Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 30, 2022 | 讛壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 86

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hebrew Hadran zoom learners in honor of the 1,000th daf of this cycle! “In honor of Rabbanit Michelle who paves the way for us by making the Talmud and its concepts accessible, by learning with us day in-day out, with a woman’s perspective, unphased by difficulties along the way, and always with a smile.”
Rav Nachman had a female relative whose mother had sold her ketuba to someone else. He advised her to forgo the ketuba payment so that her father would keep the money and she would eventually inherit it. He later regretted advising her as he thought it was not befitting a prominent person to give this kind of advice to his relatives. If one buys a promissory note, what can be done to protect oneself from the creditor forgoing the loan? If one does forgo the loan, does the creditor need to compensate the one who purchased the promissory note? That depends on whether one holds that one is liable for causing damage indirectly. If a man who dies leaves money and land, and there are creditors and a widow who can collect her ketuba, the creditor takes the money and the widow takes the land. If there is only one piece of land and not enough for both, the creditor gets it, so as not to prevent people in general from loaning money. Women don’t need the same kind of encouragement to get married as women usually prefer to be married, even if it means they may have difficulty getting their ketuba money. Rav Papa had heard that Rav Chama had said in the name of Rava that a creditor can insist that the debtor sell his land and pay him in cash. However, it was incorrectly inferred from a particular situation that happened which had unique circumstances. If one holds that paying back a loan is only a mitzva, how can the courts enforce payment? Rav Papa explained that the law is more severe for one who does not fulfill a positive mitzva than for one who transgresses a negative commandment. If one gave a get to his wife to be valid in thirty days and the get was in the side of the public domain (and not in the wife’s domain) on the thirtieth day, is the get valid? Rav and Shmuel disagree with Rav Nachman on this issue. What cases does each side bring to support their opinion? If a man appoints his wife to work in his store or manage his possessions, he can make her take an oath regarding financial issues whenever he wants. According to Rabbi Eliezer, he can even make her swear about wool she spun or dough she prepared (regular household duties). In what situation is Rabbi Eliezer referring to – a case where she needs to swear about something else for him (gilgul shevu’a) or even if not? The Mishna discusses a case where a husband exempted his wife from oaths and vows. Different wordings are mentioned as each one includes other situations, such as not allowing his heirs to make her take an oath or not permitting him to make her heirs take an oath.

转讬讝讬诇 讜转讬讞诇讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讚讗诪讛 诇讙讘讬 讗讘讜讛 讜转讬专转讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪注讛 讗讝诇讛 讗讞讬诇转讛

that she should go and forgive her mother鈥檚 marriage contract for her father, and she will subsequently inherit the sum of the marriage contract from him? The marriage contract is a document of the debt owed by her father to her mother. The daughter, who has inherited the document from her mother, can forgo her father鈥檚 obligation, so rendering nugatory the right of the purchasers. The father then retains the amount owed to the purchasers of the marriage contract, and his daughter will inherit that amount when he dies. The daughter heard this, and went and forgave her father鈥檚 obligation in the marriage contract, as recommended by Rav Na岣an.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注砖讬谞讜 注爪诪讬谞讜 讻注讜专讻讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 讜诪讘砖专讱 诇讗 转转注诇诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬

Rav Na岣an later said in regret: We have made ourselves like advisors of judges. We have acted like lawyers who give practical advice to litigants rather than like independent judges. The Gemara asks: At the outset, what did he hold when he intended the daughter to hear his advice, and ultimately, what did he hold that made him regret his action? The Gemara explains: At the outset, he held that the verse teaches: 鈥淎nd you should not hide yourself from your own flesh鈥 (Isaiah 58:7), and therefore it is correct to give help and advice to relatives. And ultimately he held that in the case of an important person who must be very careful to avoid any impression of having favored his family in judgment, the situation is different.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗讬 驻拽讞 讛讜讗 诪拽专拽砖 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讘砖诪讬讛

