Source: http://halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_87.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:54:05+00:00

Document:
Said Rabbah in the name of R. Hiyya: [If in giving exemption to his wife a husband wrote,] 'Neither vow nor oath' it is only he who cannot impose an oath upon her, but his heirs may impose an oath upon her. [If he wrote, however,] 'Free from vow, free from oath', neither he nor his heirs may exact an oath from her, [since by this expression] he meant to say to her: 'Be free from the obligation of an oath'.
R. Joseph. however, stated in the name of R. Hiyya: [If in giving exemption to his wife a husband writes,] 'Neither vow nor oath' it is only he who cannot impose an oath upon her but his heirs may; [but if he wrote,] 'Free from vow, free from oath', both he and his heirs may exact an oath from her [since by such an expression] he thus meant to say to her: 'Clear yourself by means of an oath'.
R. Zakkai sent to Mar 'Ukba the following message: Whether [the husband wrote,] 'Neither oath' or 'Free from oath', or whether [he wrote.] 'Neither vow', or 'Free from vow', [and he used the expression] 'In respect of my estates',18 he cannot impose an oath upon her, but his heirs may. [If he wrote, however,] 'In respect of these estates', neither he nor his heirs may exact an oath from her.
Others read this20 as a Baraitha: Abba Saul the son of Imma Miriam stated; Whether [the husband wrote.] 'Neither oath' or 'Free from oath', whether [he wrote,] 'Neither vow' or 'Free from vow, or whether [he used the expression,] 'In respect of my18 estates, or 'In respect of these estates'. neither he nor his heirs may impose, an oath upon her; but what can I do in view of a ruling of the Sages that anyone who comes to exact payment out of the property of orphans need not be paid unless he first takes an oath. [It was in connection with this Baraitha21 that] R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of the son of Imma Miriam.
HOW [ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT,] 'A WOMAN WHO IMPAIRS HER KETHUBAH'? IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR A THOUSAND ZUZ29 AND [HER HUSBAND] SAID TO HER, 'YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED [THE FULL AMOUNT OF] YOUR KETHUBAH', AND SHE SAYS, 'I RECEIVED ONLY A MANEH',29 SHE IS NOT PAID [THE BALANCE] UNLESS SHE TAKES AN OATH. WHAT IS MEANT BY30 'IF ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES AGAINST HER THAT [HER KETHUBAH] HAS BEEN PAID'? IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR A THOUSAND ZUZ29 AND WHEN [HER HUSBAND] SAID TO HER, 'YOU HAVE RECEIVED [THE FULL AMOUNT OF] YOUR KETHUBAH', SHE REPLIED, 'I HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT WHILE ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES AGAINST HER THAT [THE KETHUBAH] HAS BEEN PAID25 SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE EXPRESSION,30 'FROM ASSIGNED PROPERTY'? IF [HER HUSBAND] HAD SOLD HIS PROPERTY TO OTHERS AND SHE SEEKS TO RECOVER PAYMENT FROM THE BUYERS, SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH. WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE EXPRESSION,30 FROM THE PROPERTY OF ORPHANS'? IF [HER HUSBAND] DIED AND LEFT HIS ESTATE TO HIS ORPHANS AND SHE SEEKS TO RECOVER PAYMENT FROM THE ORPHANS, SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH. WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY31 'AN ABSENT HUSBAND'? IF HER HUSBAND WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND SHE SEEKS TO RECOVER PAYMENT IN HIS ABSENCE,32 SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH.
It is from such an oath only that a husband exempts his wife, but not from one which a woman incurs when she impairs her kethubah (v. infra). A husband, according to this view, only exempts his wife from an obligation which is in his power to impose upon her but not from one which she has brought upon herself.
By admitting that part of it has been paid to her. A woman who makes such an admission while her husband pleads that he has paid her the full amount is not entitled to receive the balance she claims except on oath, and it is the opinion of the authority cited by R. Nahman that a husband's general exemption extends to such an oath also, much more so to that required from her as administratrix (cf. supra note 2).
