💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot_87 captured on 2024-05-10 at 10:40:14. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] It is referring **to** a woman **who became a steward during her husband’s lifetime,** as it was common for a man to leave his wife in charge of his property while exempting her from taking an oath. **Rav Naḥman** said that **Rabba bar Avuh said:** It is referring **to a woman who claims that she received partial payment of her marriage contract,** who must take an oath that she received no more than the amount she admits to. The mishna is referring to a husband who exempted his wife from this oath.
‎[2] **Rav Mordekhai went** and **said** this ***halakha* before Rav Ashi** and asked him the following question: **Granted, according to the one who says** that **it is referring to a woman who claims that she received partial payment of her marriage contract,** it makes sense **that it enters her mind** that this might happen, as she thinks: **Perhaps I will require money, and I will take** what I need **from my marriage contract** up front. **And she** therefore **says to him** before their marriage: **Write for me that you will not administer an oath to me** when I come to collect the rest of my marriage contract. **However, according to the one who says** that it **is referring to** a woman **who became a steward during her husband’s lifetime, did she know** beforehand **that** her husband **would establish her as a steward,** to know **to say to him: Write for me that you will not administer an oath to me?**
‎[3] Rav Ashi **said to him: You teach this** *halakha* of Rav Yehuda **with regard to that** part of the mishna, and therefore you find it difficult. **We,** however, **teach it with regard to this** part of the mishna: If **she went from her husband’s grave to her father’s house** without handling her late husband’s property, **or** in a case **where she returned to her father-in-law’s house and did not become a steward** over the property at all throughout this period, then **the heirs cannot administer an oath to her** with regard to her actions in their father’s lifetime, as the husband exempted her from an oath to the heirs. **And if she became a steward, the heirs may administer an oath to her about the future,** i.e., anything she did with the property after the death of her husband, **but they cannot administer an oath to her with regard to what** took place **in the past,** during her husband’s lifetime.
‎[4] It was with regard to this statement that the Gemara asked: **What is the purpose of** mentioning **the past?** What oath would they have wanted her to take with regard to the past? And it was in response to this question that **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** It is referring **to** a woman **who became a steward during her husband’s lifetime.**
‎[5] The Gemara presents a dispute as to what is considered the past, first continuing the quote from Rav Yehuda: **But they can administer an oath to her** with regard to her conduct **between** her husband’s **death and** his **burial. And Rav Mattana said: Even** concerning her actions **between** her husband’s **death and** his **burial, they cannot administer an oath to her, as** the Sages of **Neharde’a say: For** the purpose of paying **head tax [*karga*], and for** payment to provide for children’s **sustenance, and for burial, we sell** property inherited by orphans **without an announcement.** In these urgent matters, the court is not particular about a possible loss incurred by the heirs. Similarly, a woman need not take an oath with regard to how she conducted her affairs for her husband’s funeral, because in such a time of stress she cannot manage her accounts in a precise manner.
‎[6] § **Rabba said** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya said:** If a husband wrote: **Not a vow and not an oath,** this means that **he cannot administer an oath to her, but** his **heirs can administer an oath to her.** If he wrote: She is **clear,** i.e., exempt, from **a vow** and **clear** from **an oath, neither he nor** his **heirs can administer an oath to her.** This is because in effect **this is what he is saying to her: You are clear** from **the oath,** no matter who seeks to administer it to you.
‎[7] **But Rav Yosef** said that **Rabbi Ḥiyya said** the opposite ruling with regard to the second clause: If he wrote: **Not a vow and not an oath, he cannot administer an oath to her, but** his **heirs can administer an oath to her.** If he wrote: She is **clear** from **a vow** and **clear** from **an oath, either he or** his **heirs can administer an oath to her.** This is because in effect **this is what he is saying to her: Clear yourself** from any suspicion **by** means of **an oath.**
‎[8] **Rabbi Zakkai sent** the following ruling **to Mar Ukva** from Eretz Yisrael: **Whether** he wrote: **Not an oath,** or **whether** he wrote: **Clear** from **an oath,** and **whether** he wrote: **Not a vow,** or **whether** he wrote: **Clear** from **a vow,** if he added the phrase: **With regard to my property, he cannot administer an oath to her, but** his **heirs can administer an oath to her.** However, if he added the phrase: **From these properties, neither he nor his heirs can administer an oath to her.**
‎[9] **Rav Naḥman said** that **Shmuel said in the name of Abba Shaul ben Imma Miriam: Whether** he wrote: **Not an oath,** or **whether** he wrote: **Clear** from **an oath,** and **whether** he wrote: **Not a vow,** or **whether** he wrote: **Clear** from **a vow,** and **whether** he added: **From my property,** or **whether** he added: **From these properties, neither he nor his heirs can administer an oath to her** according to the letter of the law. **However, what can I do, as the Sages said** that **one who comes to collect** a debt **from the property of orphans may collect** it **only by** means of **an oath?** Therefore, she is compelled to take an oath in any case involving a claim from the orphans.
