Gittin 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

For the sake of favor -

of the men in the eyes of the women -

the Sages were lenient with her

so that a widow would not have to take an oath.

That is to say: In order that the men would find favor in the eyes of the women, and the women would agree to marry them, the Sages were lenient with them, allowing them to collect their ketuba after their husbands’ deaths and exempting them from taking an oath.

It teaches us

our Mishna, that a widow too is included in this obligation to take an oath.

We learned in the Mishna: “They refrained from administering an oath to her”:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What is the reason

that they refrained from administering an oath to her?

If you say it is because of the statement of Rav Kahana—for Rav Kahana said, and some say there are those who say that this report was stated by

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving a certain man, during

a time of

famine,

who entrusted a gold dinar to a widow, and she placed it

the widow placed the dinar

in a jar of flour.

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 person

together with the bread.

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

the

dinar!

She said to him: May the poison of death benefit

the poison that kills him be effective

one of the sons of that woman she intended this upon herself],

she intended this oath against herself,

if I have derived any benefit from your dinar!

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 it was not long

many

before one of her sons died

of that widow.

When the Sages heard about the matter, they said: If one who swears truthfully

so

very

severe is his punishment, then

one who swears about

a false matter

all the more so,

his punishment is exceedingly severe!

Before the Gemara concludes the discussion it began, explaining the reason for our Mishna on the basis of Rav Kahana’s statement, the Gemara explains the incident: What is the reason she was punished?!

She had sworn truthfully, after all, and she had not benefited from the dinar, since she had given it to a poor person.

And we answer: She did not speak the truth, since she did benefit from the dinar, in that

she

was spared

the portion of dough

occupied by the dinar!

For had it not been for the dinar, she would have had to fill the bread with additional dough. Thus, she did benefit from the dinar, and it follows that she swore falsely.

The Gemara still raises a difficulty:

And

if so,

what

did the Sages mean when they said: “If

one who swears truthfully

is punished so severely”? After all, she swore falsely!?

And we answer: This is what they are saying:

Like one who swears truthfully

is punished so severely, so one who swears falsely intentionally is all the more so. For although she swore falsely, she resembles one who swears truthfully, because she acted unknowingly.

Here the Gemara returns to support the explanation of our Mishna based on Rav Kahana’s statement—that they refrained from administering an oath to her because the punishment for a false oath is so severe—and the Gemara challenges this explanation:

If it was because of this

concern that they refrained from administering an oath to her,

why specifically

in our Mishna

a widow,

from whom they refrained from administering an oath and for whom they instituted a vow in place of an oath!?

After all,

even a divorcee -

whose divorcing husband died before she collected her ketuba, and who, according to the fundamental law, must first take an oath, since she has come to collect from the property of orphans -

also,

we should say the same!

Why, then why

why

did Rabbi Zeira say that Shmuel said:

They taught

in our Mishna that she is not administered an oath, but instead she takes a vow in place of an oath,

only

in the case of a

widow.

But a divorcee,

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

is administered an oath

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 in her case that we are concerned that she might swear falsely, because

since she derives benefit from the fact that she toils on behalf of the orphans because she works on behalf of the orphans],

since she takes care of the orphans,

she may come to permit the matter to herself she may come to permit it to herself] and swear that she was not paid her ketuba, even though she had already been paid.

and swear that she did not receive payment of her marriage contract, even though she had already received payment.

And she may say to herself: The money that I have already received was not payment of the ketuba, but rather compensation for my efforts on behalf of the orphans.

Since this self-permission applies only to a widow, they therefore refrained from administering an oath to her and instituted that she should take a vow to the orphans. But with regard to a divorcee, there is initially no concern that she will permit the matter to herself. The Sages therefore did not ease the law for her by allowing her to take a vow and collect her ketuba; rather, she takes an oath to the orphans in accordance with the fundamental law, and then collects her ketuba.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav and Shmuel both say:

They taught

in our Mishna that a woman is not administered an oath, but instead she is made to take a vow,

only

with regard to an oath

in court; but outside court, she is administered an oath;

that is to say: This was the institution: They administer an oath to her outside court, or they make her take a vow.

