Yerushalmi Ketubot 4:9 ירושלמי כתובות ד׳:ט׳

MISHNAH: If he did not write her a ketubah, a virgin collects 200 [zuz] and a widow 100, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court²¹²The fact that there is a marriage creates the financial obligations of the husband even in the absence of a contract. This stipulation bars any mut‘a marriage (temporary marriage for sexual pleasure only). A similar institution, ἄγραφος γάμος, “marriage without written contract,” which nevertheless implied all monetary obligations of the husband towards his wife, was known in contemporary Egyptian native law; cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, Chapter IIB3.. If he substituted something²¹³In the Mishnah of the Babli: “A field.” Since the lien of the ketubah is a mortgage (primarily or exclusively) on all the husband’s property, it is reasonable to assume that in the Yerushalmi version likewise it is understood that a piece of real estate was offered to satisfy the ketubah claims. valued at a mina for the 200 zuz and did not write “that all my property is guaranty for your ketubah,” he still is obligated by it, for this is a stipulation enforced by the court²¹⁴Therefore, all the stipulations mentioned in this and the following Mishnaiot are not written in ketubah contracts following the Babylonian style; the fact that a document is designated as ketubah makes these stipulations enforceable..

HALAKHAH: “If he did not write her a ketubah,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said²¹⁴Therefore, all the stipulations mentioned in this and the following Mishnaiot are not written in ketubah contracts following the Babylonian style; the fact that a document is designated as ketubah makes these stipulations enforceable.: “Anybody who writes for a virgin less that 200 [zuz] or a mina for a widow engages in immoral intercourse.²¹⁵For R. Meïr, the existence of a marriage is proof of a responsibility of the husband or his estate for at least 200 or 100 zuz; that amount can therefore be foreclosed. A similar argument is in the Babli, 51a, where, however, the position is taken that R. Jehudah agrees that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the obligation of the husband’s estate is 200 or 100 zuz but that by written agreement of the wife this obligation can be reduced.” Who needs it²¹⁶The position of R. Meïr in Mishnah 5:2 does not yet explain why a document of indebtedness does not have to be produced in court.? Rebbi Meïr! Even though Rebbi Meïr says that any contract which does not contain an alienation clause²¹⁷R. Meïr holds that a loan document which is not a mortgage, i. e., does not contain a clause which states that in the case of nonpayment some of the debtor’s property will be alienated to the creditor, cannot be enforced in court. In that he is opposed by R. Jehudah who holds that the absence of such a clause is a scribal error (Babli 51a/b; Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:6). cannot be foreclosed, here he agrees that it can be foreclosed²¹⁸The Babli, 51b, qualifies this statement that R. Meïr permits foreclosure only from real estate not otherwise pledged while the Yerushalmi will permit foreclosure from real estate pledged after the marriage was contracted (because the wife’s lien cannot be removed.).