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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 2, 2022 | 讝壮 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 88

Today’s daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her mother, Ellie Stone, Esther Bina bat Avraham Halevy ve鈥橰achel Leah on her 11th yahrzeit. “She taught us by example to protect the Jewish community. May her neshama have an aliyah.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Florence Pine, Fayga bat Sarah Rivkah, on her 2nd yahrtzeit. “The memory of her warm smile and kind heart inspires us every day. May her neshama have an aliyah!”
If a woman claims her ketuba and one witness testifies that she already received it, she needs to take an oath in order to receive her ketuba money. The Gemara had concluded that this oath is a rabbinic oath and not one required by Torah law. Rav Papa suggests how the husband can create a situation where the oath required will be one by Torah law (which is more strict and therefore better for the husband as the woman is less likely to lie). However, a difficulty is raised and another suggestion is put forward. Another difficulty is raised against the second suggestion and a third suggestion is brought. A Mishna from Shevuot 45a is quoted where it says that orphans also need to take an oath. The sages try to determine what is the case in which orphans need to take an oath. A woman can collect her ketuba from the husband’s property, even if he is out of town, but she is required to take an oath. Is the law the same for a creditor? Should the law be more lenient for a woman on account of hina, so that women get married, or is the issue of ensuring that people loan money just as important and therefore the same would be true for a creditor? Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna distinguished between women collecting their ketuba who need to take an oath and women not collecting their ketuba who do not need to take an oath. Rabbi Yirnia, Rav Sheshet, Abaye, and Rav Papa each have different interpretations of Rabbi Shimon and on what issue he disagrees with the rabbis. Each opinion raises a difficulty with the previous one.

讗讬 驻讬拽讞 讛讜讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇讬讚讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讗驻讬 讞讚 住讛讚讗 讜住诪讬讱 住讛讚讗 拽诪讗 讗住讛讚讗 讘转专讗 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讱 拽诪讗讬 讘诪诇讜讛

If the husband is perspicacious, he can induce her to become obligated to take an oath by Torah law even in a case where only one witness saw the payment of the marriage contract, as follows: He now gives her the payment of her entire marriage contract in the presence of one witness, and joins the first witness to the last witness, so that there are now two witnesses to the payment of the entire marriage contract. And then, he establishes this first payment, about which the first witness had testified, as a loan, and claims payment of that sum from her, supported by the testimony of the first witness. With regard to this claim, her oath would serve the purpose of exempting her from payment, and it is not connected with a lien on land. Therefore, the witness can obligate her in an oath by Torah law.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讬讗讱 住诪讬讱 住讛讚讗 拽诪讗 讗住讛讚讗 讘转专讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讗 拽诪讗 讜住讛讚讗 讘转专讗 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇讛谞讱 拽诪讗讬 讘讛诇讜讗讛

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: How can he join the first witness to the last witness when their testimonies do not refer to the same action? Rather, Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: He now gives her the payment of her entire marriage contract in the presence of both the first witness and the last witness. And then, he establishes this first payment, about which the first witness had testified, as a loan, and claims payment of that sum from her, supported by the testimony of the first witness.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻转讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讬诪专 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讜讚注 诇讛讜

Rav Ashi objects to this: The woman can still say: I had two marriage contracts. She can claim that he wrote two marriage contracts and she collected the payments at two separate points in time, but there was never a loan. Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is possible for him to obligate her to take an oath if he informs the two witnesseses that on this occasion he is paying her for the one marriage contract that he wrote. She is then unable to claim that it was a different marriage contract, and he can compel her to take an oath by Torah law about the first payment, which is now established as a loan.

诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if a woman comes to claim her marriage contract from liened property that had been sold to a third party, she must first take an oath. We learned in a mishna there (Shevuot 45a): And similarly, orphans can collect payment only by means of an oath.

诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讛砖转讗 讗讘讬讛谉 砖拽讬诇 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara asks: From whom can the orphans collect payment only by means of an oath? If we say that they can collect payment only with an oath from one who borrowed money from their father, then it is difficult to understand how this can be so. Now, can it be that their father, the lender, had the right to take payment from the borrower without an oath by relying on the document, and they, the orphans, with regard to whom the Sages were lenient, can claim the loan only by means of an oath? Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: And similarly, the orphans of the lender who come to collect payment from the orphans of the borrower can collect only by means of an oath.

讗诪专 专讘 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讜讬转讬 讜驻专注转讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讗祝 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

Rav Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: It was taught that those who take an oath can collect a debt from orphans only if the borrower鈥檚 orphans said: Our father said to us: I borrowed and repaid. However, if the orphans said: Our father said to us: I did not borrow, then they may not collect from the orphans even with an oath.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬

Rava objects to this: On the contrary, there is a principle in the halakhot of claims that anyone who says: I did not borrow is considered like one who says: I did not repay. Therefore, when there is evidence that he did borrow, he must pay the entire amount without the lender having to take an oath.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讜讬转讬 讜驻专注转讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 谞驻专注讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 砖讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬

Rather, the Gemara emends the above statement: If it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: They taught this halakha only if the orphans said: Our father said to us: I borrowed and repaid. However, if they said: Our father said to us: I did not borrow, those who collect debts from them can collect even without an oath, for anyone who says: I did not borrow is considered like one who says: I did not repay.

讜谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 砖专 讛讘讬专讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘讗谞讟讜讻讬讗 讜讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches that one who comes to collect her marriage contract when not in her husband鈥檚 presence can collect it only by means of an oath. Rav A岣 Sar HaBira said: An incident came before Rabbi Yitz岣k in Antioch, and he said: They taught this halakha only with regard to the wife鈥檚 marriage contract; she may collect her marriage contract in her husband鈥檚 absence, because the Sages wanted men to find favor in the eyes of women. In order to ensure that women would want to marry, the Sages instituted decrees with regard to a marriage contract that are for the woman鈥檚 benefit. However, a creditor does not have the right to collect his debt even with an oath if the borrower is absent, in case he has already been paid.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 谞讜讟诇 诪注讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讬讜砖讘 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗转讛 谞讜注诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉

And Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: Even a creditor can collect payment with an oath in the borrower鈥檚 absence, so that each and every person will not take his friend鈥檚 money by means of a loan and go and reside in a country overseas to prevent the lender from collecting the money from his property. And if that were to occur, you would be locking the door in the face of borrowers, as no one would be willing to lend them money.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讛讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讛讗 讜谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讻转讜讘讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讬讜专砖讬讛 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she claims her marriage contract, the heirs administer an oath to her. The Gemara asks: To which statement in the mishna is Rabbi Shimon referring? Rabbi Yirmeya said: He is referring to this statement: And one who comes to collect her marriage contract when not in her husband鈥檚 presence can collect it only by means of an oath. This implies that the halakha is no different if she comes to claim money from the orphans for sustenance, and it is no different if she demands payment for her marriage contract. And Rabbi Shimon comes to say that whenever she claims her marriage contract the heirs can administer an oath to her that she has not taken anything of theirs.

讗讬谞讛 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讞谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 转砖讘注 讘住讜祝 讜诇讗 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛

If she does not claim her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of 岣nan and the sons of the High Priests, as we learned in a mishna (104b): With regard to one who went to a country overseas and his wife claims money for sustenance, 岣nan says: She takes an oath at the conclusion, when she comes to claim her marriage contract, that her husband did not leave her with any money and that she took from his estate only what she needed for her sustenance. And she does not take an oath at the beginning, when she takes the allowance for her sustenance from his estate.

谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛 讜讘住讜祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讞谞谉 专讘谞谉 讻讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐

The mishna continues: The sons of the High Priests disagreed with him, and said: She takes an oath that her husband did not leave her any money at the beginning, when she comes to take money for sustenance, and at the conclusion, when she comes to claim her marriage contract. Rabbi Yirmeya suggests: Rabbi Shimon holds like 岣nan, that she takes an oath only when she comes to collect her marriage contract. And the Rabbis, who disagree, hold like the sons of the High Priests, that she must also take an oath when she collects money for her sustenance.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Sheshet objects to Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 statement: If the dispute is with regard to a woman who comes to collect money for her sustenance while her husband is away, why would the mishna employ this phrase: The heirs administer an oath to her? It should have said that the court administers an oath to her, as this oath would be administered by the court.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讛讗 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 讛讬讜专砖讬诐 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 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 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谞讛 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

Rather, Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement is referring to this earlier mishna (86b): 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, then the heirs cannot administer an oath to her with regard to her actions in their father鈥檚 lifetime. 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. And Rabbi Shimon came to say that whenever she claims her marriage contract the heirs can administer an oath to her, but if she does not claim her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 砖诪讬谞讛讜 讗讘讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 讬砖讘注 诪讬谞讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讬砖讘注 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐 诪讬谞讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬砖讘注 诪讬谞讛讜 讗讘讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讘注

Rav Sheshet explains: And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Abba Shaul and the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 52a): A steward who was appointed by the father of orphans to take care of their property must take an oath when the orphans come of age and he returns their property. He takes an oath that he did not appropriate anything for himself. If the court appointed him steward, he need not take an oath. The Sages exempted him from an oath so that people would not refrain from serving as stewards. Abba Shaul says: The matters are reversed. If the court appointed him, he must take an oath; if the father of orphans appointed him, he need not take an oath. It is an honor to be appointed steward by the court, and to receive this honor he would not mind being obligated to take an oath. If he was appointed by the father, it is clear that the father trusted him and relied on him.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜专讘谞谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rav Sheshet completes his explanation: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as the woman is comparable to a steward appointed by the father of the orphans. Therefore, she cannot be compelled to take an oath about the future, unless she comes to claim her marriage contract. And the Rabbis here hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there, that a steward appointed by the father is obligated to take an oath.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诐 转讜讘注转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Abaye objects to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 statement: This phrase, that the heirs can administer an oath to her whenever she claims her marriage contract, is appropriate only if Rabbi Shimon is more stringent than the Rabbis, who exempt her from an oath in all cases. However, since according to Rav Sheshet his opinion is the more lenient one, he should have said: If she claims, meaning that she is required to take an oath only when she claims her marriage contract.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讛讗 讻转讘 诇讛 谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诇讬讱 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 讻讜壮 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 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讱 讗讬谉 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 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讜 诇讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

Rather, Abaye said that Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement is referring to this clause of the mishna (86b): If the husband wrote for her: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, he cannot administer an oath to her. 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 them; not he, nor his heirs, nor those who come on his authority may administer an oath, not to her, nor her heirs, nor those who come on her authority. And Rabbi Shimon came to say that whenever she claims her marriage contract the heirs can administer an oath to her.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 讗讬诪讗 诪专讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜专讘谞谉 讻专讘谞谉

Abaye explains: And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Abba Shaul ben Imma Miriam and the Rabbis. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, that even if the husband exempted her from an oath she must still take an oath before she can collect from the property of orphans. And the Rabbis here hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there, that if he exempted her from all oaths she can collect payment without an oath.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛转讬谞讞 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讬谞讛 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Pappa objects to this: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 disagreement with the Rabbis, where he said that she must take an oath whenever she demands payment for her marriage contract. However, what can be said about the second part of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, where he speaks of one who does not demand payment for her marriage contract? According to Abaye鈥檚 explanation, that clause does not add or teach anything.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜

