Ketubot

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: