Ketubot 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

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

That is, if he appointed her a shopkeeper in his store. But if she diminished her ketubba, she was not exempted from an oath, since she was exempted only from an oath that he imposed upon her, but not from an oath that she imposed upon herself.

Rav Naḥman, said Rabba bar Avuha—

When he exempted her from an oath without qualification, he also exempted her from an oath that she might become obligated to take

for diminishing her ketubba.

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

Rav Mordekhai went and related the teaching 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 interpreted the Mishna as referring to a case in which he exempted her from an oath that she owed him

for diminishing her ketubba,

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

Since

she had considered

that she might

perhaps need money and take payment from her ketubba,

and thereby become obligated to her husband to take the oath required of one who diminishes her ketubba,

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 that Rav], who maintains that our Mishna is dealing with a case in which the husband exempted her from an oath that she might become obligated to take

for guardianship that was undertaken during her husband's lifetime,

the following difficulty arises: Why did she demand that he write for her that he would not administer an oath to her?

Did she know that he would appoint her guardian, that she said to him—

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

Had she known in advance that he would appoint her as guardian over his property, so that she would demand that he exempt her from the oath?!]

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Rav Mordekhai:

You,

who raised this difficulty,

interpret it this way,

meaning, you taught the statement of Rav Yehuda in the first clause of our Mishna, where it is not specified which oath is under discussion, and you assumed that Rav Yehuda disagreed with Rav Naḥman.

But

we interpret it this way,

meaning, we taught his statement in the latter clause of our Mishna, and he did not disagree at all with Rav Naḥman. Rather, this is the explanation of his statement:

That which we say in our Mishna:

“She went from her husband's grave to her father's house, or returned to her father-in-law's house and did not become a guardian; the heirs may 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 what point is something considered “the past,” concerning which the heirs cannot administer an oath to her?

And concerning this

Rav Yehuda said that Rav:

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

concerning 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 come into the possession of the orphans, the husband could 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 Neharde'a said:

“For the capitation tax, for sustenance, and for burial, we sell without an announcement.”

That is, for payment of the king's capitation tax, for the sustenance of the wife and daughters, and for the expenses of the father's burial, property belonging to orphans is sold without a public announcement, since there is no time to attend to the matter. Therefore she does not take an oath concerning that sale, since it is impossible that she did not slightly undervalue the property, in which case she would be taking a false oath.

Rabba said that Rav Ḥiyya:

One who writes to his wife—

“No vow and no oath

shall be imposed upon you by me,”—

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

But if he wrote—

“Free of vows, free of oaths,”—

neither he nor the heirs may administer an oath to her.

Because

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

That is, she is completely exempt from the oath.

And Rav Yosef said

in the name of

Rabbi Ḥiyya:

One who writes to his wife—

“No vow and no oath,” he cannot administer an oath to her, but the heirs may administer an oath to her.

As stated above.

But if he wrote to her—

“Free of vows, free of oaths,”

then

both he and the heirs may administer an oath to her.

Because

this is what he is saying to her—

“Clear 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

“no oath,”

or

whether

he wrote the wording

“free of an oath,” whether “no vow” or “free of a vow,”

if he subsequently wrote

“from my property,”—then

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

But if he wrote

—

“from these properties,”—

neither he nor his heirs may administer an oath to her.

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

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

he wrote to the woman the wording

“no oath,” or “free of an oath,” or “no vow,” or “free of a vow,” whether “from my property” or “from these properties,” neither he nor his heirs may administer an oath to her.

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

But what can I do

if 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 taking an oath,”

and the husband cannot exempt her from this oath.

And some say that it was taught as a matnita.

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

And this is the version of the matnita—

“Abba Shaul ben Ima Miriam said: Whether ‘no oath,’ or ‘free of an oath,’ whether ‘no vow’ or ‘free of a vow,’ whether ‘from my property’ or ‘from these properties,’ neither he nor his heirs may 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 taking an oath.”

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel: The halakha is like

the words of

ben Ima Miriam.

Mishna:

One who diminishes her ketubba

as explained below in the Mishna

may collect only by taking an oath.

And likewise, if

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

And likewise,

from the property of orphans, from liened property, or not in his presence, she may collect only by taking an oath [

see Rashi].

The Mishna explains:

How does one diminish her ketubba? If her ketubba was one thousand dinars, and he said to her

her husband—

“You have received your ketubba,” and she says, “I received only one hundred dinars,” she may collect only by taking an oath.

How does one witness testify concerning her that it has been paid? If her ketubba was one thousand dinars, and he said to her

her husband—

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

“I have not

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

How does she collect from liened property? If he sold his property to others, and she collects from the purchasers,

since his property is subject to a lien for payment of her ketubba,

she may collect only by taking an oath.

How does she collect from the property of orphans? If he died

her husband

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

And how does she collect when it is not in his presence? If he went away

her husband, after divorcing her,

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