Since the Gemara had previously mentioned a halakha stated by Shmuel, it turns its attention to the matter itself. Shmuel said: With regard to one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller went back and forgave the debtor his debt, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor鈥檚 heir can forgive the debt. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: And if the purchaser of the document is perspicacious, and is wary of such a ploy, he should jangle [mekarkesh] dinars in the debtor鈥檚 ears, i.e., he should pay the debtor or promise him money, and the debtor will write for him a new promissory note in the purchaser鈥檚 name, thereby preventing the latter from losing out.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗谉 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诪讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讚诪讬 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诪讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讚诪讬 谞讬讬专讗 讘注诇诪讗

Ameimar said: One who judges cases of liability for indirect damage and maintains that someone whose actions cause damage is obligated to pay, even if he has not directly harmed another, collects in this case the value of the proper document. Since by forgiving the loan the creditor voided the document and caused the purchaser financial loss, he must compensate the purchaser for the amount recorded in the document. One who does not judge cases of liability for indirect damage collects in this case only the value of the paper on which the document was written.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讻驻讬讬讛 专驻专诐 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讻讬 讻砖讜专讗 诇爪诇诪讬

The Gemara relates that there was an incident like this one, and Rafram pressured Rav Ashi by means of verbal persuasion to render an unequivocal ruling in this matter, and Rav Ashi collected in this case as if he damaged a beam used for crafting a sculpture, i.e., the full value of the debt listed in the promissory note.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞诪讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讝讜讝讬 诇讗砖讛 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讘讗专注讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 讚讬谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讻讬 讚讬谞讬讛

Ameimar said in the name of Rav 岣ma: With regard to one who has incumbent upon himself the obligation of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract and also owes money to a creditor, and he possesses land and possesses money, the obligation to the creditor is settled with the payment of money, whereas the debt to the woman of her marriage contract is settled with the payment of land, this one in accordance with his law, and that one in accordance with her law. Since the creditor gave him money, it is fitting that he should receive ready cash in return. The woman, in contrast, did not give him anything but relied upon the lien on his land, so she is therefore given land.

讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞讚 讗专注讗 讜诇讗 讞讝讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讞讚 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗砖讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛讗讬砖 专讜爪讛 诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 专讜爪讛 诇讛谞砖讗

And if there is only one plot of land, and it is adequate for the payment of only one debt, we give it to the creditor, and we do not give it to the woman. What is the reason for this? Even more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married. Women do not get married because they wish to receive their marriage contract. It is better to give preference to the creditor so that he will not lose out, so as not to discourage people from lending money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘 讞诪讗 讜讚讗讬 讚讗诪专讬转讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讜讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜拽讗 转讘注 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诪讗专注讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 讗转 讜讗讬讬转讬 讛讘 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

Rav Pappa said to Rav 岣ma: Is it correct that you say in the name of Rava: With regard to one who owes money and has land, and the creditor comes and demands from him his money, and the debtor says to him: Go and take the amount you are owed from the land, we say to him: Go and sell the land yourself and give him money? Rav 岣ma said to him: I did not say this in the name of Rava.

讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜诇讛 诪注讜转讬讜 讘讙讜讬 讛讜讛 讛讜讗 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉 诇驻讬讻讱 注砖讜 讘讜 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉

Rav Pappa replied: Tell me the incident itself, what happened and what exactly occurred that caused this opinion to be attributed to Rava. Rav 岣ma said to him: The debtor was one who attached his money to a gentile. He possessed money, but he claimed that this money belonged to a gentile and therefore could not be demanded from him. This man acted improperly, and consequently, the Sages acted improperly with him by forcing him to sell the land.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 驻专讬注转 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讗讬注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 注砖讛 住讜讻讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诇讜诇讘 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛

Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappa: According to your opinion, that you say the repayment of a creditor is a mitzva, if the debtor said: It is not amenable to me to perform a mitzva, what would be the halakha? If there is no obligation to repay a loan other than to perform a mitzva, then what happens if someone is not interested in performing the mitzva? He said to him: We already learned this halakha in a baraita: In what case is this statement said, that one is liable to receive forty lashes for committing a transgression? It is said with regard to negative mitzvot. However, with regard to positive mitzvot, for example, if the court says to someone: Perform the mitzva of the sukka, and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of the palm branch, and he does not do so,

诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜

the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs, in order to force him to perform the mitzva. The payment of a debt is a positive mitzva, and one who refuses to pay a debt can be compelled to do so in this manner.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 讜诇讗 转转讙专砖讬 讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛讜

Rami bar 岣ma inquired of Rav 岣sda: If a man said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce but you are divorced with it only after thirty days, and she took the bill of divorce and went and placed it in the sides of the public domain, i.e., in a place that was open to the public domain but not an actual part of it, and the bill of divorce was still there after thirty days, what is the halakha? Is she divorced?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讗 砖爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜

Rav 岣sda said to him: She is not divorced. This halakha is learned from the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, as it is Rav and Shmuel who both say with regard to the mishna: Any of the creditors of a deceased person can seize items of his movable property provided that they are arranged in piles and placed in the public domain, as in that case the heirs of the deceased do not receive it as part of their inheritance. Similarly, the woman will not acquire the bill of divorce after thirty days if it is in that location. Rav 岣sda adds: And the sides of the public domain are considered like the public domain.

讗讚专讘讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讜讱 驻专讛 讝讜 讜诇讗 转讛讬讛 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽谞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讗讙诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讙诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讗讙诐 诇讞讜讚 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讞讜讚

Rami bar 岣ma responded: On the contrary, she is divorced, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With regard to one who says to his friend: Go and pull this cow now and it will be acquired by you only after thirty days, he has acquired the cow. And this is true even if the cow was standing after those thirty days in an ownerless meadow [agam]. Since the acquisition began properly at the start of the thirty-day period, it applies even after the thirty-day period. What, is it not the case that this is the halakha of a meadow and this is also the halakha of the sides of the public domain, as the two places have a similar status? Rav 岣sda rejects this argument: No, the case of a meadow is discrete, and the case of the sides of the public domain is discrete, as the latter is considered an actual part of the public domain, and an ownerless meadow is not.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讗讙诐 讚诪讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讞讜讚 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讞讜讚

Some say a different version of the dispute between Rami bar 岣ma and Rav 岣sda, in which Rav 岣sda said to Rami bar 岣ma: She is divorced, based on the ruling of Rav Na岣an pertaining to acquiring a cow, and the sides of the public domain are considered like a meadow. In this version, it was Rami bar 岣ma who replied: On the contrary, she is not divorced, as can be learned from the opinion of Rav and Shmuel pertaining to seizing objects in the public domain. What, is it not the case that this is the halakha of the public domain and this is similarly the halakha of the sides of the public domain? Rav 岣sda responded: No, the public domain is discrete and the sides of the public domain are discrete.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜砖讬讘 讗转 讗砖转讜 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讘讬注讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬诇讻讛 讜注诇 注讬住转讛

MISHNA: If there is one who establishes his wife as a storekeeper in his store, or if he appointed her as a steward to handle his property and workers, this one, i.e., the husband, can administer an oath to her, having her state that she did not appropriate any of his possessions, whenever he wants. Rabbi Eliezer says: He can administer an oath even with regard to the products of her spindle and for her dough, which are matters related to the household, and not her function as a storekeeper.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽讗诪专

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Eliezer says that a husband can administer an oath to her with regard to any item, is he saying that this is by means of extension of an oath,i.e., once he administers an oath to her in her capacity as his storekeeper he can extend the oath to cover other matters, or, is he saying that he can administer an oath to her ab initio?

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution from a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: A person does not reside in a basket with a snake. A woman is not expected to live with a husband who constantly suspects her of stealing. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Eliezer is referring to an oath administered ab initio, the Rabbis spoke well. However, if you say that the husband can administer an oath to only by means of an extension of an oath, what difference does it make to her? As she must take an oath with regard to matters that concern the store, it does not cause any greater difficulty for her to take an oath with regard to the household matters.

讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚讬讬拽转 讘转专讗讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讚讗讚讜专 讘讛讚讱

The Gemara refutes this argument, as it is possible that she says to him: Since you are so exacting with me, I cannot live with you. Even if there is no additional oath, the sentiment engendered by his demand is grounds for dissatisfaction, and there is no proof that Rabbi Eliezer holds that he can administer an oath to her ab initio.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖诇讗 驻讟专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪谉 讛谞讚专 讜诪谉 讛砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讜砖讬讘讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讘讬注讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬专爪讛 诇讗 讛讜砖讬讘讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛

The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to one who did not exempt his wife in the marriage contract from a vow and from an oath, and he established her as his storekeeper or appointed her as his steward, he can administer an oath to her whenever he wants. If he did not establish her as his storekeeper or appoint her as his steward, he cannot administer an oath to her.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讬讘讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讘讬注讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬专爪讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 注诇 驻讬诇讻讛 讜注诇 注讬住转讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: Although he did not establish her as his storekeeper or appoint her as his steward, he can administer an oath to her whenever he wants, as you have no wife who did not become a steward for one hour in her husband鈥檚 lifetime at least for her spindle and for her dough. The Rabbis said to him: A person does not reside in a basket with a snake. One can conclude from this that according to Rabbi Eliezer a husband can administer an oath to his wife with regard to her conduct, even ab initio. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that it is so.

诪转谞讬壮 讻转讘 诇讛 谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诇讬讱 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 讗讘诇 诪砖讘讬注 讛讜讗 讗转 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜讗转 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛

MISHNA: If one wrote to his wife in the marriage contract: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, he cannot administer an oath to her.However, he can administer an oath to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority, either as her representatives or because they purchased her marriage contract.

谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诇讬讱 讜注诇 讬讜专砖讬讱 讜注诇 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讱 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 诇讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛 讗讘诇 讬讜专砖讬讜 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜讗转 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛

If the husband wrote: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, or upon your heirs, or upon those who come on your authority, he cannot administer an oath to her; not to her, nor her heirs, nor those who come on her authority. But the husband鈥檚 heirs can administer an oath to her, and to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority.

谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖讬 讜诇讗 诇讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讬 注诇讬讱 讜注诇 讬讜专砖讬讱 讜注诇 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讬讱 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讜 诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛

If he wrote: Neither I, nor my heirs, nor those who come on my authority have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, or upon your heirs, or upon those who come on your authority, he cannot administer an oath to her or to them; not he, nor his heirs, nor those who come on his authority may administer an oath, not to her, nor to her heirs, nor to those who come on her authority.

讛诇讻讛 诪拽讘专 讘注诇讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 砖讞讝专讛 诇讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗诐 谞注砖讬转 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 讛注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 诪讛 砖注讘专

If a woman who was exempted from an oath by her husband went from her husband鈥檚 grave, immediately after her husband鈥檚 death, to her father鈥檚 house, without handling her late husband鈥檚 property, or in a case where she returned to her father-in-law鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 lifetime.

讙诪壮 砖讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of an oath? What oath can he administer to her that caused him add this condition to her marriage contract? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 85-92 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about loans, oaths, and inheritance. The Gemara teaches when the orphans can make their mother...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 86: Forcing a Debtor to Pay Up

NOTE: If you count the pages of daf yomi, today is daf 1,000 in this cycle (if you count the...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Gefet 43 – Do You Need to Repent for Sins Committed as a Child?

https://youtu.be/mrst0LdMW7k

Ketubot 86

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 86

转讬讝讬诇 讜转讬讞诇讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讚讗诪讛 诇讙讘讬 讗讘讜讛 讜转讬专转讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪注讛 讗讝诇讛 讗讞讬诇转讛

that she should go and forgive her mother鈥檚 marriage contract for her father, and she will subsequently inherit the sum of the marriage contract from him? The marriage contract is a document of the debt owed by her father to her mother. The daughter, who has inherited the document from her mother, can forgo her father鈥檚 obligation, so rendering nugatory the right of the purchasers. The father then retains the amount owed to the purchasers of the marriage contract, and his daughter will inherit that amount when he dies. The daughter heard this, and went and forgave her father鈥檚 obligation in the marriage contract, as recommended by Rav Na岣an.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注砖讬谞讜 注爪诪讬谞讜 讻注讜专讻讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 讜诪讘砖专讱 诇讗 转转注诇诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬

