Ketubot 88a — the Talmud in English

If he is clever [i.e., the husband],

[i.e., the husband]

he brings her

[the woman]

to the point of an oath by Torah law.

And how?

He gives her her marriage settlement

[which she is now claiming]

in the presence of

[before]

one witness. And he joins

[and joins]

the first witness

[the first witness who testified concerning her that she had already been paid at another time]

to the latter witness

[with the second witness],

and he establishes those earlier payments as a loan

[and now he comes to claim from her what he paid her the first time, as a loan],

and since he certainly paid her marriage settlement once, for two witnesses testify that he paid it,

and 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 unlawfully, which is like a loan in her possession, and he can make her swear concerning it the oath of one witness, which is an oath by Torah law, since now the woman is among those who swear and are exempted.

Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi objected to it: How can he join the first witness to the latter witness?

For each one testifies about a different payment, and there is here only one witness concerning each payment; and the woman can always return and say: “You never paid me at all.”

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

a second time

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

and then he has two witnesses concerning this payment,

and he establishes those earlier payments

[which he paid her in the presence of one witness]

as a loan,

and claims them from her, and makes her swear an oath by Torah law through the witness.

Rav Ashi objected to it: She can still say: “There were two marriage settlements,

and what you paid me the second time in the presence of the witnesses was for the second marriage settlement, while in the first payment you paid me for the first marriage settlement; and if so, the woman is not liable for an oath at all, for the witness does not contradict her, since he too says that on both occasions the husband paid for the purpose of paying a marriage settlement, and not as payment 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 marriage settlement recorded in the document. And she can no longer say that the first payment was for an additional marriage settlement that he owed her as an oral loan. [See Rashi for an additional explanation.]

On the other hand, to claim an additional marriage settlement she is not believed without a document.

Therefore, when the husband returns and claims from her through the one witness what she paid the first time, it is an oath of those who are exempted, and it is an oath by Torah law.

we learned in the Mishna that

from liened property

she may collect only with an oath:

We learned there—

“And likewise orphans may collect only with an oath.”

The Gemara explains:

From whom

may they collect only with an oath?

If you say

when they come to collect

a loan

which their father borrowed, they may collect only with an oath,

This is not so! For

now, their father collected

from the borrower

without an oath, and they with an oath?!

Surely they are certainly not inferior to their father.

Rather, this is what it says: And likewise orphans

who came to collect

from orphans may collect only with an oath.

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

Rav Zerika said in the name of Rav Yehuda: They taught

that one collects from orphans with an oath,

only when the orphans said

[that is, the sons of the borrower]:

“Our father said to us—

‘I borrowed and repaid,’”

and since they are not believed against the document, one collects from them with an oath.

But if they said: “Our father said to us—

‘I did not borrow,’ even with an oath they may not collect

from them.

Rava objected to it—

On the contrary!

let them collect from them even without an oath, since

whoever says, “I did not borrow,” is considered like one who says, “I did not repay,”

since if he did not borrow, he certainly did not repay, and the document proves concerning him that he borrowed. Rashi. And if so, their father admitted this debt; why should they not collect from them?

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Zerika said in the name of Rav Yehuda—

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

one collects

from them

without an oath.

Because

whoever says, “I did not borrow,” is considered like one who says, “I did not repay”:

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who collects not in his presence may collect only with an oath”:

Rav Aḥa Sar HaBirah said—

a case came before Rabbi Yitzḥak in Antioch,

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

and he said: They taught

that she may collect not in his presence,

only with regard to a woman’s marriage settlement, because of ḥina.

That is, so that men will find favor in the eyes of women, for them to marry them, and they will not fear that they will lose their marriage settlements,

but a creditor may not

collect not in his presence, even with an oath.

And Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: Even a creditor

collects not in his presence with an oath, in order

that each and every person should not take his fellow’s money and go and sit in an overseas country, and you would lock the door before borrowers:

We learned in the Mishna—

Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she claims her marriage settlement

the heirs make her swear, but if she does not claim her marriage settlement, the heirs do not make her swear.:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rabbi Shimon refers to which one?

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

Rabbi Yirmeya said: To this

which we learned—

“‘And one who collects not in his presence may collect only with an oath,’ it makes no difference whether for a

claim of

maintenance, and it makes no difference whether for a marriage settlement,”

she must swear so that the court can descend upon the husband’s property and collect from it.

And Rabbi Shimon came to say—

whenever she claims

her marriage settlement, her heirs make her swear,

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