Rather, Rav Pappa said that Rabbi Shimon is not referring to that mishna. His opinion is to the exclusion of Rabbi Eliezer and those who dispute him (86b), all of whom agree that the woman can be compelled to take an oath that she did not appropriate anything from her husband鈥檚 property. The Rabbis hold that she can be compelled to take an oath only if she was appointed steward, whereas Rabbi Eliezer holds that she can always be compelled to take an oath. Rabbi Shimon, who disagrees with both opinions, contends that the heirs can administer an oath to her only when she comes to collect her marriage contract, at which point they can administer an oath about other matters, including the work done with her spindle. However, if she does not claim her marriage contract, they cannot administer an oath to her even with regard to her work as steward or storekeeper.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讙讟 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻转讜讘讛

MISHNA: In a case where a woman produced a bill of divorce and it was unaccompanied by a marriage contract, and she demands that her husband pay her marriage contract,

  • 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 88: He Said, She Said (or He Said, or They Said)

More on how a woman collects her ketubah. And more on when she's collecting from a property with a lien...

Ketubot 88

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 88

讗讬 驻讬拽讞 讛讜讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇讬讚讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讗驻讬 讞讚 住讛讚讗 讜住诪讬讱 住讛讚讗 拽诪讗 讗住讛讚讗 讘转专讗 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讱 拽诪讗讬 讘诪诇讜讛

If the husband is perspicacious, he can induce her to become obligated to take an oath by Torah law even in a case where only one witness saw the payment of the marriage contract, as follows: He now gives her the payment of her entire marriage contract in the presence of one witness, and joins the first witness to the last witness, so that there are now two witnesses to the payment of the entire marriage contract. And then, he establishes this first payment, about which the first witness had testified, as a loan, and claims payment of that sum from her, supported by the testimony of the first witness. With regard to this claim, her oath would serve the purpose of exempting her from payment, and it is not connected with a lien on land. Therefore, the witness can obligate her in an oath by Torah law.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讬讗讱 住诪讬讱 住讛讚讗 拽诪讗 讗住讛讚讗 讘转专讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讗 拽诪讗 讜住讛讚讗 讘转专讗 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇讛谞讱 拽诪讗讬 讘讛诇讜讗讛

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: How can he join the first witness to the last witness when their testimonies do not refer to the same action? Rather, Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: He now gives her the payment of her entire marriage contract in the presence of both the first witness and the last witness. And then, he establishes this first payment, about which the first witness had testified, as a loan, and claims payment of that sum from her, supported by the testimony of the first witness.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻转讬 讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讬诪专 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讜讚注 诇讛讜

Rav Ashi objects to this: The woman can still say: I had two marriage contracts. She can claim that he wrote two marriage contracts and she collected the payments at two separate points in time, but there was never a loan. Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is possible for him to obligate her to take an oath if he informs the two witnesseses that on this occasion he is paying her for the one marriage contract that he wrote. She is then unable to claim that it was a different marriage contract, and he can compel her to take an oath by Torah law about the first payment, which is now established as a loan.

诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if a woman comes to claim her marriage contract from liened property that had been sold to a third party, she must first take an oath. We learned in a mishna there (Shevuot 45a): And similarly, orphans can collect payment only by means of an oath.

诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讛砖转讗 讗讘讬讛谉 砖拽讬诇 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara asks: From whom can the orphans collect payment only by means of an oath? If we say that they can collect payment only with an oath from one who borrowed money from their father, then it is difficult to understand how this can be so. Now, can it be that their father, the lender, had the right to take payment from the borrower without an oath by relying on the document, and they, the orphans, with regard to whom the Sages were lenient, can claim the loan only by means of an oath? Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: And similarly, the orphans of the lender who come to collect payment from the orphans of the borrower can collect only by means of an oath.