The reason is that the oath of litigants resembles an oath mandated by the Torah: The person taking the oath holds a Torah scroll or tefillin, and she is made to swear using the Divine Name or an appellation of the Name, and its punishment is severe. But an oath outside court is a rabbinic oath, consisting only of the curse “accursed”—for example, “Accursed am I if I have anything belonging to my fellow”—and the person does not hold an object in his hand, so its punishment is not so severe.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

The matter is not so!

But Rav himself

personally

would not collect a widow’s ketuba Rav would not enable a widow to collect her ketuba at all, because he refrained from administering an oath to her [and he did not rely on a vow, as the reason below will be explained]—

Rav did not authorize a widow to collect her marriage contract at all, because he refrained from making her take an oath [and he did not rely on a vow, as will be explained below] -

If it is as you say, that an oath outside court is sufficient for a widow, why did Rav not administer an oath to her outside court and enable her to collect her ketuba!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

this is difficult!

In Sura -

Rav’s city -

they taught the report concerning “an oath outside court”

the tradition concerning “an oath outside court”

this way,

as stated above. But

in Nehardea -

Shmuel’s city -

they taught

it

this way,

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

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this only with regard to a court; but outside court, she is administered an oath!

But Rav

disagreed and

said: Even outside court as well, she is not administered an oath!

Although it is not the oath of litigants, the severity of this oath is sufficient reason not to administer it to her.

And Rav followed his own reasoning,

he conducted himself in accordance with his ruling,

as

indeed

Rav would not collect a widow’s ketuba!

He refrained entirely from administering an oath to her, and did not wish to administer one even outside court.

The Gemara challenges this: Why did Rav not enable her to collect her ketuba,

and

although it was impossible to administer an oath to her, even outside court, he could have

made her take a vow and enabled her to collect made her take a vow and enabled her to collect it]!?

made her take a vow and then authorize her to collect it!

And we answer:

In Rav’s time, vows were treated lightly!

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

There was an incident involving

a certain

widow

who came before Rav Huna she came before Rav Huna] and claimed her ketuba.

and claimed her marriage contract.

He said to

her, Rav Huna:

What can I do for you what am I able to do for you]? For I cannot enable you to collect your ketuba,

for I cannot authorize you to collect your marriage contract,

as

indeed

Rav would not collect a widow’s ketuba he would not enable a widow to collect her ketuba at all], neither through an oath nor through a vow.

he did not authorize a widow to collect her marriage contract at all, either by an oath or by a vow.

She said to him,

the widow:

Is that the reason what, after all, is the reason that a widow is not enabled to collect her ketuba? Is it not

after all, what is the reason that a widow is not allowed to collect her marriage contract? Is it not

only

because you are concerned

that perhaps I received something from my ketuba perhaps I received some part of my ketuba]? If so, I shall immediately swear: “

perhaps I received part of my marriage contract? If so, I will immediately swear: “

By the life of the Lord

of Hosts, I have derived no benefit whatsoever from my ketuba.”

Rav Huna said: Rav concedes -

who would not enable a widow to collect her ketuba at all -

in the case of one who jumps forward

and swears on her own initiative, that she may collect her ketuba. For the fundamental law is only not to administer an oath to her initially; but once she has sworn, why should she not collect?

There was an incident involving

a certain

widow

who came before Rabba bar Rav Huna,

and claimed her ketuba.

He said to her,

Rabba, the son of Rav Huna:

What can I do for you?

After all, I cannot enable you to collect it, because

Rav would not collect a widow’s ketuba, and

even

my father and master my father and master, Rav Huna,

my revered father, Rav Huna,

would not collect a widow’s ketuba!

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

give me my sustenance!

For a husband becomes obligated to provide his wife’s sustenance 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 have no sustenance either you have no sustenance from the orphans either]!

you do not have maintenance from the orphans either!

