Ketubot

has he not [some benefit in being spared] shame?  Another reading:  There also he has benefit, the benefit that he [need not] feel embarrassed in the other's presence. MISHNAH. ADMON LAID DOWN SEVEN RULINGS: — 4 IF A MAN DIES AND LEAVES SONS AND DAUGHTERS, IF THE ESTATE IS LARGE,  THE SONS INHERIT IT AND THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED [FROM IT]  AND IF THE ESTATE IS SMALL,  THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED FROM IT, AND THE SONS CAN GO BEGGING.  ADMON SAID, 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE!'  R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL. GEMARA. What does he  mean?  — Abaye replied: He means this; 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE and capable of engaging in the study of the Torah?' Said Raba to him: Would, then, he who is engaged in the study of the Torah be entitled to heirship, while he who is not engaged in the study of the Torah not be entitled to be heir?  — But, said Raba, it is this that he  meant: AM I BECAUSE I AM A MALE, and entitled to be heir in the case of a large estate, TO BE THE LOSER [of my rights] in the case of a small estate?' MISHNAH. IF A MAN CLAIMED FROM ANOTHER JARS OF OIL AND [THE LATTER] ADMITTED HIS CLAIM TO [EMPTY] JARS, ADMON RULED: SINCE HE ADMITTED A PORTION OF THE CLAIM HE MUST TAKE AN OATH,  BUT THE SAGES SAID: THE ADMISSION OF THE PORTION [OF THE CLAIM] IS NOT OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM.  R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL. GEMARA. From this  it may be inferred that, according to the Rabbis,  [a man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted the claim to the barley is exempt [from oath]. Must it then be said that this presents an objection against a ruling which R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel? For R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted one of them is liable [to an oath]?  — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab; [Our Mishnah deals with the case of one from] whom a certain quantity  [of oil] was claimed.  If so,  what could Admon's reason be? — This, however, said Raba, [is the explanation]: Both  [agree] that where [the claimant] said to the other, 'I have the contents  of ten jars of oil in your tank',  he claims from him the oil but not the jars, [and if he said], 'You owe me  ten jars full of oil', he claims both the oil and the jars; they only differ where [the claimant] said to him, 'You owe me  ten jars of oil'. Admon maintains that in this expression a claim for the jars also is implied, and the Rabbis  contend that in this expression the jars were not implied. The reason then  is because 'in this expression the jars were not implied', but if the jars had been implied in this expression he would apparently have been liable [to the oath]. Must it consequently be presumed that this presents an objection against a ruling of R. Hiyya b. Abba? For R. Hiyya b. Abbah  ruled: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted one of them, is exempt [from an oath]? — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: [The making of such a claim]  is the same as if one had claimed from another a pomegranate with its peel.  To this Rabina demurred: A pomegranate without its peel cannot be preserved, but oil can well be preserved without jars!  [The fact] however, is that  we are here  dealing [with the case of a man] who said to another, 'You owe me  ten jars of oil', and the other replied, 'The [claim for the] oil is a pure invention,  [and as to] the jars, too, I owe you  five and you have no [claim to any other] five'. Admon maintains that this expression implies a claim to the jars also and, since [the defendant] must take an oath in respect of the jars,  he must also take an oath by implication  in respect of the oil, while the Rabbis  are of the opinion that such an expression does not imply a claim for the jars [so that] what the one claims  the other did not admit, and what the latter admitted  the former did not claim. MISHNAH. IF A MAN PROMISED  A SUM OF MONEY TO HIS [PROSPECTIVE] SON-IN-LAW AND THEN DEFAULTED,