Ketubot 88a (פח.) — the Talmud in English

If he is clever [the husband]

that is, the husband],

he brings her [the woman]

the wife]

to a Torah-level oath.

And how?

He gives her her ketubah [which she is now claiming]

that she is now claiming]

in the presence of [before]

before]

one witness. And he joins [combines]

and combines]

the first witness [the first witness who testified that she had already been paid on another occasion]

the first witness who testified that he had already paid her on a previous occasion]

with the second witness [the second witness],

with the second witness],

and establishes those first witnesses as relating to a loan [and now he comes to claim from her the amount he paid her the first time, treating it as a loan],

and now he comes to claim from her the money that he paid her the first time, treating it as a loan],

and since he certainly paid her her ketubah once, as two witnesses testify that he paid it,

while, on the other hand, the husband has one witness that he paid her a second time, and the husband comes to claim from her the money that he paid her improperly, which is considered a loan in her possession, he can impose upon her a Torah-level oath based on the testimony of one witness, since the woman is now among those who take an oath and are thereby exempted.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, raised an objection to this: How can he join the first witness with the second witness?

After all, each one testifies about a different payment, and there is only one witness for each payment. The woman can always retract and say: “You never paid me at all.”

Rather, Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: He gives her her ketubah

a second time

in the presence of the first witness and the second witness,

and then he has two witnesses concerning this payment,

and he establishes those first payments

as having been made before only one witness

as a loan,

and he claims them from her and imposes upon her a Torah-level oath through the testimony of the witness.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to this: She can still say: “There were two ketubah documents,

and what was paid to me a second time in the presence of the witnesses was for the second ketubah, while in the first payment you paid me for the first ketubah. If so, the woman is not liable to take an oath at all, since the witness does not contradict her; he too says that on both occasions the husband paid for the payment of a ketubah, and not as repayment of a loan”!

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

He informs them.

That is, when he pays in the presence of the witnesses the second time, he informs them that he has come to pay the ketubah mentioned in the document. She can no longer say that the first payment was for an additional ketubah that he owed her as an oral loan. [See further explanation in Rashi]

On the other hand, she is not deemed credible to claim an additional ketubah without a document.

Therefore, when the husband later claims from her, through the one witness, what she received the first time, it is an oath taken by those who are exempted through an oath, and it is a Torah-level oath.

We learned in the Mishna that

from liened property

one may collect only by means of an oath:

We learned there:

“And likewise, orphans may collect only by means of an oath.”

The Gemara explains:

From whom

may they collect only by means of an oath?

If you say

when they come to collect

a loan

that their father borrowed, they may collect it only by means of an oath,

that cannot be!

Now, their father collected

from the borrower

without an oath, and they must take an oath?!

Surely they are not in an inferior position to their father.

Rather, this is what it is saying: And likewise, orphans

who come to collect

from orphans may collect only by means of an oath.

In accordance with the rule that one who comes to collect from the property of orphans may collect only by means of an oath.

Rav Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: They taught

that one collects from orphans by means of an oath

only when the orphans said [that is, the sons of the borrower]:

that is, the borrower’s sons]:

“Our father told us:

‘I borrowed and repaid,’”

and since they are not deemed credible against the document, one collects from them by means of an oath.

But if they said: “Our father told us:

‘I did not borrow,’ even by means of an oath they may not collect

from them.

Rava raised an objection to this:

On the contrary!

They should collect from them even without an oath, since

anyone who says, “I did not borrow,” is considered as though he said, “I did not repay,”

for if he did not borrow, he certainly did not repay, and the document proves that he did borrow. Rashi. Thus, their father admitted liability for this debt, so why should they not collect from them?

Rather, if it was stated, this is what was stated: Rav Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said:

They taught only when the orphans said: “Our father told us, ‘I borrowed and repaid’; but if they said: ‘Our father told us, “I did not borrow,”’

they collect

from them

without an oath.

Because

anyone who says, “I did not borrow,” is considered as though he said, “I did not repay.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who collects not in his presence may collect only by means of an oath.”

Rav Aḥa Sar HaBirah said:

An incident came before Rabbi Yitzḥak in Antioch:

a woman came to collect from her husband’s property not in his presence,

and he said: They taught

that she can collect not in his presence

only in the case of a woman’s ketubah, because of ḥina. [That is, so that men will find favor in the eyes of women and women will marry them, without fearing that they will lose their ketubah],

That is, so that women will view men favorably and be willing to marry them, without fearing that they will lose their marriage contracts],

but a creditor may not

collect not in his presence, even by means of an oath.

And Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: Even a creditor

may collect not in his presence by means of an oath, in order

that everyone should not take his fellow’s money, go and settle overseas, and you will thereby lock the door before borrowers.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Shimon says: As long as she claims her ketubah,”

the heirs impose an oath upon her; but if she does not claim her ketubah, the heirs do not impose an oath upon her.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

With regard to what is Rabbi Shimon speaking?

That is, concerning which of the oaths mentioned above in the Mishna did Rabbi Shimon state his words?

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is concerning this

which we learned:

“And one who collects not in his presence may collect only by means of an oath,” whether for

a claim of

sustenance or for a ketubah,

she must take an oath so that the court will descend upon the husband’s property and collect from it.

And Rabbi Shimon comes to say:

As long as she claims

her ketubah, her heirs impose an oath upon her,

that she did not withhold any of their property in her possession after their father’s death.