Ketubot 87a — the Talmud in English

Concerning a guardianship that was undertaken during her husband's lifetime.

That is, if he appointed her a shopkeeper in his shop. But if she partially acknowledged her ketuba, she was not exempted from an oath, since she was exempted only from the oath that he imposed upon her, but not from the oath that she imposed upon herself .

Rav Naḥman, said Rabbah bar Avuha —

When he exempted her from an oath without specification, he also exempted her from an oath to which she would become obligated

concerning one who partially acknowledges her ketuba.

And all the more so was she exempted from the oath of a guardian, since the husband's intention was to exempt her from every oath to which she was obligated toward him.

Rav Mordekhai went and stated the matter before Rav Ashi

Rav Mordekhai went and said the following matter before Rav Ashi:

Granted, according to the one who says

that is, according to Rav Naḥman, who established the Mishna as referring to a case where he exempted her from an oath to which she had been obligated

concerning one who partially acknowledges her ketuba,

it is well explained why she demanded that he waive this oath for her.

Since

she brought it to mind

that she had considered

perhaps I will need money, and I will take from my ketuba,

and I will become obligated to my husband in the oath of one who partially acknowledges her ketuba,

and

therefore

she said to him —

“Write for me that you will not administer an oath to me.”

But according to the one who says

that is, Rav Yehuda said Rav, that our Mishna is dealing with a case where the husband exempted her from an oath to which she would become obligated

concerning a guardianship that was undertaken during her husband's lifetime,

one may object: why did she demand that he write for her that he would not administer an oath to her? After all,

did she herself know that he would appoint her as a guardian, that she said to him —

“Write for me that you will not administer an oath to me”?!

Did she know in advance that he would appoint her as a guardian over his property, so that she would demand that he exempt her from the oath?!

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to Rav Mordekhai:

You,

you who raised this difficulty,

you teach it this way,

that is, you taught the words of Rav Yehuda in the first part of our Mishna, which did not specify with regard to which oath it was speaking, and you thought that Rav Yehuda disagreed with the words of Rav Naḥman.

But

we teach it this way,

that is, we taught his words in the latter part of our Mishna, and he did not come to disagree at all with the words of Rav Naḥman; rather, this is the explanation of his words:

That which we say in our Mishna —

“She went from her husband's grave to her father's house, or she returned to her father-in-law's house and did not become a guardian: the heirs do not administer an oath to her. And if she became a guardian, the heirs administer an oath to her concerning the future, but they do not administer an oath to her concerning the past.”

And it is necessary to explain —

“What is the function of ‘the past’?”

That is, until when is it considered “the past,” concerning which the heirs cannot administer an oath to her?

And concerning this

Rav Yehuda said Rav:

The definition of “the past” is that they cannot administer an oath to her

concerning a guardianship that was undertaken during the husband's lifetime,

since the husband exempted her from this oath.

But

if she was a guardian over the property

between the death and the burial, we administer an oath to her.

Since the property had already fallen before the orphans, the husband can no longer exempt her from an oath concerning it.

And Rav Mattana said: Even

if she became a guardian over the property

between the death and the burial, we do not administer an oath to her.

Because

the sages of Nehardea said —

“For the head tax, for sustenance, and for burial, we sell without a proclamation.”

That is, for payment of the head tax to the king, and for the sustenance of the wife and daughters, and for the burial expenses of the father, we sell from the property of orphans without a proclamation, since there is no time to attend to the matter; and therefore she does not take an oath concerning that sale, since it is impossible that she did not slightly undervalue the property, and she is found to have sworn falsely .

Rabbah said that Rav Ḥiyya said:

One who writes to his wife —

“Without a vow and without an oath

they shall be mine against you,”

he cannot administer an oath to her, but the heirs administer an oath to her.

But if he wrote —

“Clean of vow, clean of oath,” —

whether he or the heirs, they do not administer an oath to her.

Because

this is what he is saying to her: “You are cleansed from an oath.”

That is, she is completely exempted from the oath.

And Rav Yosef said

in the name of

Rabbi Ḥiyya:

One who writes to his wife —

“Without a vow and without an oath,” he cannot administer an oath to her, but the heirs administer an oath to her.

As above.

But if he wrote to her —

“Clean of vow, clean of oath,”

then

whether he or the heirs, they administer an oath to her.

Because

this is what he is saying to her —

“Cleanse yourself by an oath.”

That is, if I or my heirs suspect you, you must clear yourself of the suspicion by means of an oath.

Rav Zakkai sent

these legal rulings

to Mar Ukva: Whether

he wrote to his wife the wording

“without an oath,”

and

whether

he wrote the wording

“clean of oath,” whether “without a vow” or “clean of vow,”

if he subsequently wrote

“with my property” —

then

he cannot administer an oath to her, but the heirs administer an oath to her.

But if he wrote

“from these properties” —

whether he or his heirs, they do not administer an oath to her.

Since he completely exempted her from an oath concerning these properties.

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said in the name of Abba Shaul ben Imma Miriam: Whether

he wrote to the woman the wording

“without an oath,” whether “clean of oath,” whether “without a vow,” and whether “clean of vow,” whether “from my property” and whether “from these properties,” whether he or his heirs, they do not administer an oath to her.

Since his intention is always to exempt her completely from the oath.

But what can I do

that his heirs can administer an oath to her in any event,

for the Sages said —

“One who comes to collect from the property of orphans may collect only by an oath,”

and from this oath the husband cannot exempt her.

And some state it as a beraita.

That is, there are those who taught the words of Abba Shaul as a beraita, and not merely as the words of an amora.

And this is the version of the beraita —

“Abba Shaul ben Imma Miriam said: Whether ‘without an oath,’ whether ‘clean of oath,’ whether ‘without a vow’ and whether ‘clean of vow,’ whether ‘from my property’ and whether ‘from these properties,’ whether he or his heirs, they do not administer an oath to her. But what can I do, for the Sages said: One who comes to collect from the property of orphans may collect only by an oath.”

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The halakha is according to

the words of

ben Imma Miriam:

Mishna:

One who partially acknowledges her ketuba,

as explained in the continuation of the Mishna,

may collect only by an oath.

And likewise, if

one witness testifies concerning her that it has been paid, she may collect only by an oath.

And likewise

from the property of orphans, and from encumbered property, and when not in his presence, she may collect only by an oath .

See Rashi.

The Mishna explains:

One who partially acknowledges her ketuba, how so? Her ketuba was one thousand dinars, and he said to her

her husband —

“You have received your ketuba.” And she says: “I received only one hundred.” She may collect only by an oath.

One witness testifies concerning her that it has been paid, how so? Her ketuba was one thousand dinars, and the husband said to her

the husband —

“You have received your ketuba!” And she says —

“I have not

received it.” And one witness testifies concerning her that it has been paid; she may collect only by an oath.

From encumbered property, how so? He sold his property to others, and she collects from the purchasers,

since his property is encumbered for payment of her ketuba,

she may collect only by an oath.

From the property of orphans, how so? He died

the husband,

and left his property to orphans, and she collects from the orphans; she may collect only by an oath.

And when not in his presence, how so? He went away

the husband, after divorcing her,

to a distant country, and she collects not in his presence; she may collect only by an oath.