Ketubot 108b — the Talmud in English

Embarrassment,

embarrassment before the lender because he does not repay his debt to him —

Who does not have it?

And by repaying his debt, he gives him benefit through this.

Another version:

There too he has benefit, through the benefit that he is embarrassed before him.

Mishna:

Admon says: seven

cases in which the Sages disagreed with him.

A.

One who died and left sons and daughters.

When the assets are substantial —

the sons inherit, and the daughters are maintained.

And

when the

assets are few,

when they are insufficient for sustenance for twelve months — the Sages ordained that

the daughters shall be maintained, and the sons shall go around to the doorways!

Admon says:

But

because I am male

and my power is superior,

have I lost,

and specifically I must go around to the doorways for the sake of my sustenance, but not my sister?

Rabban Gamaliel said: I see the words of Admon!

Gemara:

And we raised an objection concerning it:

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, and therefore he wonders: Is it because my power is superior to the daughter’s power that I should lose? And the Gemara discusses: In what is the son’s power superior to the daughter’s power?

Abaye said: This is what

Admon is saying: Is it

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

Rava said to him

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

one who engages in Torah inherits,

he is an heir, so that Admon comes to complain about the loss of his inheritance because he studies Torah, whereas

one who does not engage in Torah does not inherit?

Rather, Rava said, this is what

Admon is saying: Is it

because I am male, and fit

I am

to inherit when the assets are substantial, that I have lost when the assets are few?

Mishna:

One who sues his fellow, and he admits to him concerning part of the claim, the defendant who admitted concerning part must take an oath that he is not liable for the part concerning which he denied.

When do these words apply? When he admitted to him concerning part of the claim. But if he admitted to him concerning something that he had not claimed from him, or if he admitted to him concerning another claim, he is not liable for an oath.

In our Mishna and in the Gemara below, what constitutes one matter and what constitutes another claim will be explained.

A.

One who claims from his fellow ten jars of oil, and he admits to him concerning jars

empty of oil —

Admon says: Since he admitted concerning part of the claim,

for included in his claim was also a demand for the jars, and therefore

he shall take an oath

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

And the Sages say: This is not

an

admission concerning part of the kind of the claim!

And their reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabban Gamaliel said: I see the words of Admon!

Gemara:

The Gemara assumed that according to everyone the claim was concerning both the oil and the jars.

And if so,

infer from it

that

according to the Rabbis,

if

he claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted concerning the barley, he is exempt

from an oath, because the admission concerning the barley is not of the same kind as the claim concerning the wheat; rather, this is like two separate claims, in one of which he admitted everything and in the second of which he denied everything.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

Let us say

that our Mishna

shall be a refutation of Rav Nahman who said in the name of Shmuel.

For Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: If he claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted to him concerning one of them —

he is liable

to an oath, according to the law of one who admits concerning part!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Here we are not dealing with one who claims jars and oil. Rather, we are dealing

with one who claims from him a measure

of oil. And he mentioned it according to the number of the jars, but he is not claiming the jars at all.

And since this one admitted only concerning the jars, it follows that the admission was not of the same kind as the claim.

And the Gemara wonders about the answer:

If so,

that he did not claim jars at all,

what is the reason

of Admon,

who exempts him from an oath?

Rather, Rava said:

According to everyone,

they did not disagree

where he said to him

the claimant:

I have ten jars of oil filled in your pit —

Since he mentioned that the oil is located in the pit, it is obvious that only

oil did he claim from him; jars he did not claim from him,

and this is not an admission concerning part of the claim.

And if he claimed:

I have ten full jars of oil with you —

According to everyone,

oil and jars did he claim from him,

and he has indeed admitted concerning part!

They disagree

Admon and the Sages

where he said to him: I have ten jars of oil with you.

But he did not say, “full of oil.”

Admon says: This wording contains an expression

of a claim for

jars

in addition to the oil, and he has indeed admitted concerning part.

And the Rabbis hold: This wording does not contain an expression

of a claim for

jars.

And the Gemara infers from the words of the Rabbis the opposite side:

Rather, the reason

that according to the Rabbis he is exempt is only because

this wording does not contain an expression

of a claim for

jars.

If this wording does contain an expression of jars —

he is liable

for an oath of one who admits concerning part, even though the jars and the oil are two claims concerning two separate things!

Let us say,

does

this become

from here

a refutation

of

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba?

For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: If he claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted to him concerning one of them —

he is exempt!

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said:

Jars and oil are one claim, because

it becomes

the matter

like one who claimed a pomegranate in its peel

and admitted to him concerning the peel, who is liable for an oath, since everything is one matter.

Ravina strongly objected to him:

This is not a correct comparison! For

a pomegranate without its peel is not preserved,

it is not kept, and therefore the peel together with the fruit are considered one matter.

But

oil is preserved,

it is kept in the pit even

without jars!

Rather,

this is how our Mishna is to be established:

Here, with what are we dealing —

where he said to him: I have ten jars of oil with you!

And the other said to him:

Regarding the claim of

oil —

That never happened!

Jars as well,

only

you have five, and you do not have five —

That is, the admission was concerning part only with regard to the claim for the jars.

Admon says: This wording contains an expression

of a claim for jars.

And since he claims concerning the jars, he also claims concerning the oil,

by means of the law of

“rolling

an oath,” through which the claimant can now make him swear also concerning matters concerning which he did not need to make him swear.

And the Rabbis hold: This wording does not contain an expression of jars

but only a claim for oil.

Therefore,

what he claimed

concerning the oil,

he did not admit to him

at all.

And what he admitted to him

concerning the five jars,

he did not claim

concerning it at all, and this is not an admission concerning part.

Mishna:

One who stipulates money

for a dowry

for his son-in-law

at the time of the betrothal,

and the latter went bankrupt,

showing him the mud on his feet and telling him that he is willing to give him only this mud, and is unwilling to stand by his obligations toward him.