Ketubot 88b (פח:) — the Talmud in English

And if

she is not claiming her ketuba,

but is claiming only maintenance,

the heirs do not administer an oath to her

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

And they disagree

—Rabbi Shimon and the first tanna—

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

As we learned in a Mishna: One who went overseas and his wife claims maintenance, Hanan says: She takes an oath at the end,

that is, when collecting her ketuba,

but she does not take an oath at the beginning

when claiming maintenance.

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

when she collects maintenance,

and at the end

when she collects her ketuba.

And if so,

Rabbi Shimon

who said, “Whenever she claims her ketuba, the heirs administer an oath to her,” held

in accordance with Hanan,

while

the Rabbis

who said that she always takes an oath, even for maintenance, held

in accordance with the sons of the High Priests.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection:

If this is the explanation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement,

this

[that is, this oath]

is it the heirs who administer an oath to her?! It should have said: The rabbinical court administers an oath to her!

And why, then, did Rabbi Shimon say, “The heirs administer an oath to her”?

Rather, Rav Sheshet said: This

is the explanation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement: We learned in the Mishna—

“If she went from her husband’s grave to her father’s house, or returned to her father-in-law’s house and was not appointed an administrator, the heirs do not administer an oath to her. But if she was appointed an administrator

the heirs administer an oath to her concerning the future, but they do not administer an oath to her concerning the past.”

And Rabbi Shimon came to say: Whenever she claims her ketuba, the heirs administer an oath to her

concerning the past; but if

she does not claim her ketuba, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.

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

As we learned in a Mishna: An administrator whom the orphans’ father appointed must take an oath

that he took nothing of theirs. There is no concern that he will refrain from becoming an administrator because of the oath, since had their father not done him a favor during his lifetime, he would not have agreed to be appointed administrator.

But if

the rabbinical court appointed him, he need not take an oath.

This is so that he will not refrain from becoming an administrator over the property.

Abba Shaul says: The opposite is the case: If the rabbinical court appointed him, he must take an oath!

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

But if

the orphans’ father appointed him, he need not take an oath.

This is so that he will not refrain from becoming an administrator.

And if so,

Rabbi Shimon

who said, “If she does not claim her ketuba, the heirs do not administer an oath to her,” held

in accordance with Abba Shaul,

and since she does not claim her ketuba, she is like an administrator appointed by the orphans’ father, and she does not take an oath.

And the Rabbis

who said that she takes an oath held

in accordance with the Rabbis,

who say that an administrator appointed by the orphans’ father takes an oath.

Abaye raised an objection:

But according to this explanation, Rabbi Shimon came to be lenient with regard to her and say that she does not take an oath when she does not claim her ketuba. And if so,

this

expression,

“Whenever she claims her ketuba,”

is incomprehensible. Surely

it should have said: “If she claims her ketuba,”

that is what he should have written?!

Since the expression “whenever” indicates that he came to be stringent and say that, contrary to the statement of the first tanna, who exempted her from an oath even when she claims her ketuba, whenever she claims her ketuba they administer an oath to her—that is a stringency.

Rather, Abaye said:

Rabbi Shimon’s statement was said

with regard to this,

as we learned above, on folio 86b:

“If he wrote for her

‘I have no claim against you with regard to vows or oaths,’ he cannot administer an oath to her.

And

all

of them:

‘I have no claim against you or my heirs or those who come into my authority, with regard to vows or oaths, and neither against your heirs nor those who come into your authority,’ he cannot administer an oath to her—neither he, nor his heirs, nor those who come into his authority; neither she, nor her heirs, nor those who come into her authority.”

And

with regard to this

Rabbi Shimon came to say—

“Whenever she claims her ketuba, the heirs administer an oath to her,” 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, since the Sages said: One who comes to collect from the property of orphans may collect only by taking an oath?”

Rabbi Shimon

held

in accordance with Abba Shaul,

and therefore whenever she claims her ketuba, even if he exempted her from an oath, she takes an oath, in accordance with the law governing one who comes to collect from the property of orphans, who may collect only by taking an oath.

And the Rabbis

of Rabbi Shimon—

in accordance with the Rabbis.

They exempted her from an oath wherever the husband exempted her from his oath.

Rav Pappa raised an objection: “Whenever

she claims her ketuba,”

that is, according to your explanation, it is understandable what Rabbi Shimon innovated at the beginning of his statement: that he follows the view of Abba Shaul.

But as for the latter part of Rabbi Shimon’s statement—

“If she does not claim her ketuba,” what can be said?

That is, from whose view does this law come to exclude?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Rabbi Shimon came

to exclude the

view 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 against my heirs,” it is effective. But he holds that even if he wrote for her, “I have no claim against you or my heirs with regard to vows or oaths,” she takes an oath to the orphans, in accordance with Abba Shaul.

MISHNA:

A woman who was divorced and came to claim her ketuba from her husband, and as evidence for her claim

she produced

the

bill of divorce

that he gave her,

but

there is

no

[that is, together with the bill of divorce]

ketuba,