‎[10] **And some say** this *halakha* in the form of **a *baraita*,** not as a quote from an *amora*: **Abba Shaul ben Imma Miriam said: Whether** he wrote: **Not an oath,** or **whether** he wrote: **Clear** from **an oath,** and **whether** he wrote: **Not a vow,** or **whether** he wrote: **Clear** from **a vow,** and **whether** he added: **From my property,** or **whether** he added: **From these properties, neither he nor his heirs can administer an oath to her** according to the letter of the law. **However, what can I do, as the Sages said** that **one who comes to collect** a debt **from the property of orphans may collect** it **only by** means of **an oath?** The Gemara comments: **Rav Naḥman said** that **Shmuel said:** The practical ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **ben Imma Miriam.**
‎[11] **MISHNA:** A woman **who vitiates her marriage contract** by acknowledging that she has received partial payment **can collect** the rest of her marriage contract **only by** means of **an oath.** Similarly, if **one witness testifies that** her marriage contract **is paid, she can collect** it **only by** means of **an oath.** In any case where she seeks to claim her marriage contract **from the property of orphans, or from liened property** that has been sold to a third party, **or when not in** her husband’s **presence,** she **can collect** it **only by** means of **an oath.**
‎[12] The mishna elaborates: With regard to a woman **who vitiates her marriage contract, how so,** how does this situation arise? If **her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and** her husband **said to her: You** already **received your marriage contract, and she says: I received only one hundred dinars,** she has made a partial admission and **can collect** her marriage contract **only** by means of **an oath.**
‎[13] If **one witness testifies that** her marriage contract **is paid, how so?** If **her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and** her husband **said to her: You** already **received your marriage contract, and she says: I did not receive** payment, **and one witness testifies about** the marriage contract **that it is paid,** she **can collect** it **only by** means of **an oath.**
‎[14] **From liened property, how so?** If while they were married the husband **sold his property to others, and she** comes to **collect** her marriage contract **from the purchasers, she can collect** it **only by** means of **an oath.** She may seize property from the purchasers because her husband’s obligation undertaken in the marriage contract predates his obligation in the document of sale.
‎[15] **From the property of orphans, how so?** If the husband **died and left his property to orphans, and she** comes to **collect** her marriage contract **from the orphans,** she **can collect** it **only by** means of **an oath.**
‎[16] **Or when not in his presence, how so?** If **he went** to **a country overseas and** sent her a bill of divorce, so that **she collects** her marriage contract **when not in his presence,** she **can collect** it **only by** means of **an oath.**
2 ‎[1] **Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she claims** payment of **her marriage contract, the heirs administer an oath to her. And if she does not claim** payment of **her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.**
‎[2] **GEMARA:** **Rami bar Ḥama thought to say** that the oath of a woman who vitiates her marriage contract is **an oath** required **by Torah** law, which is the oath of one who makes a partial admission, **as** the husband **claims** that he paid her **two hundred and she concedes to him with regard to one hundred. This is a partial admission of the claim, and** the principle is that **whoever admits to part of a claim must take an oath** according to Torah law to receive the remaining amount.
‎[3] **Rava said:** There are **two answers in the matter,** in refutation of your argument: **One** response is **that anyone who** is obligated to **take an oath** that is enumerated **in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay.** By Torah law, one takes an oath only to exempt himself from payment, **and** in this case **she takes an oath and takes** her money. **And furthermore,** there is a principle that **one does not take an oath with regard to a denial of a lien on land.** The oaths of the Torah apply only to moveable property, not land. This means that if a claim involves a lien on land of any form, the oath of a partial admission does not apply, and a marriage contract includes a lien on land.
‎[4] **Rather, Rava said:** This oath is **by rabbinic** law. It was instituted because the one **who pays is precise** and recalls that he paid his debt, whereas the one **who was paid is not precise.** When the husband claims to have paid her, he remembers clearly what happened, **and** therefore **the Sages imposed** the obligation of **an oath upon her, so that she should be precise** and remember exactly what occurred.