As

indeed

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

One who claims her ketuba in court,

even if she has not yet collected it,

has no sustenance!

The obligation of sustenance applies only as long as she intends to remain a widow out of respect for him, as this is a condition of the ketuba: “Throughout the entire period 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 forfeits her sustenance.

And you too, since you came to collect your ketuba, although we are not giving it to you, you have nevertheless forfeited your sustenance.

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! For

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

like two

amoraim

you have judged me you judged me as two amoraim would]! You were stringent with me like Rav, refusing to enable me to collect my ketuba, unlike Shmuel, who enabled a widow to collect her ketuba through an oath outside court or through a vow; yet, on the other hand, you were stringent with me like Shmuel, denying me sustenance because I claimed my ketuba.

you judged me as though you were two different amoraim: You were strict with me like Rav, who does not authorize me to collect my marriage contract, unlike Shmuel, who authorizes collection through an oath outside court or through a vow. At the same time, you were strict with me like Shmuel, by depriving me of maintenance because I claimed my marriage contract.

When they heard her curse,

they overturned the chair they overturned the chair] of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

they overturned the chair of Rabba bar Rav Huna

and restored it and returned it to an upright position], so that the curse would be fulfilled in this way and would not be fulfilled in its severe meaning, which was the widow’s intention.

so that the curse would be fulfilled in this way, but not in its severe meaning, which was what the widow intended.

And even so,

this remedy did not completely remove the curse, and

Rabba was not spared

Rabba

from illness he was not spared from becoming ill].

he was not spared from becoming ill.

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 take a konam vow if she received anything from her ketuba],

make her vow by means of a prohibition that she will not benefit if she has taken anything from her marriage contract,

in court

in whatever manner the orphans wish;

and administer an oath to her or administer an oath to her]

or have her take an oath

outside court

that she received nothing from her ketuba, and enable her to collect her ketuba, in accordance with the ruling of my master Shmuel—and not in accordance with Rav and his students who followed him, who did not enable a widow to collect her ketuba.

And

I wish

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

that a marriage contract was in fact collected during my lifetime,

for we require that I perform for example: “that it be performed]

that is, that it be performed

an act because I wish an act to be performed] in accordance with the ruling of my master Shmuel.

because I want an act to be performed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel.

With regard to the matter itself: Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said:

They taught

in our Mishna—that for payment of the ketuba she is not administered an oath but is made to take a vow—

only

with regard to the

widow; but a divorcee is administered an oath

in court. Since she does not toil on behalf of the orphans, she does not permit the matter to herself; therefore, she is administered an oath and cannot collect through a vow.

And we challenge this:

And

if

a divorcee is made to take a vow is made to take a vow] but is not administered an oath,

she was made to take a vow and did not take an oath,

will she not

collect her ketuba?!

But

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

And

they sent from there from Eretz Yisrael] to Babylonia a document that contained the following: “

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia a letter containing the following: “

How Plonita the daughter of Ploni received a bill of divorce from the hand of Aḥa bar Hidiya, who is called Iya Mari, and vowed and prohibited all

the produce in the world to herself, that she had received from her ketuba only one thick woolen garment a thick woolen garment]

a thick woolen garment,

and one book of Psalms, and the Book of Job and Proverbs -

which were

worn out. Plonita the daughter of Ploni received a bill of divorce from a man named “Aḥa bar Hidiya,” whose nickname was “Iya Mari,” and she vowed before us to prohibit all produce in the world to herself, that she had received from her ketuba only a woolen garment, the Book of Psalms, the Book of Job, and Proverbs, which were worn out]—

A certain woman, daughter of a certain man, received a bill of divorce from a man named Aha bar Hidiya, whose nickname was Aya Mari, and vowed before us to prohibit all produce in the world to herself, that she had received from her marriage contract only a woolen garment, a book of Psalms, the Book of Job, and Proverbs, which were worn out -