Rav Na岣an later said in regret: We have made ourselves like advisors of judges. We have acted like lawyers who give practical advice to litigants rather than like independent judges. The Gemara asks: At the outset, what did he hold when he intended the daughter to hear his advice, and ultimately, what did he hold that made him regret his action? The Gemara explains: At the outset, he held that the verse teaches: 鈥淎nd you should not hide yourself from your own flesh鈥 (Isaiah 58:7), and therefore it is correct to give help and advice to relatives. And ultimately he held that in the case of an important person who must be very careful to avoid any impression of having favored his family in judgment, the situation is different.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗讬 驻拽讞 讛讜讗 诪拽专拽砖 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讘砖诪讬讛

Since the Gemara had previously mentioned a halakha stated by Shmuel, it turns its attention to the matter itself. Shmuel said: With regard to one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller went back and forgave the debtor his debt, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor鈥檚 heir can forgive the debt. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: And if the purchaser of the document is perspicacious, and is wary of such a ploy, he should jangle [mekarkesh] dinars in the debtor鈥檚 ears, i.e., he should pay the debtor or promise him money, and the debtor will write for him a new promissory note in the purchaser鈥檚 name, thereby preventing the latter from losing out.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗谉 讚讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诪讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讚诪讬 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诪讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讚诪讬 谞讬讬专讗 讘注诇诪讗

Ameimar said: One who judges cases of liability for indirect damage and maintains that someone whose actions cause damage is obligated to pay, even if he has not directly harmed another, collects in this case the value of the proper document. Since by forgiving the loan the creditor voided the document and caused the purchaser financial loss, he must compensate the purchaser for the amount recorded in the document. One who does not judge cases of liability for indirect damage collects in this case only the value of the paper on which the document was written.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讻驻讬讬讛 专驻专诐 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讻讬 讻砖讜专讗 诇爪诇诪讬

The Gemara relates that there was an incident like this one, and Rafram pressured Rav Ashi by means of verbal persuasion to render an unequivocal ruling in this matter, and Rav Ashi collected in this case as if he damaged a beam used for crafting a sculpture, i.e., the full value of the debt listed in the promissory note.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞诪讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讝讜讝讬 诇讗砖讛 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讘讗专注讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 讚讬谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讻讬 讚讬谞讬讛

Ameimar said in the name of Rav 岣ma: With regard to one who has incumbent upon himself the obligation of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract and also owes money to a creditor, and he possesses land and possesses money, the obligation to the creditor is settled with the payment of money, whereas the debt to the woman of her marriage contract is settled with the payment of land, this one in accordance with his law, and that one in accordance with her law. Since the creditor gave him money, it is fitting that he should receive ready cash in return. The woman, in contrast, did not give him anything but relied upon the lien on his land, so she is therefore given land.

讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞讚 讗专注讗 讜诇讗 讞讝讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讞讚 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗砖讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛讗讬砖 专讜爪讛 诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 专讜爪讛 诇讛谞砖讗

And if there is only one plot of land, and it is adequate for the payment of only one debt, we give it to the creditor, and we do not give it to the woman. What is the reason for this? Even more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married. Women do not get married because they wish to receive their marriage contract. It is better to give preference to the creditor so that he will not lose out, so as not to discourage people from lending money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘 讞诪讗 讜讚讗讬 讚讗诪专讬转讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讜讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜拽讗 转讘注 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诪讗专注讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 讗转 讜讗讬讬转讬 讛讘 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

Rav Pappa said to Rav 岣ma: Is it correct that you say in the name of Rava: With regard to one who owes money and has land, and the creditor comes and demands from him his money, and the debtor says to him: Go and take the amount you are owed from the land, we say to him: Go and sell the land yourself and give him money? Rav 岣ma said to him: I did not say this in the name of Rava.

讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜诇讛 诪注讜转讬讜 讘讙讜讬 讛讜讛 讛讜讗 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉 诇驻讬讻讱 注砖讜 讘讜 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉

Rav Pappa replied: Tell me the incident itself, what happened and what exactly occurred that caused this opinion to be attributed to Rava. Rav 岣ma said to him: The debtor was one who attached his money to a gentile. He possessed money, but he claimed that this money belonged to a gentile and therefore could not be demanded from him. This man acted improperly, and consequently, the Sages acted improperly with him by forcing him to sell the land.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 驻专讬注转 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讗讬注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 注砖讛 住讜讻讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诇讜诇讘 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛

Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappa: According to your opinion, that you say the repayment of a creditor is a mitzva, if the debtor said: It is not amenable to me to perform a mitzva, what would be the halakha? If there is no obligation to repay a loan other than to perform a mitzva, then what happens if someone is not interested in performing the mitzva? He said to him: We already learned this halakha in a baraita: In what case is this statement said, that one is liable to receive forty lashes for committing a transgression? It is said with regard to negative mitzvot. However, with regard to positive mitzvot, for example, if the court says to someone: Perform the mitzva of the sukka, and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of the palm branch, and he does not do so,

诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜

the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs, in order to force him to perform the mitzva. The payment of a debt is a positive mitzva, and one who refuses to pay a debt can be compelled to do so in this manner.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 讜诇讗 转转讙专砖讬 讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛讜

Rami bar 岣ma inquired of Rav 岣sda: If a man said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce but you are divorced with it only after thirty days, and she took the bill of divorce and went and placed it in the sides of the public domain, i.e., in a place that was open to the public domain but not an actual part of it, and the bill of divorce was still there after thirty days, what is the halakha? Is she divorced?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讗 砖爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜

Rav 岣sda said to him: She is not divorced. This halakha is learned from the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, as it is Rav and Shmuel who both say with regard to the mishna: Any of the creditors of a deceased person can seize items of his movable property provided that they are arranged in piles and placed in the public domain, as in that case the heirs of the deceased do not receive it as part of their inheritance. Similarly, the woman will not acquire the bill of divorce after thirty days if it is in that location. Rav 岣sda adds: And the sides of the public domain are considered like the public domain.

讗讚专讘讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讜讱 驻专讛 讝讜 讜诇讗 转讛讬讛 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽谞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讗讙诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讙诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讗讙诐 诇讞讜讚 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讞讜讚

Rami bar 岣ma responded: On the contrary, she is divorced, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With regard to one who says to his friend: Go and pull this cow now and it will be acquired by you only after thirty days, he has acquired the cow. And this is true even if the cow was standing after those thirty days in an ownerless meadow [agam]. Since the acquisition began properly at the start of the thirty-day period, it applies even after the thirty-day period. What, is it not the case that this is the halakha of a meadow and this is also the halakha of the sides of the public domain, as the two places have a similar status? Rav 岣sda rejects this argument: No, the case of a meadow is discrete, and the case of the sides of the public domain is discrete, as the latter is considered an actual part of the public domain, and an ownerless meadow is not.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讗讙诐 讚诪讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讞讜讚 讜爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讞讜讚

Some say a different version of the dispute between Rami bar 岣ma and Rav 岣sda, in which Rav 岣sda said to Rami bar 岣ma: She is divorced, based on the ruling of Rav Na岣an pertaining to acquiring a cow, and the sides of the public domain are considered like a meadow. In this version, it was Rami bar 岣ma who replied: On the contrary, she is not divorced, as can be learned from the opinion of Rav and Shmuel pertaining to seizing objects in the public domain. What, is it not the case that this is the halakha of the public domain and this is similarly the halakha of the sides of the public domain? Rav 岣sda responded: No, the public domain is discrete and the sides of the public domain are discrete.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜砖讬讘 讗转 讗砖转讜 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讘讬注讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬诇讻讛 讜注诇 注讬住转讛

MISHNA: If there is one who establishes his wife as a storekeeper in his store, or if he appointed her as a steward to handle his property and workers, this one, i.e., the husband, can administer an oath to her, having her state that she did not appropriate any of his possessions, whenever he wants. Rabbi Eliezer says: He can administer an oath even with regard to the products of her spindle and for her dough, which are matters related to the household, and not her function as a storekeeper.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽讗诪专

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Eliezer says that a husband can administer an oath to her with regard to any item, is he saying that this is by means of extension of an oath,i.e., once he administers an oath to her in her capacity as his storekeeper he can extend the oath to cover other matters, or, is he saying that he can administer an oath to her ab initio?

