Gittin 35a — the Talmud in English

For the sake of favor —

of the men in the eyes of the women —

the Rabbis were lenient toward her

so that a widow would not need to swear.

That is to say: in order that the men should find favor in the eyes of the women, and the women should agree to marry them, they made it lenient for them to collect their ketuba after their husbands’ deaths and exempted them from the oath.

It teaches us

our Mishna, that even a widow is included in this obligation to swear.

We learned in the Mishna: “They refrained from making her swear”:

And we raised the matter:

What is the reason

that they refrained from making her swear?

If you say it is because of Rav Kahana, for Rav Kahana said, and some say

there are those who say that this tradition was stated by]

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It happened with a certain man, in

the time of

years of famine,

who deposited a gold dinar with a widow, and she placed it

the widow placed the dinar

in a jar of flour,

and when she came to knead dough from this flour, she forgot that the dinar was inside it,

and baked it into bread, and gave it to a poor man

together with the bread.

After some time, the owner of the dinar came and said to her: Give me

the

my dinar!

She said to him: May there benefit

may there be of benefit to kill him]

the poison of death one of the sons of that woman

she intended herself],

if I have benefited from your dinar in any way!

That is to say: she swore to him by the life of her son that she had not taken possession of his deposit.

They said: It was not

many]

a few days before one of her sons died

of that widow.

And when the Sages heard of the matter, they said: If one who swears truthfully

all

so

severe is his judgment, then

one who swears about

a false matter

all the more so,

for his punishment is exceedingly severe!

And before the Gemara concludes the matter that it began, to explain the reason for our Mishna according to the words of Rav Kahana, the Gemara explains the incident:

What is the reason she was punished?!

But she swore truthfully, and she did not benefit from the dinar, since she gave it to a poor man.

And we answer: She did not speak truthfully, for she benefited from the dinar through this:

it was saved for her

was saved for her] from the dough

the place of the dinar!

For if not for the dinar, she would have had to fill the bread with additional dough. If so, she benefited from the dinar, and it turns out that she swore falsely.

But we still raise the matter:

and

if so,

what

did the Sages mean by saying, “If one

who swears truthfully

is so”? But she swore a false oath!?

And we answer: This is what he is saying:

Like one who swears truthfully

is so, one who knowingly swears falsely is all the more so! For although she swore falsely, she resembles one who swears truthfully, because she was unwitting.

And here the Gemara again takes up explaining our Mishna according to Rav Kahana’s words—that for this reason they refrained from making her swear, since the punishment for a false oath is so severe—and the Gemara raises an objection to this explanation:

If it is because of this

concern that they refrained from making her swear,

why specifically

in our Mishna

a widow,

that they refrained from making her swear and instituted a vow in place of an oath?!

For

even a divorcee —

whose divorcing husband died before she collected her ketuba, and by strict law, since she comes to collect from the property of orphans, she must first swear —

also,

we ought to say so!

Why then

why]

did Rabbi Zeira say in the name of Shmuel:

They taught

in our Mishna that one does not make her swear, but she makes a vow in place of an oath,

only

with regard to

a widow.

But a divorcee,

who comes to collect her ketuba from the orphans after the divorcing husband died,

one makes her swear

that she was not paid by their father during his lifetime, and a vow is not sufficient for her.

And we answer:

A widow is different!

It is specifically with regard to her that we are concerned that she may swear falsely, because

through that benefit that she toils before the orphans

since she toils for the orphans],

she comes to permit something for herself

she will come to permit it for herself], and swear that she was not paid her ketuba, although she had already been paid.

And because she will say in her heart: That money which I was already paid was not for payment of the ketuba, but payment for my labor for the orphans.

And since this permitting for herself applies only to a widow, they refrained from making her swear and instituted that she make a vow to the orphans. But with regard to a divorcee, from the outset there is no concern that she will permit something for herself; therefore the Sages did not make this leniency for her, that she should make a vow and collect her ketuba. Rather, she swears to the orphans in accordance with the strict law, and then collects her ketuba.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: Rav and Shmuel both say:

They taught

in our Mishna that one does not make the woman swear, but makes her take a vow,

only

with an oath

in court; but outside the court, one makes her swear;

that is to say: this was the institution, that they should make her swear outside the court or make her take a vow.

And the reason is: the oath of litigants is akin to an oath of Torah, for the one who swears takes a Torah scroll or tefillin, and they make her swear using the Name or a substitute for the Name, and its punishment is great. But an oath outside the court is a rabbinic oath, consisting only of the curse “accursed” [that he says, “Accursed am I if I have anything belonging to my fellow”]. He does not take an object in his hand, and its punishment is not so severe.

And we object:

Is that so?

But the matter is not so!

But Rav himself

personally

did not collect a ketuba for a widow

Rav did not collect a ketuba for a widow at all], because he refrained from making her swear [and he did not rely on a vow, as the reason is explained below]—

and if it is as you say, that an oath outside the court is sufficient for a widow, why did Rav not make her swear outside the court and collect her ketuba for her?!

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult!

In Sura —

Rav’s city —

they taught [that they taught] the tradition of “an oath outside the court”

the tradition concerning “an oath outside court”

thus,

as stated above. But

in Nehardea —

Shmuel’s city —

they taught

it

thus, and according to them Rav and Shmuel disagreed about the matter:

and according to their view, Rav and Shmuel disagreed about the matter:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught only in court, but outside the court, one makes her swear!

And Rav

disagreed and

said: Even outside the court, also, one does not make her swear!

And although it is not like the oath of litigants, the severity of this oath is sufficient reason not to make her swear.

