Parallel
כתובות 86
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
She might remit her mother's kethubah in favour of her father, and then she may inherit it frons him'. When she heard this she went and remitted it [in her father's favour]. Thereupon R. Nahman said: 'We have put ourselves in the [unenviable] position of legal advisers'. What was the opinion that he held at first and what made him change it afterwards? — At first he thought [of the Scriptural text.] And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh, but ultimately he realized that [the position of] a noted personality is different [from that of the general public]. [Reverting to] the main text; Samuel said, 'If a man sold a bond of indebtedness to another person, and then he released the debtor, the latter is released; and, moreover, even [a creditor's] heir may release [the debtor].' Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua; But if he is clever he rattles some coins in his face and [the latter] writes the bond in his name. Amemar said; He who adjudicates [liability] in an action [for damage] caused indirectly would here also adjudge damages to the amount [recoverable] on a valid bond, but he who does not adjudicate [liability] in an action for damage caused indirectly would here adjudge damages only to the extent of the value of the mere scrap of paper. Such an action was [once tried] when through Rafram's insistence R. Ashi was compelled to order the collection [of damages] in the manner of a beam that is fit for decorative mouldings. Amemar stated in the name of R. Hama; If a man has against him, the claim of his wife's kethubah and that of a creditor, and he owns a plot of land and has also ready money, the creditor's claim is settled by means of the ready money while the woman's claim is settled by means of the land, the creditor being treated in accordance with his rights, and the wife in accordance with her rights. If, however, he owns only one plot of land and it suffices to meet the claim of one only, it is to be given to the creditor; it is not to be given to the wife. What is the reason? — More than the man's desire to marry is the woman's desire to be married. Said R. Papa to R. Hama, Is it a fact that you have stated in the name of Raba; If a man, against whom there was a monetary claim owned a plot of land, and who, when his creditor approached hini with the claim for repayment, replied, 'Collect your loan from the land', he is to be ordered [by the court,] 'You must yourself go and sell it, bring [the net proceeds] and deliver it to him'? 'No', the other replied. 'Tell me then', [the first said to him,] 'how the incident had actually occurred'. '[The debtor]' the other replied, 'alleged that his money belonged to an idolater; and since he acted in an improper manner he was similarly treated in an improper manner'. Said K. Kahana to R. Papa; According to the statement you made that the repayment of [a debt to] a creditor is a religious act, what is the ruling where [a debtor] said, 'I am not disposed to perform a religious act'? — 'We', the other replied. 'have learned: This applies only to negative precepts, but in the case of positive precepts, as for instance, when a man is told, 'Make a sukkah' and he does not make it [or, 'Perform the commandment of the] lulab' and he does not perform it
—
he is flogged until his soul departeth. Rami b. Hama enquired of R. Hisda: What is the ruling where [a husband said to his wife,] 'Here is your letter of divorce but you shall be divorced thereby only after [the lapse of] thirty days'. and she went and laid it down at the side of a public domain? — 'She', the other replied, 'is not divorced, by reason of the ruling of Rab and Samuel, both of whom have stated, 'It must be heaped up and lie in a public domain' and the sides of a public domain are regarded as the public domain itself. On the contrary! She should be deemed divorced by reason of a ruling of R. Nahman, who stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, 'If a man said to another, "Pull this cow, but it shall pass into your possession Only after thirty days", he legally acquires it even if it stands at the time in the meadow'; and a meadow presumably has, has it not, the same status as the sides of a public domain? — No; a meadow has a status of its own and the sides of a public domain, too, have a status of their own. Another version: He said to him, 'She is divorced by reason of a ruling of R. Nahman, the sides of a public domain having the same status as a meadow'. — 'On the contrary! She should not be regarded as divorced by reason of a ruling of Rab and Samuel. for have not the sides of a public domain the same status as a public domain?' — 'No; a public domain has a status of its own and the sides of a public domain, too, have a status of their own'. MISHNAH. IF A HUSBAND SET UP HIS WIFE AS A SHOPKEEPER OR APPOINTED HER AS HIS ADMINISTRATRIX HE MAY IMPOSE UPON HER AN OATH WHENEVER HE DESIRES TO DO SO. R. ELIEZER SAID; [SUCH AN OATH MAY BE IMPOSED UPON HER] EVEN IN RESPECT OF HER SPINDLE AND HER DOUGH. GEMARA. The question was asked; Does R. Eliezer mean [that the oath is to be imposed] by implication or does he mean that it may be imposed directly? Come and hear: They said to R. Eliezer, 'No one can live with a serpent in the same basket'. Now if you will assume that R. Eliezer meant the imposition of a direct oath one can well understand the argument; but if you were to suggest [that he meant the oath to be imposed] by implication only, what [it may be objected] could this matter to her? — She might tell him, 'Since you are so particular with me I am unable to live with you'. Come and hear: If a man did not exempt his wife from a vow and from an oath and set her up as his saleswoman or appointed her as his administratrix, he may impose upon her an oath whenever he desires to do so. If, however, he did not set her up as his saleswoman and did not appoint her as his administratrix, he may not impose any oath upon her. R. Eliezer said: Although he did not set her up as his saleswoman and did not appoint her as his administratrix, he may nevertheless impose upon her an oath wherever he desires to do so, because there is no woman who was not administratrix for a short time, at least, during the lifetime of her husband, in respect of her spindle and her dough. Thereupon they said to him: No one can live with a serpent in the same basket. Thus you may infer that [R. Eliezer meant that the oath may he imposed] directly. This is conclusive. MISHNAH. [IF A HUSBAND] GAVE TO HIS WIFE AN UNDERTAKING IN WRITING, 'I HAVE NO CLAIM UPON YOU FOR EITHER VOW OR OATH', HE CANNOT IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER. HE MAY, HOWEVER, IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER HEIRS AND UPON HER LAWFUL SUCCESSORS. [IF HE WROTE,] I HAVE NO CLAIM FOR EITHER VOW OR OATH EITHER UPON YOU, OR UPON YOUR HEIRS OR UPON YOUR LAWFUL SUCCESSORS', HE MAY NOT IMPOSE AN OATH EITHER UPON HER OR UPON HER HEIRS OR UPON HER LAWFUL SUCCESSORS. HIS HEIRS, HOWEVER, MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER, UPON HER HEIRS OR UPON HER LAWFUL SUCCESSORS. [IF THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING READ.] 'NEITHER I NOR MY HEIRS NOR MY LAWFUL SUCCESSORS SHALL HAVE ANY CLAIM UPON YOU OR UPON YOUR HEIRS OR UPON YOUR LAWFUL SUCCESSORS FOR EITHER VOW OR OATH', NEITHER HE NOR HIS HEIRS NOR HIS LAWFUL SUCCESSORS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH EITHER UPON HER OR UPON HER HEIRS OR UPON HER LAWFUL SUCCESSORS. IF SHE WENT FROM HER HUSBAND'S GRAVE TO HER FATHER'S HOUSE, OR RETURNED TO HER FATHER-IN-LAW'S HOUSE BUT WAS NOT MADE ADMINISTRATRIX, THE HEIRS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER; BUT IF SHE WAS MADE ADMINISTRATRIX THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER IN RESPECT OF [HER ADMINISTRATION] DURING THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF THE PAST. GEMARA. What is the nature of the oath? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab:
—