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution from a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: A person does not reside in a basket with a snake. A woman is not expected to live with a husband who constantly suspects her of stealing. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Eliezer is referring to an oath administered ab initio, the Rabbis spoke well. However, if you say that the husband can administer an oath to only by means of an extension of an oath, what difference does it make to her? As she must take an oath with regard to matters that concern the store, it does not cause any greater difficulty for her to take an oath with regard to the household matters.

讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚讬讬拽转 讘转专讗讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讚讗讚讜专 讘讛讚讱

The Gemara refutes this argument, as it is possible that she says to him: Since you are so exacting with me, I cannot live with you. Even if there is no additional oath, the sentiment engendered by his demand is grounds for dissatisfaction, and there is no proof that Rabbi Eliezer holds that he can administer an oath to her ab initio.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖诇讗 驻讟专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪谉 讛谞讚专 讜诪谉 讛砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讜砖讬讘讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讘讬注讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬专爪讛 诇讗 讛讜砖讬讘讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛

The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to one who did not exempt his wife in the marriage contract from a vow and from an oath, and he established her as his storekeeper or appointed her as his steward, he can administer an oath to her whenever he wants. If he did not establish her as his storekeeper or appoint her as his steward, he cannot administer an oath to her.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讬讘讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讘讬注讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬专爪讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 注诇 驻讬诇讻讛 讜注诇 注讬住转讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: Although he did not establish her as his storekeeper or appoint her as his steward, he can administer an oath to her whenever he wants, as you have no wife who did not become a steward for one hour in her husband鈥檚 lifetime at least for her spindle and for her dough. The Rabbis said to him: A person does not reside in a basket with a snake. One can conclude from this that according to Rabbi Eliezer a husband can administer an oath to his wife with regard to her conduct, even ab initio. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that it is so.

诪转谞讬壮 讻转讘 诇讛 谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诇讬讱 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 讗讘诇 诪砖讘讬注 讛讜讗 讗转 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜讗转 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛

MISHNA: If one wrote to his wife in the marriage contract: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, he cannot administer an oath to her.However, he can administer an oath to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority, either as her representatives or because they purchased her marriage contract.

谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诇讬讱 讜注诇 讬讜专砖讬讱 讜注诇 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讱 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 诇讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛 讗讘诇 讬讜专砖讬讜 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜讗转 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛

If the husband wrote: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, or upon your heirs, or upon those who come on your authority, he cannot administer an oath to her; not to her, nor her heirs, nor those who come on her authority. But the husband鈥檚 heirs can administer an oath to her, and to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority.

谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖讬 讜诇讗 诇讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讬 注诇讬讱 讜注诇 讬讜专砖讬讱 讜注诇 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讬讱 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讜 诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讗讬诐 讘专砖讜转讛

If he wrote: Neither I, nor my heirs, nor those who come on my authority have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, or upon your heirs, or upon those who come on your authority, he cannot administer an oath to her or to them; not he, nor his heirs, nor those who come on his authority may administer an oath, not to her, nor to her heirs, nor to those who come on her authority.

讛诇讻讛 诪拽讘专 讘注诇讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 砖讞讝专讛 诇讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜诇讗 谞注砖讬转 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗诐 谞注砖讬转 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬讗 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 讛注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 诪讛 砖注讘专

If a woman who was exempted from an oath by her husband went from her husband鈥檚 grave, immediately after her husband鈥檚 death, to her father鈥檚 house, without handling her late husband鈥檚 property, or in a case where she returned to her father-in-law鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 lifetime.

讙诪壮 砖讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of an oath? What oath can he administer to her that caused him add this condition to her marriage contract? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

Scroll To Top