Ketubot 87b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says: As long as she demands her ketubah, the heirs impose an oath upon her. And if she does not demand her ketubah, the heirs do not impose an oath upon her.

And in the Gemara it will be explained concerning what Rabbi Shimon said his words.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses what is the source for the oath of one who reduces her claim:

Rami bar Hama reasoned to say,

that this oath is

a Torah-level oath.

Because

the husband claims

that he paid her all the

two hundred

that he wrote for her in her ketubah,

and

she

admits to him [that he paid] one hundred.

And if so,

it is for him

like

an admission concerning part of the claim, and everyone who admits concerning part of the claim takes an oath.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rava said: There are two answers

to

the matter,

to say that this oath is not by virtue of the oath of one who admits concerning part of the claim:

One:

For all those who take oaths in the Torah take an oath and do not collect, [

for their oath comes to exempt them from the plaintiff’s claim]

whereas she takes an oath and collects [

for she is the plaintiff].

And furthermore,

the reason that she does not take a Torah-level oath is because

one does not take an oath concerning a denial of a lien on land,

and in this case, after all, there is a lien on land in her ketubah; and if so, she does not take an oath concerning it by Torah law.

Rather, Rava said,

you are compelled to say that the oath in our Mishna is only

rabbinic.

And the reason that they imposed an oath upon her is because

the one who pays is precise, but the one who is paid is not precise. [

The one who pays, namely, the husband, is precise and remembers that he paid. But the one who is paid, namely, the woman, does not remember that she was paid],

and

therefore

the Sages cast an oath upon her so that she would be precise.

.

The Gemara is uncertain:

They raised a dilemma before them: One who reduces her ketubah claim in the presence of witnesses—what is the law? [

That is, there are witnesses that the husband paid part of her ketubah].

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Perhaps she does not take an oath, since

if it is so that he paid her

the husband all her ketubah, he certainly

would have paid her in the presence of witnesses,

just as he paid the first half; and from the fact that we have no witnesses concerning an additional payment, conclude from it that he paid her only half, as she says.

Or perhaps,

there is still concern that perhaps

it happened by chance

[an opportunity arose]

for him

to have money, and he paid her without witnesses, and they cast an oath upon her so that she would be precise and remember.

And the Gemara resolves:

Come

and

hear

what we learned in the Mishna:

All those who take oaths in the Torah take an oath and do not collect. And these

listed below, the Sages instituted that they should

take an oath and collect: the hired laborer,

who sued the employer to give him his wage, and he said to him: I gave it.

And the robbed person,

if they saw a robber enter the domain of the robbed person without his permission, and the robbed person claims, “Such and such utensils you robbed from me,” and the robber says that he robbed only some of them.

And the injured person,

when they saw the injured person enter the house of the one who injured him while he was whole, and he emerged broken, and the one who injured him claims, “I did not injure you.”

And

one

whose opponent is suspect concerning the oath, and the shopkeeper concerning his ledger,

who writes his credit accounts in it: So-and-so instructed me to give this to his workers, and I gave it to them, while they say, “We did not receive it”—behold, both of them, the shopkeeper and the worker, take an oath and collect from the employer,

and one who reduces his document without witnesses.

And the Gemara infers:

Without witnesses—yes! [

That is, only when there are no witnesses does he take an oath and collect], but

with witnesses—no!

And this is proof for our case, that she does not take an oath if she reduced her claim in the presence of witnesses.

And we reject this:

It states the matter in the manner of “it is not necessary.” It is not necessary to say that with witnesses she certainly requires an oath,

since the witness testifies that he paid half,

but without witnesses, one might say [

were it not for the Mishna] that she

should be like one who “returns a lost object,”

and she should take [the money] without an oath.

And therefore

it teaches us

in the Mishna that even without witnesses she takes an oath. And one should not infer from here that where there are witnesses she does not take an oath.

The Gemara further raised a dilemma:

They raised a dilemma before them: One who reduces her ketubah claim, [stating the payments] less than less than a peruta, [

that is, she specified before him everything that he paid precisely, even less than a peruta],

what is the law?

Do we say: Since she is so very precise,

certainly

the truth [

truth]

she is saying.

Or perhaps she is employing a ruse

to be precise in her words so that we will believe her without an oath.

And we conclude with

teyku.

The Gemara further raised a dilemma:

They raised a dilemma before them: One who reduces her ketubah [

that is, she said that her ketubah was less than what was written in the document, except that they agreed between them that she would not sue him for the sum written in the document, and not by means of a payment that the husband paid her],

what is the law?

Do we say: This is one who reduces her claim.

And she is obligated to take an oath.

Or perhaps,

specifically

one who reduces her claim

is obligated to take an oath, since

she admits to part,

but

she

does

not admit to part,

and therefore she does not need to take an oath.

And we resolve:

Come

and

hear [

come and hear] what we learned in the beraita:

One who reduces her claim shall collect without an oath. How so? Her ketubah was one thousand zuz, and he said to her—

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

“I did not receive it, and it is only one maneh.” She collects without an oath.

It is thus explained that one who reduces her claim does not take an oath.

And the Gemara asks:

With what does she collect

even that one maneh? After all, she cannot collect it

with this document

that she holds, since she admits that

this document is merely a potsherd, [

since it is written in it that her ketubah was one thousand zuz, whereas it is only one maneh] ?

And the Gemara answers:

Rava’s son, Rabbah, said—

the beraita is speaking

of one who says: “There was an agreement of trust between me and him.”

That is: The document is not forged, and in truth it was written and signed validly, but there was an agreement of trust between us that I would sue him only for one maneh.

We learned in the Mishna that if there was

one witness testifying concerning her that she was paid,

she may collect only with an oath.

And the Gemara explains what is the source for this oath:

Rami bar Hama reasoned to say: A Torah-level oath.

Because

it is written—

“One witness shall not arise against a person for any iniquity or for any sin,”

and we expound: Specifically,

“for any iniquity or for any sin” is what he does not arise for, but he does arise for

the matter of an obligation of

an oath.

And

so

the master said—

Every place where two witnesses obligate him to pay money, one [witness] obligates him to take an oath.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rava said: There are two answers concerning the matter,

why this oath is not a Torah-level oath:

One,

because

all those who take oaths in the Torah take an oath and do not collect, and

whereas

she takes an oath and collects.

And furthermore,

for by Torah law

one does not take an oath concerning a denial of a lien on land,

and here, after all, there is a lien on land in her ketubah.

Rather, Rava said:

you are compelled to say that this oath is only

rabbinic, in order to appease the husband’s mind.

Rav Pappa said,