Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 87 - Highlights

Swearing Regarding her Husband’s Possessions

Rav Mordechai went and asked the following question in front of Rav Ashi. According to the opinion that she does not have to swear if she says there is a blemish in her kesuvah (meaning that she claims she did not receive the entire amount owed to her in the kesuvah), the condition is understood. She is scared she might need money and would want to collect it from her Kesuvah. She therefore makes her husband stipulate in advance that he will not make her swear to collect what is owed to her. However, according to the opinion that the condition is regarding her becoming a custodian of her husband’s possessions in his lifetime, did she know she would become a custodian that she stipulated beforehand that he could not make her swear in such a situation?

Rav Ashi replied: You have this question because you learned that this argument was based on the first part of our Mishna. We understood that it is based on the second part of the Mishnah (and therefore have no question). The Mishna stated: If she went from the grave of her husband to her father’s house, or if she went to her father-in-law’s house and was not made a custodian, the inheritors cannot make her swear. If she did become a custodian, the inheritors can make her swear on future issues but not on past issues regarding her husband’s property.

The Gemora asks: What exactly is deemed “past” issues? Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav: Issues before her husband died. However, any issues that were from the time of death until burial can require her to take an oath. Rav Masna says: She is exempt from swearing regarding issues that occurred between death and burial. This is as stated by Neharda: For taxes, food, and burial we sell the property of orphans without auction (accordingly we don’t make her swear on sales between the death and burial, see Rashi). (87a)

Exact Terminology for Vow Exemption

Rabbah says in the name of Rabbi Chiya: If he writes “without a oath or a vow” she does not have to take an oath or a vow, but the inheritors can make her take an oath or vow. If he writes “you are clean of an oath and clean of a vow” even the inheritors cannot make her take a vow, as he is telling her that she will not have to take an oath or vow from anyone.

Rav Yosef says in the name of Rabbi Chiya: If he writes “without a oath or a vow” she does not have to take an oath or a vow, but the inheritors can make her take an oath or vow. If he writes “you are clean of an oath and clean of a vow” both he and the inheritors can make her take a vow, as he is telling her that she will have to cleanse herself of suspicion by taking an oath or vow.

Rav Zakai sent to Mar Ukva: In all of these cases above (discussed by Rabah and Rav Yosef), if he adds “in my property,” he cannot make her swear but inheritors can make her swear. If he says “in these properties,” both her and the inheritors cannot make her swear.

Rav Nachman says in the name of Shmuel in the name of Aba Shmuel son of Ima Miriam: In all of the cases discussed above (by Rav Zakai) both him and the inheritors cannot make her swear. However, what can I do, as the sages proclaimed that if someone tries to collect from the property of orphans they must take an oath?

Some say the teaching was given over in the following manner (as a Beraisa). Aba Shaul the son of Ima Miriam says: In all of the case discussed above (by Rav Zakai) both him and the inheritors cannot make her swear. However, what can I do, as the sages proclaimed that if someone tries to collect from the property of orphans they must take an oath? Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: The Halachah follows the son of Ima Miriam. (87a)
Mishna
If a woman says that her kesuvah has a blemish, she may only collect with a vow. If one witness says her kesuvah was paid, she should only pay with a vow. If she want to collect from the property of orphans, property that she has a lien on (through her kesuvah), and not in front of her husband, she may only collect with a vow.

What is the case of a woman who says there is a blemish on her kesuvah? If her kesuvah was one thousand zuz and her husband claims he paid her kesuvah, and she claims that she only received one hundred zuz payment, she should only collect the rest with a vow. What is the case where one witness says her kesuvah was paid? If her kesuvah was one thousand zuz and her husband claims he paid her kesuvah, and she claims that she only received one hundred zuz payment, and one witness says she received payment, she only collects the rest with a vow.

What is the case where she collects from property with a lien? If her husband had sold property to others, she can seize the property from the buyers but only with a vow. What is the case of collecting property from orphans? If her husband died leaving the property to orphans, she can only collect from them with a vow. What is the case of her collecting when he is not present? If he went overseas, she can only collect from his property when he is not present with a vow. Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she demands her kesuvah, the inheritors can make her swear. If she does not demand her kesuvah, they cannot make her swear (the Gemora will explain what Rabbi Shimon is addressing). (87a - 87b)
The Woman’s Vow: Torah or Rabbinic in Nature?
Rami bar Chama thought to say that the Mishna is discussing a Torah vow. [It is like a case where] he claims two hundred and she says she paid one hundred, that she is admitting to part of the claim, and someone who admits part of the claim must swear according to Torah law.

Rava says that there are two reasons why this is incorrect. One reason is that all Torah vows make someone free from payment. In this case she is swearing and taking money! Additionally, one does not swear regarding a denial of owing land (a Kesuvah inherently is a lien on land).

Rava therefore says that this is a Rabbinic vow. Usually the one who pays is more careful that he paid, while the one who gets paid is not always as careful. The Rabbanan therefore made her swear, in order to show that she was careful and knows she has not yet received payment. (87b)
Blemishes on Kesuvos
The Gemora inquires: What is the law if she establishes a blemish on her kesuvah in conjunction with witnesses (who say she only received one hundred zuz)? Do we say, if he would have paid her the rest, he probably would have also paid it with witnesses? Or do we say that he merely happened to have witnesses on the first hundred, but did not plan on more witnesses afterwards?

The Gemora attempts to answer this question from the following Beraisa. The Beraisa states: All who swear according to Torah law, swear and do not have to pay. The following swear and collect money: a worker, a victim of theft, one who was injured, someone whose opponent is suspected of lying when taking an oath, a storekeeper regarding his records, and someone who makes a blemish on a document without witnesses. The fact that the Beraisa only lists a case of a blemish “without witnesses” indicates that if there were witnesses this ruling would not apply.

The Gemora answers that the Beraisa could be saying the following. Not only a blemish with witnesses requires a vow, but even a blemish without witnesses requires a vow. Being that the woman has a document for the entire sum and could have tried to collect the entire amount, one might say that she should certainly be believed on the amount that she claims she is owed. Just as one who returns a lost object is believed without having to take a vow that they did not find anything more than what they returned, she too should be believed. The Beraisa therefore states that even someone who has a blemish on a document must take a vow to collect the outstanding debt.

The Gemora inquires: What about a woman who details how she received the hundred zuz in installments, even as small as less than a perutah (small coin)? Do we say that because she is clearly careful about her reckoning of the debt she should be believed without having to take a vow? Or do we say she is simply being clever? The Gemora leaves this question unresolved.

The Gemora inquires: What about a woman who lessens the amount stated in the kesuvah (meaning that she says that the amount stated is not what they really agreed on, but she did not receive any of that amount)? Is this like a blemish, or do we say a blemish is where she admits to receiving partial payment which she is not doing in this case?

The Gemora attempts to answer this question from the following Beraisa. The Beraisa states: A lady who lessens the amount of her Kesuvah collects without a vow. What is the case? If the kesuvah says that he owes one thousand which he claims he already paid, and she says that she never received anything but is really only owed one hundred, she collects the hundred without taking a vow.

The Gemora asks: Where does her ability to collect stem from? It can’t be from the kesuvah document she is holding, as she herself says it is (inaccurate and therefore) like a piece of clay?

Rava the son of Rabah answers: The case is where she says that the kesuvah was indeed signed and witnessed, but there was an understanding between them that she would only claim one hundred zuz.

Rami bar Chama thought to say that the case where one witness testifies that she received her kesuvah resulting in her having to take a vow is a Torah law. The Torah states “a single witness will not establish facts against a man for any sin and for any transgression.” This implies that he cannot establish a sin or transgression, but he can force the taking of a vow. This is like Mar’s statement: Wherever two witnesses obligate one to pay money, one witness obligates the taking of an oath.

Rava says that there are two reasons why this is incorrect. One reason is that all Torah vows make someone free from payment. In this case she is swearing and taking money! Additionally, one does not swear regarding a denial of owing land (a Kesuvah inherently is a lien on land).

Rava therefore states that this is a Rabbinical vow, established to appease her ex-husband. (87b)

[END]