Ketubot

R. SIMEON RULED: WHENEVER  SHE  CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS CAN NOT IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER. GEMARA. Rami b. Hama wished to assume that the OATH  was Pentateuchal,  since [it is a case where] one [of two persons] claims two hundred [zuz] and the other admits one hundred [the defence] being an admission of a part of the claim,  and whoever admits part of a claim must  take an oath.  Said Raba: There are two objections to this assumption: In the first place, all who take an oath in accordance with Pentateuchal law take the oath and do not pay,  while she  takes the oath and receives payment. And, secondly, no oath may be imposed  in respect of the denial of [a claim that is] secured  on landed property.  [The fact,] however, is, said Raba, [that the oath is only] Rabbinical. As it is the person who pays that is careful to remember the details while he who receives payment is not, the Rabbis have imposed an oath upon her  that she might be careful to recollect the details. The question was raised; What if a woman impaired her kethubah by [admitting that she received part payment in the presence of] witnesses? [Is it assumed that] were [her husband] to pay her [the balance] he would do it in the presence of witnesses,  or [is it rather assumed that] it was a mere coincidence [that witnesses were present when the first payment was made]?  — Come and hear;  All who take an oath in accordance with Pentateuchal law, take the oath and do not pay,  but the following take an oath and receive payment; A hired labourer,  a man who was robbed  or wounded,  [any claimant] whose opponent is suspected of [taking a false] oath  and a shopkeeper  with his [accounts] book,  and also [a creditor] who impaired his bond [the first instalment of which had been paid] in the absence of witnesses.  Thus only  [where the first instalment was paid] 'in the absence of witnesses'  but not where it was paid in the presence of witnesses!  — This is a case of 'there is no question …'  There is no question  that [when the first instalment was paid] in the presence of witnesses she must take an oath; when, however, [it was paid] in the absence of witnesses, it might be assumed that she has [the same privilege] as one who restores a lost object [to its owner]  and should, therefore, receive payment without taking an oath. It was, therefore, taught [that the oath is nevertheless not to be dispensed with]. The question was raised: What if a woman impaired her kethubah [by including in the amount she admitted] sums amounting to  less than the value of a perutah?  Is it assumed that since she  is so careful in her statements she must be speaking the truth  or is it possible that she  is merely acting cunningly?  — This remains unsolved. The question was raised: What if a woman declares her [original] kethubah to have been less [than the amount recorded in the written document]?  Is it assumed that such a woman is in the same position as the woman who impaired [her kethubah] or is it possible [that the two cases are unlike, since] the woman who impairs [her kethubah] admits a part [of the sum involved]  while this one does not admit a part [of the sum involved]?  — Come and hear: A woman who declares that her [original] kethubah was less [than the amount recorded in the document] receives payment without an oath. How [is this to be understood]? If her kethubah was for a thousand zuz  and when her husband said to her, 'You have already received your kethubah,'  she replies. 'I have not received it,  but [the original kethubah] was only for one maneh,'  she is to receive payment without an oath. Wherewith, however, does she collect [the amount she claims]? Obviously with that document.  But is not that document a mere potsherd?  — Raba the son of Rabbah replied: [This is a case] where she states, 'There was an arrangement of mutual trust between me and him'. IF ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES AGAINST HER THAT [HER KETHUBAH] HAS BEEN PAID [etc.]. Rami b. Hama wished to assume that the OATH was Pentateuchal, for it is written In Scripture, One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin;  it is only for ally iniquity or for any sin that he may not rise up, but he may rise up [to cause the imposition upon one of the obligation] of an oath. And, furthermore, a Master has laid down: In all cases where two witnesses render a man liable to pay money, one witness renders him liable to take an oath.  Said Raba: There are two objections to this assumption. In the first place, all who take an oath in accordance with Pentateuchal law, do so and do not pay,  while she takes an oath and receives payment; and, secondly, no oath may be imposed in respect of the denial of [a claim that is] secured on landed property. [The fact], however, is, said Raba [that the oath is only] Rabbinical, [having been enacted] to appease the mind of the husband. R. Papa said: