Kesubos - Daf 88
- אי פיקח הוא מייתי לה לידי שבועה דאורייתא
Rav Pappa said: אי פיקח הוא מייתי לה לידי שבועה דאורייתא – If a husband is a clever, he can bring his former wife to be chayav with a shavuah d’Oraysa. Rashi explains that a shavuah d’Oraysa is more severe than a d’Rabbanon one since the person must swear in Hashem’s name and hold a Sefer Torah. With a d’Rabbanon shavuah one only accepts a curse upon himself if he lies. The husband gives her the kesubah payment in the presence of one witness, and then he combines the first witness with the latter witness. Rashi explains that he brings them both to Beis Din, so that if she denies having received payment, there will be two witnesses against her, and then he establishes the first monies as a loan which she must repay. If she denies the former payment was made, the first witness will testify that she was paid, which will obligate her to make a shavuah d’Oraysa. Rav Shisha brei d’Rav Idi objected to this, asking how can the husband combine the two witnesses who did not see the same thing? The Gemara concludes that the plan should be where the husband gives the kesubah payment a second time in the presence of the first and latter witness, and then establish the first monies as a loan. Rav Ashi clarifies, הוא דמודע להו – it is effective where the man informs the two witnesses of his plan before making the second payment. This way the woman will not be able to claim there were two kesubah payments.
- Wife and lender collecting their kesubah or loan in the absence of the husband or borrower
The Mishnah had stated that if a wife comes to collect her kesubah not in the presence of her husband, לא תפרע אלא בשבועה – she may collect only with an oath that she was not paid. Rav Acha Sar HaBirah said: There was an incident like this that came before Rebbe Yitzchak in Antochya, and he stated: They taught that collection is allowed in the debtor’s absence only regarding a woman’s kesubah, משום חינא – because of favor, which Rashi explained earlier is so that men will find favor in the eyes of women who will marry them and not fear that they will not be able to collect their kesubos. But an ordinary baal chov may not collect from the debtor’s property in his absence. But Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman: The Mishnah’s ruling does apply as well to an ordinary baal chov, שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד נוטל מעותיו של חברו והולך ויושב במדינת הים ואתה נועל דלת בפני לווין – So that everyone will not take his friend’s money and go live overseas, and you will close the door in the face of borrowers, because lenders would be discouraged from lending.
- Clarifying Rebbe Shimon’s position of כל זמן שהיא תובעת כתובתה היורשין משביעין אותה
In the Mishnah, Rebbe Shimon said: כל זמן שהיא תובעת כתובתה היורשין משביעין אותה – Whenever she claims her kesubah, the heirs may impose a shavuah on her, ואם אינה תובעת כתובתה אין היורשין משביעין אותה – but if she does not claim her kesubah, the heirs may not impose a shavuah on her. The Gemara asks what case Rebbe Shimon was referring to, and after numerous explanations are rejected, the Gemara concludes that the first part of Rebbe Shimon’s statement means that even in a case where the husband exempted her from an oath when collecting from the yesomim, she must still take an oath when she is collecting her kesubah. Rav Pappa teaches Rebbe Shimon’s latter statement is coming to teach that he argues against the Tanna Kamma and Rebbe Eliezer in the earlier Mishnah and holds that a wife is never subject to a shavuas apaptropos, - the “administrator’s oath,” even if the husband appointed her and did not exempt her from oaths.