And Rav followed his own reasoning,

he acted in accordance with his ruling,

for

indeed

Rav did not collect a ketuba for a widow!

Because he refrained entirely from making her swear, and even outside the court he did not wish to make her swear.

And we object: Why did Rav not collect the ketuba

and

although it was impossible to make her swear, even outside the court, he could

make her take a vow and collect it

make her take a vow and collect it]!

And we answer:

In Rav’s days, vows were treated lightly!

In Rav’s days, people belittled vows, and it was easy in their eyes to violate them. Therefore Rav did not rely on her taking a vow to the orphans, because we are concerned that perhaps she had indeed been paid her ketuba, but was not afraid to take a vow and subsequently violate it.

An incident occurred involving

a certain

widow

who came before Rav Huna

she came before Rav Huna] and demanded her ketuba.

He said to

her, Rav Huna:

What can I do for you

and what can I possibly help you with], for I cannot collect your ketuba for you,

for

indeed

Rav did not collect a ketuba for a widow

he did not collect a ketuba for a widow at all], neither by means of an oath nor by means of a vow.

She said to him,

the widow:

Is that the reason

and what is the reason that a ketuba is not collected for a widow]? Is it not

only

because you are concerned

perhaps I have taken something from my ketuba

perhaps I received something from my ketuba]? If so, I immediately swore: “

By the life of

Hashem of Hosts, if I have benefited from my ketuba in any way.”

Rav Huna said: Rav agrees —

who did not collect a ketuba for a widow at all —

in the case of one who jumps forward

and swears on her own initiative, that she collects her ketuba. For the strict law is only not to make her swear initially; but once she has sworn, why should she not collect?

An incident occurred involving

a certain

widow

who came before Rabba bar Rav Huna,

and demanded her ketuba.

He said to her,

Rabba, the son of Rav Huna:

What can I do for you?

But I have no power to collect it for you, because

Rav did not collect a ketuba for a widow, and

even

my father and teacher

my father and teacher: Rav Huna]

did not collect a ketuba for a widow!

The widow said to him: If I am not to collect my ketuba, then at least

give me food!

For the husband is obligated to provide his wife’s food even after his death, until she collects her ketuba, as long as she remains a widow in his house.

He said to her,

Rabba bar Rav Huna:

You do not have food either

you do not even have maintenance from the orphans]!

For

indeed

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

One who claims her ketuba in court,

even if she has not yet collected it,

has no maintenance!

For the obligation of maintenance applies only as long as she intends to remain in widowhood for his honor, since this is the condition of the ketuba: “All the days of your widowhood in my house, you shall be sustained from my property.” But from the moment she claims her ketuba, she reveals that she wishes to marry, and therefore loses her maintenance.

And you too, who came to collect your ketuba, although we do not give it to you, nevertheless you have lost your maintenance.

The widow cursed him

and said to him: May your chair be overturned

may your chair be overturned], and may you descend from your greatness! Because

like two

amoraim

you judged me

you judged me as two amoraim]! You treated me stringently like Rav, not to collect my ketuba for me, unlike Shmuel, who collects a ketuba by an oath outside the court or by a vow; and, on the other hand, you treated me stringently like Shmuel, to deprive me of my maintenance because of the claim of the ketuba.

And when they heard her curse,

they overturned his chair

they overturned his chair], that of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

and set it right

and returned it to an upright position]! So that the curse would be fulfilled in this way, and not fulfilled in its severe meaning, which the widow intended.

And even so,

this counsel did not suffice to remove the curse entirely, and

Rabba was not saved

Rabba

from illness

he was not saved from coming to illness].

Rav Yehuda said —

who was Shmuel’s student —

to Rav Yirmeya of Beira:

When a widow comes before you to collect her ketuba,

make her take a vow

make her vow by konam that she took nothing from her ketuba],

in court

according to whatever the orphans wish;

and make her swear

or make her swear]

outside the court

that she took nothing from her ketuba, and collect her ketuba for her, according to the view of Shmuel, my teacher—and not according to Rav and his students after him, who did not collect a ketuba for a widow.

And

I desire that

a report should go out and reach my ears

that the report should go out and reach my ears] that a ketuba was indeed collected in my days,

for we require that I act

as in: that it be done]

with regard to her

for I desire that an act be done] according to the view of Shmuel, my teacher.

The essential matter: Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel:

They taught

in our Mishna—that one does not make her swear for payment of the ketuba, but makes her take a vow—

only

the

widow; but a divorcee, one makes her swear

in court! Since she does not toil before the orphans, she does not permit anything for herself; therefore they make her swear, and she cannot collect by means of a vow.

And we object:

And

if

a divorcee has been made to take a vow

they made her take a vow] and did not swear,

does she not

collect her ketuba?!

But

there was an incident involving a husband and his wife who went up from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, and he divorced her there. The woman claimed her ketuba from him, and the court in the Land of Israel wrote her a judgment that she should collect from the property he had left in Babylonia.

And

they sent from there

from the Land of Israel] a document to Babylonia, in which it was written as follows: “

How so-and-so daughter of so-and-so received a bill of divorce from the hand of Aha bar Hadiya, who is called Aya Mari, and vowed and prohibited all

the fruits in the world upon herself, that she received from her ketuba only one woolen cloak

a thick woolen garment]

one, and one book of Psalms and the book of Job and Proverbs —

which were

worn out.

[So-and-so daughter of so-and-so received a bill of divorce from a man whose name was “Aha bar Hadiya,” and whose nickname was “Aya Mari,” and she vowed before us to prohibit all the fruits in the world upon herself, that she received from her ketuba only a woolen garment, the book of Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, which were worn out]—