Ketubot 108b (קח:) — the Talmud in English

Shame,

the embarrassment one feels before the lender because he is not repaying his debt to him—

who does not have it?

And by repaying his debt, he benefits him in this respect.

Another version:

There too he derives benefit, from the benefit he receives by being embarrassed before him.

Mishna:

Admon says: seven,

over which the Sages disputed him.

A.

If one dies and leaves sons and daughters.

When the property is abundant—

the sons inherit, and the daughters are maintained.

And

when the

property is meager,

such that it is insufficient to provide for twelve months—the Sages instituted that

the daughters shall be maintained, and the sons shall go begging from door to door!

Admon says:

But

because I am male

and my legal standing is stronger,

have I lost out,

so that specifically I must go begging from door to door for my sustenance, while my sister need not?

Rabban Gamliel said: I see the words of Admon as correct!

Gemara:

And we raised the following question:

What is he saying,

Admon? For it is implied from his words that his claim is that he has a greater right than the daughter. Therefore, he wonders: Is it because my legal standing is stronger than that of the daughter that I should lose out? The Gemara examines: In what respect is the son’s legal standing stronger than the daughter’s?

Abaye said: This is what

Admon is saying: Is it

because I am male and fit to engage in Torah study that I have lost out?

Rava said to him,

Abaye: What sort of claim is this? Is it only

one who engages in Torah study who inherits,

so that Admon has come to complain that he has lost his inheritance because he studies Torah, whereas

one who does not engage in Torah study does not inherit?

Rather, Rava said, this is what

Admon is saying: Is it

because I am male and fit

to

inherit when the property is abundant that I have lost out when the property is meager?

Mishna:

If one claimant brings a claim against another, and the latter admits part of the claim, the defendant who admitted part must take an oath that he does not owe the part that he denied.

When does this apply? When he admits part of the claim. But if he admits something that the claimant did not claim from him, or if he admits a different claim, he is not required to take an oath.

The Mishna and the Gemara below will explain what constitutes one matter and what constitutes a different claim.

A.

If one claims from another ten oil-jugs, and he admits to the jugs

empty of oil—

Admon says: Since he admitted part of the claim,

for his claim included a demand for the jugs as well,

he must take an oath

concerning the part that he denied, namely, the oil.

And the Sages say: This is not

an

admission of part of the same type as the claim!

Their reasoning will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabban Gamliel said: I see the words of Admon as correct!

Gemara:

The Gemara assumed that the claim, according to everyone, concerned both the oil and the jugs.

And if so,

infer from this

that

according to the Rabbis,

if one

claims wheat and barley, and he admits to the barley, he is exempt

from an oath, because the admission concerning the barley is not of the same type as the claim concerning the wheat. Rather, these are two separate claims: with regard to one he admitted everything, and with regard to the other he denied everything.

And we raised the following question:

Let us say

that our Mishna

is a refutation of Rav Naḥman in the name of Shmuel.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: If one claims wheat and barley, and he admits to one of them—

he is liable

to take an oath, as is the law concerning one who admits part of a claim!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

This does not concern one who claims jugs and oil. Rather, it concerns one who

claims a measure

of oil. He mentioned the measure according to the number of jugs, but he is not claiming the jugs at all.

And since this person admitted only to the jugs, it follows that the admission was not of the same type as the claim.

The Gemara challenges this answer:

If so,

if he did not claim jugs at all,

for what reason

does Admon,

who exempts him from an oath, do so?

Rather, Rava said:

Everyone agrees

that they did not dispute

where he said to him,

the claimant:

I have ten jugs of oil’s capacity in your cistern—

Since he mentioned that the oil is in the cistern, it is obvious that

he is claiming only oil, not jugs,

and this is not a case of one who admits part of a claim.

And if he claimed:

I have ten full jugs of oil in your possession—

according to everyone,

he is claiming oil and jugs,

and he has admitted part of the claim!

They dispute

Admon and the Sages

where he said to him: I have ten jugs of oil in your possession,

but he did not say, “full of oil.”

Admon says: This wording includes a reference

to a claim for

jugs

in addition to the oil, and therefore he has admitted part of the claim.

And the Rabbis maintain: This wording does not include a reference

to a claim for

jugs.

The Gemara derives the converse implication from the words of the Rabbis:

Rather, the reason

that the Rabbis exempt him is only

that this wording does not include a reference

to a claim for

jugs.

If this wording does include a reference to jugs—

he is liable

to take the oath of one who admits part of a claim, even though the jugs and the oil are two claims concerning two separate objects!

Let us say,

whether

this shall be

a

refutation

of

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba.

For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: If one claims wheat and barley, and he admits to one of them—

he is exempt!

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said:

Jugs and oil constitute a single claim, because it

becomes

like a case in which one claims

a pomegranate in its peel,

and he admits to the peel, in which case he is liable to take an oath, since everything is one object.

Ravina challenges this:

This is not a valid comparison, because

a pomegranate without its peel does not remain preserved

and therefore the peel and the fruit are considered one object.

But

oil remains preserved

in the cistern even

without jugs!

Rather,

this is how our Mishna should be understood:

What are we dealing with here—

where he said to him: I have ten jugs of oil in your possession!

And the other said to him:

Regarding the claim for

oil—

that never happened!

As for the jugs as well,

you have only

five, and you do not have five—

That is, he admitted part only with regard to the claim for the jugs.

Admon says: This wording includes a reference

to a claim for jugs.

And since he is required to take an oath concerning the jugs, he is also required to take an oath concerning the oil,

by means of the law of

“rolling over”

an oath, whereby the claimant can now require him to take an oath concerning matters about which he would not otherwise have been required to swear.

And the Rabbis maintain: This wording includes no reference to jugs,

but only a claim for oil.

Therefore,

what he claimed

concerning the oil,

he did not admit to

at all.

And what he admitted to

concerning the five jugs,

he did not claim

at all, and this is not an admission of part of a claim.

Mishna:

One who stipulates money

as a dowry

for his son-in-law

at the time of betrothal,

and then refuses to honor his obligation,

showing him the mud on his feet and telling him that he is prepared to give him only that mud, and is not prepared to fulfill his obligations toward him.