כתובות פח

כתובות פח

אִי פִּיקֵּחַ הוּא, מַיְיתֵי לַהּ לִידֵי שְׁבוּעָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. יָהֵיב לַהּ כְּתוּבְּתַהּ בְּאַפֵּי חַד סָהֲדָא, וְסָמֵיךְ סָהֲדָא קַמָּא אַסָּהֲדָא בָּתְרָא, וּמוֹקֵים לְהוּ לְהָנָךְ קַמָּאֵי בְּמִלְוָה.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: הֵיאַךְ סָמֵיךְ סָהֲדָא קַמָּא אַסָּהֲדָא בָּתְרָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: יָהֵיב לַהּ כְּתוּבְּתַהּ בְּאַפֵּי סָהֲדָא קַמָּא וְסָהֲדָא בָּתְרָא וּמוֹקֵים לְה[וּ] לְהָנָךְ קַמָּאֵי בְּהַלְוָאָה.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי, אַכַּתִּי יְכוֹלָה לְמֵימַר: שְׁתֵּי כְּתוּבּוֹת הֲוַאי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הוּא דְּמוֹדַע לְהוּ.

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.

מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. תְּנַן הָתָם: וְכֵן הַיְּתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

§ 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.

מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא מִלֹּוֶה — הַשְׁתָּא אֲבִיהֶן שָׁקֵיל בְּלָא שְׁבוּעָה, וְאִינְהוּ בִּשְׁבוּעָה?! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכֵן הַיְּתוֹמִים מִן הַיְּתוֹמִים — לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

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.

אָמַר רַב זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים: אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא ״לָוִיתִי וּפָרַעְתִּי״, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא ״לֹא לָוִיתִי״ — אַף בִּשְׁבוּעָה לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ.

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’s 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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא, אַדְּרַבָּה: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״לֹא לָוִיתִי״ — כְּאוֹמֵר ״לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי״ דָּמֵי,

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.

אֶלָּא אִי אִתְּמַר, הָכִי אִתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים: אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא ״לָוִיתִי וּפָרַעְתִּי״, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא ״לֹא לָוִיתִי״ — נִפְרָעִין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. שֶׁכׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״לֹא לָוִיתִי״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי״ דָּמֵי.

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.

וְנִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, לֹא תִּפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רַב אַחָא שַׂר הַבִּירָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּאַנְטוֹכְיָא, וְאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה, מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא. אֲבָל בַּעַל חוֹב — לָא.

§ The mishna teaches that one who comes to collect her marriage contract when not in her husband’s presence can collect it only by means of an oath. Rav Aḥa Sar HaBira said: An incident came before Rabbi Yitzḥak in Antioch, and he said: They taught this halakha only with regard to the wife’s marriage contract; she may collect her marriage contract in her husband’s 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’s 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.

וְרָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל חוֹב, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹטֵל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, וְהוֹלֵךְ וְיוֹשֵׁב בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאַתָּה נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין.

And Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: Even a creditor can collect payment with an oath in the borrower’s absence, so that each and every person will not take his friend’s 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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַהֵיָיא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אַהָא: וְנִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, לָא תִּפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. לָא שְׁנָא לִמְזוֹנֵי וְלָא שְׁנָא לִכְתוּבָּה. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְמֵימַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ — יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ.

§ 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’s 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.

אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ — אֵין יוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּחָנָן וּבְנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים. דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹת, חָנָן אוֹמֵר: תִּשָּׁבַע בַּסּוֹף, וְלֹא תִּשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה.

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 Ḥanan 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, Ḥanan 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.

נֶחְלְקוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ: תִּשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּחָנָן, רַבָּנַן כִּבְנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים.

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 Ḥanan, 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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַאי יוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ? בֵּית דִּין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

Rav Sheshet objects to Rabbi Yirmeya’s 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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אַהָא: הָלְכָה מִקֶּבֶר בַּעְלָהּ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ, אוֹ שֶׁחָזְרָה לְבֵית חָמִיהָ וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפְּיָא — אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם נַעֲשֵׂית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפְּיָא — יוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ עַל מַה שֶּׁעָבַר. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְמֵימַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ — יוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ, אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ — אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ.

Rather, Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Shimon’s statement is referring to this earlier mishna (86b): If a woman who was exempted from an oath by her husband went from her husband’s grave, immediately after her husband’s death, 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, then the heirs cannot administer an oath to her with regard to her actions in their father’s 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’s 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.

וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל וְרַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן: אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים — יִשָּׁבַע. מִינּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין — לֹא יִשָּׁבַע. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים: מִינּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין — יִשָּׁבַע, מִינָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים — לֹא יִשָּׁבַע.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, וְרַבָּנַן כְּרַבָּנַן.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַאי ״כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ״ — אִם תּוֹבַעַת מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

Abaye objects to Rav Sheshet’s 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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַהָא: כָּתַב לָהּ ״נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִךְ״ — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ כּוּ׳. ״נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי, וְלֹא לְיוֹרְשַׁי, וְלֹא לַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִי, עָלַיִךְ, וְעַל יוֹרְשַׁיִךְ, וְעַל הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתִךְ״ — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ לֹא הוּא, וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו, וְלֹא הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. לֹא הִיא, וְלֹא יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ, וְלֹא הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְמֵימַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ — יוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ.

Rather, Abaye said that Rabbi Shimon’s 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.

וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל בֶּן אִימָּא מִרְיָם וְרַבָּנַן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, וְרַבָּנַן כְּרַבָּנַן.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: הָתִינַח כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

Rav Pappa objects to this: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Shimon’s 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’s statement, where he speaks of one who does not demand payment for her marriage contract? According to Abaye’s explanation, that clause does not add or teach anything.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ.

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’s 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.

מַתְנִי׳ הוֹצִיאָה גֵּט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְּתוּבָּה —

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,