishnah is the opinion of R' Yosei, who holds that either the husband’s writing a deed of gift or the wife’s acceptance of the distribution is sufficient, but isn’t it taught in a baraita that R' Yehuda said: According to the first tanna, when does she lose her right to receive payment of her marriage contract? In a case where she was there at the time of the distribution and accepted it; but if she was there but did not accept it, or accepted it but was not there, she has not lost her right to receive payment of her marriage contract, as she can claim that her acquiescence was only to please her husband and was not sincere. The Talmud concludes: The refutation of the opinions of all the interpretations of the amora’im is indeed a conclusive refutation.