And while asking for exemption from this particular oath she might at the same time ask for an exemption from both oaths.
As she cannot be assumed to divine her husband's thoughts and intentions, the desire for such a request could naturally never arise.
Rab Judah's, (supra 86b f).
The case dealt with in the first clause of our Mishnah (cf. supra p. 549. n. i).
I.e., you assume that R. Judah and R. Nahman refer to one and the same clause.
The final clause dealing with the oath of an administratrix.
Cf. supra p. 548, n. 11. Whereas R. Nahman refers to the first clause, Rah Judah refers to the case of an administratrix in the last clause, and so R. Mordecai's objection does not arise.
The administratrix whom her husband has exempted from oath.
This period also coming under the term of THE PAST.
Of one's widow or daughter.
A bequest now belonging to the orphans of the deceased.
Because in all these cases money is urgently needed and there is no time for the public announcement that must precede all sales effected on the order of a court. The urgency of the sale must inevitably lead to some undercutting of prices which the widow cannot possibly avoid (v. Git. 52b). It would consequently be an act of injustice to impose upon her an oath in respect of her administration during the period between her husband's death and burial.
Omitting the demonstrative pronoun 'these'.
The ruling cited in the name of Abba Saul.
Lit., 'and not in his presence', i.e., if a husband who was abroad sent a divorce to his wife and she claims her kethubah in his absence.
Which is imposed upon her by the court even if the respective defendants mentioned do not demand it.
Cf. supra p. 552, n. 6.
R. SIMEON RULED: WHENEVER1 SHE2 CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS CAN NOT IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER.
GEMARA. Rami b. Hama wished to assume that the OATH3 was Pentateuchal,4 since [it is a case where] one [of two persons] claims two hundred [zuz] and the other admits one hundred [the defence] being an admission of a part of the claim,5 and whoever admits part of a claim must6 take an oath.7 Said Raba: There are two objections to this assumption: In the first place, all who take an oath in accordance with Pentateuchal law take the oath and do not pay,8 while she9 takes the oath and receives payment. And, secondly, no oath may be imposed6 in respect of the denial of [a claim that is] secured10 on landed property.11 [The fact,] however, is, said Raba, [that the oath is only] Rabbinical. As it is the person who pays that is careful to remember the details while he who receives payment is not, the Rabbis have imposed an oath upon her12 that she might be careful to recollect the details.
The question was raised; What if a woman impaired her kethubah by [admitting that she received part payment in the presence of] witnesses? [Is it assumed that] were [her husband] to pay her [the balance] he would do it in the presence of witnesses,13 or [is it rather assumed that] it was a mere coincidence [that witnesses were present when the first payment was made]?14 — Come and hear;15 All who take an oath in accordance with Pentateuchal law, take the oath and do not pay,16 but the following take an oath and receive payment; A hired labourer,17 a man who was robbed18 or wounded,19 [any claimant] whose opponent is suspected of [taking a false] oath20 and a shopkeeper21 with his [accounts] book,22 and also [a creditor] who impaired his bond [the first instalment of which had been paid] in the absence of witnesses.23 Thus only24 [where the first instalment was paid] 'in the absence of witnesses'25 but not where it was paid in the presence of witnesses!26 — This is a case of 'there is no question …'27 There is no question28 that [when the first instalment was paid] in the presence of witnesses she must take an oath; when, however, [it was paid] in the absence of witnesses, it might be assumed that she has [the same privilege] as one who restores a lost object [to its owner]29 and should, therefore, receive payment without taking an oath. It was, therefore, taught [that the oath is nevertheless not to be dispensed with].
IF ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES AGAINST HER THAT [HER KETHUBAH] HAS BEEN PAID [etc.]. Rami b. Hama wished to assume that the OATH was Pentateuchal, for it is written In Scripture, One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin;47 it is only for ally iniquity or for any sin that he may not rise up, but he may rise up [to cause the imposition upon one of the obligation] of an oath. And, furthermore, a Master has laid down: In all cases where two witnesses render a man liable to pay money, one witness renders him liable to take an oath.48 Said Raba: There are two objections to this assumption. In the first place, all who take an oath in accordance with Pentateuchal law, do so and do not pay,49 while she takes an oath and receives payment; and, secondly, no oath may be imposed in respect of the denial of [a claim that is] secured on landed property. [The fact], however, is, said Raba [that the oath is only] Rabbinical, [having been enacted] to appease the mind of the husband.
The Gemara infra explains what R. Simeon refers to.
Which A WOMAN WHO IMPAIRS HER KETHUBAH must take.
On the difference between a Rabbinical oath and one imposed by the Torah v. Shebu. 41a.
[Read with MS.M.: for she claims of him two hundred (zuz) and he admits to her one hundred, so that he is admitting part of the claim].
That he has repaid the difference. The woman, having admitted receipt of a part of her kethubah, must consequently be in a similar position.
I.e., it is the defendant, not the claimant, who takes the oath.
The woman who impaired her kethubah and claims the balance.
V. Shebu. 42b, B.M. 57b.
V. supra p. 553, n. 11.
As he did in the case of the first payment. The woman would consequently be entitled to payment without taking the oath.
And since the man was not particular to secure witnesses on the first occasion, he might have been equally indifferent on the second occasion, and the woman would consequently have to take an oath.
V. supra p. 553, n. 10.
Who swears that he has not received his wages.
Witnesses testifying that they saw the robber emerging from that person's house carrying an object which they could not identify.
The evidence shewing that the wound had been inflicted while the two men were alone in a particular spot, though no third party had witnessed the actual wounding.
I.e., if the defendant is known to have once before sworn falsely.
Who was given an order by an employer to supply a certain amount of goods to his workmen on account of their wages.
If the book shews that the goods had been duly supplied and the workmen deny receiving them, the shopkeeper, like the workmen, is ordered to take an oath (the former that he supplied the goods and the latter that they had Dot received them) and both receive payment from the employer.
[Add with MS.M. 'and she who impairs her kethubah without witnesses']. These last two mentioned cases are not found in the Mishnah (v. supra n. 11 ad fin.) and their source is a Baraitha (cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.).
Must the claimant take the oath.
The woman, in the case under discussion, would consequently be entitled to collect the balance she claims without taking an oath.
Lit., 'he implied (the formula)."It is not required" (to say etc.)'.
Lit., it is not required (to say that)'.
In such a case a person is not expected to take an oath that he had returned all that he had found. His honesty is taken for granted in view of the fact that a dishonest man would have kept the object entirely to himself. Similarly with the impaired kethubah. Had the woman been dishonest she need not have admitted the receipt of an instalment at all and could have collected the full amount of her kethubah by virtue of the written document she possesses.
By including even small and insignificant payments.
And should, therefore, be exempt from an oath in respect of the balance.
She mentioned the small sums in order to give the impression of being a careful and scrupulous person while in fact the instalment or instalment she received were substantial sums. Consequently an oath should be imposed upon her.
And she claims that amount; while her husband states that he had paid her all her kethubah.
The husband asserting that he paid the full amount and she admitting the receipt of a part of it. In such a case an oath may justly be imposed upon the woman.
Since according to her statement the kethubah never amounted to more than the sum she now claims.
The amount entered in the document.
While the document contains a larger sum.
Sc. of no legal value, since she herself admits that the amount it records is fictitious.
They agreed, she states, that she would claim the smaller sum only despite the entry in the kethubah which shewed a larger one. This verbal agreement does not in any way affect the validity of the kethubah which, having been written and signed in a proper manner and attested by qualified witnesses, is a valid document on the strength of which a legal claim may well be founded; cf. supra 19b.
As two witnesses would have caused the woman to lose her kethubah entirely, one witness may rightly cause an oath to be imposed upon her. V. Shebu. 40a.
V. supra p. 553, n. 10ff.

References: v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 
 V. 

V.