Ketubot

If he  is clever he may bring her under the obligation  of a Pentateuchal oath:  He pays her  the amount of her kethubah in the presence of one witness, associates the first witness  with the second  and then treats his first payments  as a loan.  R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: How can one associate the first witness with the second one?  — But, said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi, [he might proceed in this manner:]  He pays her the amount of her kethubah in the presence of the first witness and a second one, and then treats his first payments as a loan. R. Ashi demurred: Might she not still assert that there were two kethubahs?  — But, said R. Ashi: He might inform them  [of the facts]. FROM ASSIGNED PROPERTY. Elsewhere we have learned; And so also orphans cannot exact payment unless they first take an oath.  From whom?  If it be suggested. From a borrower  [it may be objected;] Since  their father would have received payment without an oath  should they require an oath?  — It is this, however, that was meant: And so also orphans cannot exact payment from orphans unless they first take an oath. R. Zerika stated in the name of Rab Judah: This  has been taught only [in the case] where the orphans  stated, 'Father told us; I have borrowed and paid up'. If, however, they said, 'Father told us: I have never borrowed' [the others] cannot exact payment even if they take an oath. Raba demurred: On the contrary. wherever a man says. 'I have not borrowed', it is as if he had said, 'I have not paid'!  — [The fact,] however, [is that] if such a statement  was at all made it was made in these terms: R. Zerika stated in the name of Rab Judah. This  has been taught only [in a case] where the orphans  stated, 'Father told us: I have borrowed and paid up'. If, however, they said — 'Father told us: I have never borrowed', [the orphans of the creditor] may exact payment from them without an oath, because to say, 'I have not borrowed' is equivalent to saying, 'I have not paid'. AND  [FROM THE PROPERTY OF] AN ABSENT HUSBAND [A WOMAN] MAY NOT RECOVER [THE PAYMENT OF HER KETHUBAH] UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH. R. Aha, the governor of the castle,  stated: A case  was once brought before R. Isaac Nappaha  at Antioch  and he made this statement, 'This  has been taught only in respect of the kethubah of a woman [who receives preferential treatment] in order to maintain pleasant relations  [between her and her husband] but not [in respect of] a creditor. Raba, however, stated in the name of R. Nahman; Even a creditor [has been given the same privilege],  in order that every person shall not take his friend's money and abscond and settle in a country beyond the sea and thus [cause the creditor's] door to be shut in the face of intending borrowers. R. SIMEON RULED: WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH etc. What is R. Simeon referring to? — R. Jeremiah replied. To this; AND  [FROM THE PROPERTY OF] AN ABSENT HUSBAND [A WOMAN] MAY NOT RECOVER [THE PAYMENT OF HER KETHUBAH] UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH [which implies that] there is no difference between [a claim] for maintenance and one for a kethubah,'  and [in opposition to this ruling] R. Simeon came to lay down the rule that WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER