Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 88 - Highlights

Forcing her to Take a Biblical Oath

Rav Papa said (regarding the case where there is one witness testifying that the woman collected her kesuvah): A wise husband could bring his wife to take a Biblical oath with the following method: He pays her the kesuvah (a second time) in front of another witness (and now, if se will deny receiving the kesuvah, there will be two witnesses against her) and he claims that the first monies that he paid her were actually a loan (and if she denies the loan, there will be one witness testifying against her; she will be Biblically obligated to take an oath; this will be a case of taking an oath in order to retain the money and it will be a case which doesn’t involve a lien on land)!

Rav Shisha the son of Rav Idi asks: How can the two witnesses combine to offer testimony against her (they did not observe the same event)?

Rather, he explains: The husband gives her the kesuvah (a second time) in front of the first witness and a second one and he claims that the first monies that he paid her were actually a loan!

Rav Ashi asks: The woman will be able to defend this claim by stating that there were two kesuvos (and there was no loan here at all)?

Rather, he explains: The husband notifies the two witnesses his intentions prior to giving her the money a second time. (87b – 88a)

Orphan’s Collecting with an Oath

The Mishna had stated: If she collects from encumbered properties or from the properties of orphans, she is required to take an oath (that she didn’t previously collect her kesuvah).

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Shavuos: When orphans collect a debt (owed to their father), they are required to take an oath. This is referring to a case where the orphans are attempting to collect a debt (owed to their father) from orphans (of the borrower).

Rav Zereika said in the name of Rav Yehudah: This ruling is only applicable in a case where the borrower’s children said, “Our father told us, ‘I borrowed the money, but I repaid it.’” However, if they said, “Our father told us, ‘I never borrowed the money,’” the lender’s orphans may collect even without an oath. This is because anyone who says that he did not borrow is as if he said that he did not repay it (and since it is evident (from the document) that he did in fact borrow, the orphans are required to pay). (88a)

Collecting a Debt
when the Debtor is not Present

The Mishna had stated: If the woman collects her kesuvah when the husband is not present, she is required to take an oath.

Rav Acha said: There was such an incident that came before Rabbi Yitzchak from Antochya, and he said: Only in regards to a woman’s kesuvah, may she collect even though the husband is not present. This is because of favor (in order that the women will not be concerned that they will not be able to collect their kesuvah, and therefore, they will not refrain from getting married). However, a creditor is not able to collect from the debtor when he is not present.

Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman: Even a creditor may collect a debt without the debtor being present. This is because, otherwise, people will borrow money and go overseas, which would result in the fact that people will stop lending money. (88a)
Rabbi Shimon’s Disagreement

The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Shimon said: If she demands her kesuvah, the inheritors may impose an oath on her; if she does not demand her kesuvah, they may not impose an oath on her.

The Gemora asks: To what case is Rabbi Shimon referring to?

Rabbi Yirmiyah answers: It is referring to the last ruling of the Mishna: The Tanna Kamma said: If the woman collects her kesuvah when the husband is not present, she is required to take an oath. This is applicable whether the woman is demanding that a portion of the husband’s property should be sold in order for her to be supported with the proceeds or whether she is demanding the money for her kesuvah (for the husband divorced her from abroad). Rabbi Shimon maintains that whenever she demands her kesuvah, the inheritors may impose an oath on her; if she does not demand her kesuvah, but rather, she is demanding to be supported, they may not impose an oath on her.

This argument would be the very same disagreement as Chanan and the sons of the Kohanim Gedolim had (which is cited in a Mishna later (104a)).

Rav Sheishes asks: Why does the Mishna state, “the inheritors may impose an oath on her”? It is the Beis Din that is imposing the oath, not the inheritors (for the husband is still alive in this case)?

Rather, Rav Sheishes explains: They are referring to an earlier ruling of the Mishna: The Tanna Kamma said: If she went from her husband’s grave to her father’s house, or she returned to her father-in-law’s house, but she did not become an administrator, the inheritors cannot impose an oath on her (since the husband released her from any vows), and if she did become an administrator, the inheritors may impose an oath on her regarding the future, but they cannot impose an oath on her regarding the past. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and maintains that whenever she demands her kesuvah, the inheritors may impose an oath on her; if she does not demand her kesuvah, they may not impose an oath on her even if she is an administrator; this is because she is the agent of their father and Rabbi Shimon holds that she has been released from taking the administrator’s oath).

This argument would be the very same disagreement as Abba Shaul and the Rabbis had (which is cited in a Mishna in Gittin (52a)).

Abaye asks: Why does Rabbi Shimon say, “whenever she demands her kesuvah,” implying that he is being more strict? He should have said, “if she demands her kesuvah.”

Rather, Abaye explains: They are referring to an earlier ruling of the Mishna: The Tanna Kamma said: If the husband wrote a document for his wife saying that he is releasing her from any vows or oaths that may come about later, he may not impose an oath on her. If he writes that he is releasing her from any vows or oaths that his inheritors wish to impose on her, they may not compel her to take an oath. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and maintains that whenever she demands her kesuvah, the inheritors may impose an oath on her (even if the husband explicitly released her from this vow).

Rav Papa asks: What is the second half of Rabbi Shimon’s statement coming to say?

Rather, Rav Papa explains: Rabbi Shimon is disagreeing with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling as well. Rabbi Eliezer said that a woman may be forced to swear regarding her spindle and her dough. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and maintains that the woman is never forced to take the administrator’s oath (this is because she will ultimately be compelled to swear at the time that she demands payment for the kesuvah). (88a – 88b)

[END]