Ketubot 88b — the Talmud in English

And if

she does not claim her ketubah,

but claims only maintenance,

the heirs do not make her swear

that she did not withhold anything of theirs in her possession, until she also claims the ketubah.

And they disagree

Rabbi Shimon and the first tanna,

in the dispute between Hanan and the sons of the High Priests.

For we learned: One who went overseas and his wife claims maintenance, Hanan says: She swears at the end,

that is, at the time of collection of the ketubah,

but she does not swear at the beginning

at the time of the claim for maintenance.

The sons of the High Priests disagreed with him, and said: She swears at the beginning,

when she collects maintenance,

and at the end

when she collects her ketubah.

And if so,

Rabbi Shimon

who said, “Whenever she claims her ketubah, the heirs make her swear,” held

like Hanan,

and

the Rabbis

who said that she always swears, even for maintenance, held

like the sons of the High Priests.

Rav Sheshet objected:

If this is the explanation of the words of Rabbi Shimon,

this

whether this oath

do the heirs make her swear?! The court should make her swear, it ought to have said!

And why did Rabbi Shimon say, “The heirs make her swear”?

Rather, Rav Sheshet said: This

is the explanation of the words of Rabbi Shimon: We learned in the Mishna—

“She went from her husband’s grave to her father’s house, or she returned to her father-in-law’s house and did not become an administrator, the heirs do not make her swear. But if she became an administrator

the heirs make her swear concerning the future, but they do not make her swear concerning the past.”

And Rabbi Shimon came to say: Whenever she claims her ketubah, the heirs make her swear

concerning the past; but if

she does not claim her ketubah, the heirs do not make her swear.

And they disagree in the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Rabbis.

For we learned: An administrator whom the father of orphans appointed must swear

that he took nothing of theirs. And we are not concerned that he will refrain from becoming an administrator because of the oath, since if their father had not done him a favor during his lifetime, he would not have agreed to be appointed administrator.

But if

the court appointed him, he need not swear.

So that he will not refrain from becoming an administrator over the assets.

Abba Shaul says: The opposite of these matters: If the court appointed him, he must swear!

Because it is an honor for a person to be appointed administrator by the court, and he will not refrain from becoming an administrator because of the oath.

But if

the father of the orphans appointed him, he need not swear.

So that he will not refrain from becoming an administrator.

And if so,

Rabbi Shimon

who said, “If she does not claim her ketubah, the heirs do not make her swear,” held

like Abba Shaul,

and since she does not claim her ketubah, she is like an administrator appointed by the father of orphans, and she does not swear.

And the Rabbis

who said that she swears held

like the Rabbis,

that an administrator whom the father of orphans appointed must swear.

Abaye objected to him:

But according to these words, Rabbi Shimon came to be lenient with her and to say that she does not swear when she does not claim her ketubah. And if so,

this

wording

“whenever she claims her ketubah”

is not understood; surely

“if she claims” ought to have been said—

that is what he should have written?!

Since the wording “whenever” implies that he came to be stringent and to say that, not in accordance with the words of the first tanna, who exempted her from the oath even when she claims it, but whenever she claims it they make her swear—that is a stringency.

Rather, Abaye said:

The words of Rabbi Shimon were stated

concerning this

which we learned above, on page 86b:

“If he wrote for her

‘A vow or an oath I have no claim against you,’ he cannot make her swear.

And

all

of them,

‘A vow or an oath I have no claim against you, nor my heirs, nor those who come with authority from me, against you, your heirs, or those who come with authority from you,’ he cannot make her swear—neither he, nor his heirs, nor those who come with authority from him; neither she, nor her heirs, nor those who come with authority from her.”

And

concerning this

Rabbi Shimon came to say—

“Whenever she claims her ketubah, the heirs make her swear,” and they disagree in the dispute between Abba Shaul son of Ima Miriam and the Rabbis.

mentioned above, at the beginning of our Mishna: Abba Shaul says, “But what can I do, for the Sages said: One who comes to collect from the property of orphans may collect only by oath.”

Rabbi Shimon

held

like Abba Shaul,

and therefore whenever she claims her ketubah, even if he exempted her from the oath, she swears—as the law of one who comes to collect from the property of orphans, who may collect only by oath.

And the Rabbis

of Rabbi Shimon—

like the Rabbis.

For they exempted her from the oath where the husband exempted her from his oath.

Rav Pappa objected to him: This works for “whenever

she claims her ketubah,”

meaning, according to your words, it is understood what Rabbi Shimon innovated at the beginning of his words: to state the position of Abba Shaul,

but the conclusion of Rabbi Shimon—

“if she does not claim her ketubah”—what is there to say?

That is, whom does this law come to exclude?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Rabbi Shimon came

to exclude the words of

Rabbi

Eliezer, and his dispute.

That is, he came to disagree with the Rabbis mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna, who hold that if he wrote, “nor my heirs,” it is effective. But he holds that even if he wrote for her, “A vow or an oath I have no claim against you, nor against my heirs,” she swears to the orphans, like Abba Shaul.

Mishna:

A woman who was divorced and came to claim her ketubah from her husband, and as proof of her words

she brought out

the

bill of divorce

that he gave her,

but

there was

not with it

with the bill of divorce

a ketubah,