Ketubot 87b (פז:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says: As long as she is claiming her ketuba, the heirs administer an oath to her. But if she is not claiming her ketuba, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.

And the Gemara will explain with regard to what Rabbi Shimon made this statement.:

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the source of the oath administered to one who admits that part of the debt has been paid:

Rami bar Ḥama thought to say

that this is

a Torah-mandated oath.

Because

the husband claims

that he paid her all the

two hundred

that he wrote for her in her ketuba,

and

she

admits to him that he paid one hundred.

And if so,

it is

like

an admission of part of the claim, and anyone who admits to part of a claim must take an oath.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rava said: There are two answers

to

this matter,

indicating that this oath is not based on the law of an oath administered to one who admits to part of a claim:

First—

all those who take oaths mandated by the Torah take an oath but do not collect, [

since their oath comes to exempt them from the claimant’s demand,]

whereas she takes an oath and collects [

since she is the claimant].

Furthermore,

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

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

and in this case her ketuba contains a lien on land; therefore, she does not take an oath concerning it by Torah law.

Rather, Rava said:

You must say that the oath in our Mishna is only

rabbinic.

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

one who pays is precise, whereas 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 receives payment, namely, the wife, does not remember what she received,]

and

therefore

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

.

The Gemara raises a dilemma:

They raised a dilemma before them: If she admits that part of her ketuba was paid in the presence of witnesses, what is the law? [

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

And the sides of the dilemma are:

Perhaps she does not take an oath, since

if it is indeed the case that he paid her

the entire ketuba, he certainly

would have paid it to her in the presence of witnesses,

just as he paid the first half. Since we have no witnesses to an additional payment, conclude from this that he paid only half, as she claims.

Or perhaps,

there is still reason for concern that perhaps

it happened

[

that money became available

to him] and he paid her without witnesses. Therefore, the Sages imposed an oath upon her so that she would examine her memory and recall the matter.

The Gemara resolves the dilemma:

Come

and

hear

what we learned in the Mishna:

All those who take oaths mandated by the Torah take an oath but do not collect. And these

ones listed below, the Sages instituted that they should

take an oath and collect: A hired laborer,

who demanded that the employer give him his wages, and the employer said to him: I paid you.

And a victim of robbery,

when people saw a robber enter the victim’s property without permission, and the victim claims: “You robbed me of these and these utensils,” while the robber says that he robbed him of only some of them.

And one who was injured,

when people saw the injured party enter the house of the one who injured him while he was whole, and leave broken, while the alleged assailant claims: “I did not injure you.”

And

one

whose opposing litigant is suspected with regard to oaths, and a shopkeeper concerning his ledger,

who writes in it the purchases made on credit: “So-and-so instructed me to give goods to his workers, and I gave them to them,” while the workers say: “We did not receive them.” In such a case, both of them—the shopkeeper and the worker—take an oath and collect from the employer,

and one who admits that his document was partially paid, without witnesses.

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!

This is proof with regard to our case that she does not take an oath if she admitted that part of the ketuba was paid in the presence of witnesses.

And we reject this:

The Mishna stated the lesser case. It was not necessary to state that with witnesses she certainly must take 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 considered like one who returns a lost object,

and collect without an oath.

Therefore,

it teaches us

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

The Gemara raises another dilemma:

They raised a dilemma before them: If she admits that her ketuba was paid in installments, each of less than the value of a peruta, [

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

what is the law?

Do we say that, since she is so precise,

she is certainly

speaking the truth [

truth]

in making her statement?

Or perhaps she is being devious

and is being precise in her statements so that we will believe her without an oath?

And we conclude with

teyku.

The Gemara raises another dilemma:

They raised a dilemma before them: If she reduces the amount of her ketuba [

that is, she says that her ketuba was for less than the amount written in the document, but that they agreed between themselves that she would not claim the amount written in the document, and this was not because of a payment made by the husband,]

what is the law?

Do we say that this is equivalent to one who admits that part of the debt has been paid

and she is obligated to take an oath?

Or perhaps

only

one who admits that part of the debt has been paid

is obligated to take an oath, since

she admits to part,

but

she

does

not admit to part,

and therefore she need not take an oath.

The Gemara resolves the dilemma:

Come

and

hear [

come and hear] what we learned in a beraita:

One who reduces the amount of her ketuba collects without an oath. How so? Her ketuba was for one thousand dinars, and he said to her—

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

“I have not received it; it is only one hundred.” She collects without an oath.

It is thus explicit that one who reduces the amount of her ketuba does not take an oath.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

With what does she collect

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

with this document

that she possesses, since she admits that

this document is merely a potsherd, [

since it states in it that her ketuba was for one thousand dinars, whereas it is only for one hundred]?

The Gemara answers:

Rava, son of Rabba, said—

the beraita is speaking

of a woman who says: “There was an understanding between me and him.”

That is, the document is not forged; rather, it was genuinely written and properly signed, but there was an understanding between them that she would claim only one hundred.

We learned in the Mishna that if there was

one witness testifying that her ketuba had been paid,

she may collect only with an oath.

The Gemara explains the source of this oath:

Rami bar Ḥama thought to say: It is a Torah-mandated oath.

Because

it is written:

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

and we interpret it: Only

for any iniquity or for any sin does he not rise as a witness, but he does rise for

the purpose of obligating him to take

an oath.

And

so

the Master said—

wherever 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 to this matter,

explaining why this oath is not a Torah-mandated oath:

First,

because

all those who take oaths mandated by the Torah take an oath but do not collect, and

in this case

she takes an oath and collects.

Furthermore,

by Torah law

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

whereas here her ketuba contains a lien on land.

Rather, Rava said:

You must say that this oath is only

rabbinic, in order to appease the husband.

Rav Pappa said,