‎[5] § **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In a case where **a woman vitiates her marriage contract** by accepting partial payment **in** the presence of **witnesses, what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **if it is** so **that he has paid her** the rest of the marriage contract, **he would have paid her in** the presence of **witnesses,** and since he has no such witnesses, this is proof that she never received the rest of the money, and she is exempt from an oath? **Or perhaps he** simply **happened to have** witnesses for part of the payment, and he gave her the rest without witnesses, and she must take an oath with regard to the remainder of the sum?
‎[6] The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from a mishna (*Shevuot* 44b): **Anyone who** is obligated to **take an oath** that is enumerated **in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay. And these take an oath and take** their payment: **The hired worker** who demands his wages from his employer; **and one who was robbed; and one who was injured,** who claims compensation from the one who caused him damage; **and** if **the one opposing him,** the other litigant in a case, was supposed to take an oath but he is **suspected with regard to oaths; and a storekeeper** who makes a claim **on** the basis of what is written in **his notebook [*pinkaso*]; and one who receives partial payment of his document not in** the presence of **witnesses.** Conclude from this last clause that if one received partial payment of a document **not in** the presence of **witnesses,** then **yes,** he is obligated to take an oath, but if he received the payment **in** the presence of **witnesses,** then **no,** he is not obligated to take an oath.
‎[7] The Gemara refutes this argument: The mishna **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary: It is not necessary** to state that if part of the marriage contract was paid **in** the presence of **witnesses, she certainly requires an oath. However,** if a partial payment was made **not in** the presence of **witnesses,** one might **say** that her partial admission **should be like one who restores lost property.** Since there are no witnesses that the husband paid anything, when she concedes to part of the claim it is as though she has restored to him a lost item. **And she should** therefore **take** the rest of the money **without an oath,** in accordance with the *halakha* that one who returns lost property does not have to take an oath that he did not appropriate part of what he found for himself. The *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that even in this case an oath is required.
‎[8] **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **a woman who vitiates her marriage contract** and details with precision every sum of money that she received, specifying not only large sums of money but also sums so small that they amounted to **less than the value of a *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **since she is precise to such an extent she** must be **telling the truth, or perhaps** she **is deceiving** us? This question **shall stand** unresolved.
‎[9] Another **dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In the case of a woman who **reduces her marriage contract** by saying that its sum was less than the usual amount, or less than the figure specified in the document, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **this is** like the case of **a woman who vitiates** her marriage contract, and the *halakha* is the same in both instances? **Or perhaps** there is a difference between the two cases because **a woman who vitiates** her marriage contract **admits to part of** the claim, whereas **this one does not admit to** part of the claim. Here, she claims that she has received nothing at all, but that she is owed less than what was initially thought.
‎[10] The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from a *baraita*: **One who reduces** her marriage contract **can collect** it **without an oath. How so?** If **her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and** her husband **said to her: You have received your marriage contract, and she says: I have not received** my marriage contract, **but it is only one hundred dinars,** she **may collect** it **without an oath.**
‎[11] The Gemara asks: If her claim is accepted, **with what does she** in fact **collect** payment? **With this** marriage contract **document? This document is merely** a shard of **earthenware,** as she herself admits that the document is not a valid document because it records a fictitious sum. **Rava, son of Rabba, said:** It is referring **to one who says: There was** an agreement of **trust between him and me** that although the marriage contract records a large sum, I will claim only part of it, but the document itself is genuine.
‎[12] § The mishna teaches that if **one witness testifies that** the marriage contract **was paid** she must take an oath. **Rami bar Ḥama thought to say** that this is **an oath** required **by Torah** law, **as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin”** (Deuteronomy 19:15). From here it is inferred: **It is for any iniquity or for any sin that he may not rise up,** i.e., the testimony of one witness is not enough for these purposes, **but he may rise up for an oath. And the Master said:** In **any place,** i.e., situation, **where two** witnesses are able to **deem one liable** to pay **money,** the testimony of **one** witness **obligates him to take an oath.**
‎[13] **Rava said:** There are **two answers in the matter,** in refutation of your argument: **One** response is **that anyone who** is obligated to **take an oath** that is enumerated **in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay.** By Torah law, one takes an oath only to exempt himself from payment, **and** in this case **she takes an oath and takes** her money. **And furthermore,** there is a principle that **one does not take an oath with regard to a denial of a lien on land.**
‎[14] **Rather, Rava said:** That oath was instituted **by rabbinic** law, **in order to put the husband’s mind at ease.** Since a witness contradicts her claim, the Sages imposed an oath upon her so that the husband would be sure that he is not giving away his money for no reason.
‎[15] **Rav Pappa said:**
Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor
Mishneh Torah, Agents and Partners
Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant
Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC