Bava Metzia 20A

שמע מינה: איתא לדשמואל, דאמר שמואל: המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו, וחזר ומחלו ⁠– מחול, ואפילו יורש מוחל.

Conclude from the fact that this suspicion is not taken into account that the halakha of Shmuel is accepted. As Shmuel says: In the case of one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller then forgives the debt of the debtor, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor’s heir can forgive the debt. Therefore, if the wife did engage in the deception mentioned above, it was within her rights, as she is able to forgive the debt of the marriage contract.

אביי אמר: אפילו תימא ליתיה לדשמואל, הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– בששטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידה. ורבא אמר: אי משום שטר כתובה, חיישינן לשתי כתובות.

Abaye said: This is not conclusive proof. Even if you say that the halakha of Shmuel is not accepted, here we are dealing with a case where the marriage contract emerges from her possession, which indicates that she did not sell it. And Rava disagreed with Abaye and said: If the reason there is no suspicion that she sold her marriage contract is due to the fact that the marriage contract emerged from her possession, this reason is insufficient, as we should suspect that there might be two marriage contracts.

ואביי אמר, חדא: לשתי כתובות לא חיישינן. ועוד, שובר בזמנו טריף. אביי לטעמיה, דאמר: עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו.

And Abaye said in response: First, we are not concerned about the remote possibility of two marriage contracts. And furthermore, even if there is only one marriage contract, which was sold before the receipt was given to the husband, the receipt is valid, as a receipt can be used to repossess property from the time it was written, even if it was given on a later date. In saying this, Abaye conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that once a monetary document is written for someone, the document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on his behalf.