💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2087b captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:13:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 [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, Plaintiff and Defendant
Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor
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