讗诪专 专讘 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讜讬转讬 讜驻专注转讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讗祝 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

Rav Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: It was taught that those who take an oath can collect a debt from orphans only if the borrower鈥檚 orphans said: Our father said to us: I borrowed and repaid. However, if the orphans said: Our father said to us: I did not borrow, then they may not collect from the orphans even with an oath.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬

Rava objects to this: On the contrary, there is a principle in the halakhot of claims that anyone who says: I did not borrow is considered like one who says: I did not repay. Therefore, when there is evidence that he did borrow, he must pay the entire amount without the lender having to take an oath.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讜讬转讬 讜驻专注转讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 谞驻专注讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 砖讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬

Rather, the Gemara emends the above statement: If it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: They taught this halakha only if the orphans said: Our father said to us: I borrowed and repaid. However, if they said: Our father said to us: I did not borrow, those who collect debts from them can collect even without an oath, for anyone who says: I did not borrow is considered like one who says: I did not repay.

讜谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 砖专 讛讘讬专讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘讗谞讟讜讻讬讗 讜讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches that one who comes to collect her marriage contract when not in her husband鈥檚 presence can collect it only by means of an oath. Rav A岣 Sar HaBira said: An incident came before Rabbi Yitz岣k in Antioch, and he said: They taught this halakha only with regard to the wife鈥檚 marriage contract; she may collect her marriage contract in her husband鈥檚 absence, because the Sages wanted men to find favor in the eyes of women. In order to ensure that women would want to marry, the Sages instituted decrees with regard to a marriage contract that are for the woman鈥檚 benefit. However, a creditor does not have the right to collect his debt even with an oath if the borrower is absent, in case he has already been paid.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 谞讜讟诇 诪注讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讬讜砖讘 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗转讛 谞讜注诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉

And Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: Even a creditor can collect payment with an oath in the borrower鈥檚 absence, so that each and every person will not take his friend鈥檚 money by means of a loan and go and reside in a country overseas to prevent the lender from collecting the money from his property. And if that were to occur, you would be locking the door in the face of borrowers, as no one would be willing to lend them money.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讛讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讛讗 讜谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讻转讜讘讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讬讜专砖讬讛 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she claims her marriage contract, the heirs administer an oath to her. The Gemara asks: To which statement in the mishna is Rabbi Shimon referring? Rabbi Yirmeya said: He is referring to this statement: And one who comes to collect her marriage contract when not in her husband鈥檚 presence can collect it only by means of an oath. This implies that the halakha is no different if she comes to claim money from the orphans for sustenance, and it is no different if she demands payment for her marriage contract. And Rabbi Shimon comes to say that whenever she claims her marriage contract the heirs can administer an oath to her that she has not taken anything of theirs.

讗讬谞讛 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讞谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 转砖讘注 讘住讜祝 讜诇讗 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛

If she does not claim her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of 岣nan and the sons of the High Priests, as we learned in a mishna (104b): With regard to one who went to a country overseas and his wife claims money for sustenance, 岣nan says: She takes an oath at the conclusion, when she comes to claim her marriage contract, that her husband did not leave her with any money and that she took from his estate only what she needed for her sustenance. And she does not take an oath at the beginning, when she takes the allowance for her sustenance from his estate.

谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛 讜讘住讜祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讞谞谉 专讘谞谉 讻讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐

The mishna continues: The sons of the High Priests disagreed with him, and said: She takes an oath that her husband did not leave her any money at the beginning, when she comes to take money for sustenance, and at the conclusion, when she comes to claim her marriage contract. Rabbi Yirmeya suggests: Rabbi Shimon holds like 岣nan, that she takes an oath only when she comes to collect her marriage contract. And the Rabbis, who disagree, hold like the sons of the High Priests, that she must also take an oath when she collects money for her sustenance.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Sheshet objects to Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 statement: If the dispute is with regard to a woman who comes to collect money for her sustenance while her husband is away, why would the mishna employ this phrase: The heirs administer an oath to her? It should have said that the court administers an oath to her, as this oath would be administered by the court.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讛讗 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 讛讬讜专砖讬诐 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 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 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谞讛 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

Rather, Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement is referring to this earlier mishna (86b): 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, then the heirs cannot administer an oath to her with regard to her actions in their father鈥檚 lifetime. 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. And Rabbi Shimon came to say that whenever she claims her marriage contract the heirs can administer an oath to her, but if she does not claim her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 砖诪讬谞讛讜 讗讘讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 讬砖讘注 诪讬谞讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讬砖讘注 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐 诪讬谞讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬砖讘注 诪讬谞讛讜 讗讘讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讘注

Rav Sheshet explains: And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Abba Shaul and the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 52a): A steward who was appointed by the father of orphans to take care of their property must take an oath when the orphans come of age and he returns their property. He takes an oath that he did not appropriate anything for himself. If the court appointed him steward, he need not take an oath. The Sages exempted him from an oath so that people would not refrain from serving as stewards. Abba Shaul says: The matters are reversed. If the court appointed him, he must take an oath; if the father of orphans appointed him, he need not take an oath. It is an honor to be appointed steward by the court, and to receive this honor he would not mind being obligated to take an oath. If he was appointed by the father, it is clear that the father trusted him and relied on him.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜专讘谞谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rav Sheshet completes his explanation: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as the woman is comparable to a steward appointed by the father of the orphans. Therefore, she cannot be compelled to take an oath about the future, unless she comes to claim her marriage contract. And the Rabbis here hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there, that a steward appointed by the father is obligated to take an oath.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诐 转讜讘注转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Abaye objects to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 statement: This phrase, that the heirs can administer an oath to her whenever she claims her marriage contract, is appropriate only if Rabbi Shimon is more stringent than the Rabbis, who exempt her from an oath in all cases. However, since according to Rav Sheshet his opinion is the more lenient one, he should have said: If she claims, meaning that she is required to take an oath only when she claims her marriage contract.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讛讗 讻转讘 诇讛 谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诇讬讱 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讛 讻讜壮 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 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讱 讗讬谉 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 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讜 诇讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛

Rather, Abaye said that Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement is referring to this clause of the mishna (86b): If the husband wrote for her: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, he cannot administer an oath to her. 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 them; not he, nor his heirs, nor those who come on his authority may administer an oath, not to her, nor her heirs, nor those who come on her authority. And Rabbi Shimon came to say that whenever she claims her marriage contract the heirs can administer an oath to her.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 讗讬诪讗 诪专讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讜专讘谞谉 讻专讘谞谉

Abaye explains: And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Abba Shaul ben Imma Miriam and the Rabbis. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, that even if the husband exempted her from an oath she must still take an oath before she can collect from the property of orphans. And the Rabbis here hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there, that if he exempted her from all oaths she can collect payment without an oath.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛转讬谞讞 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讬谞讛 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Pappa objects to this: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 disagreement with the Rabbis, where he said that she must take an oath whenever she demands payment for her marriage contract. However, what can be said about the second part of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, where he speaks of one who does not demand payment for her marriage contract? According to Abaye鈥檚 explanation, that clause does not add or teach anything.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜

Rather, Rav Pappa said that Rabbi Shimon is not referring to that mishna. His opinion is to the exclusion of Rabbi Eliezer and those who dispute him (86b), all of whom agree that the woman can be compelled to take an oath that she did not appropriate anything from her husband鈥檚 property. The Rabbis hold that she can be compelled to take an oath only if she was appointed steward, whereas Rabbi Eliezer holds that she can always be compelled to take an oath. Rabbi Shimon, who disagrees with both opinions, contends that the heirs can administer an oath to her only when she comes to collect her marriage contract, at which point they can administer an oath about other matters, including the work done with her spindle. However, if she does not claim her marriage contract, they cannot administer an oath to her even with regard to her work as steward or storekeeper.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讙讟 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻转讜讘讛

MISHNA: In a case where a woman produced a bill of divorce and it was unaccompanied by a marriage contract, and she demands that her husband pay her marriage contract,

Scroll To Top