Ketubot

BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS CANNOT IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER. And they  [in fact] differ on the same principles as those on which Hanan and the sons of the High Priests differed; for we learned: If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance, she must, Hanan ruled, take an oath at the end  but not at the beginning.  The sons of the High Priests, however, differed from him and said that she must take an oath both at the beginning  and at the end.  R. Simeon [is thus of the same opinion] as Hanan while the Rabbis  [hold the same view] as the sons of the High Priests. R. Shesheth demurred; Then  [instead of saying,] THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER, It should have said, 'Beth din  may impose an oath upon her'! — The fact, however, is, said R. Shesheth.[that R. Simeon referred] to this:  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 exact an oath from her in respect of [her administration] during the subsequent period but may not exact one concerning the past;  and [in reference to this ruling] R. Simeon came to lay down the rule that WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS MAY ENACT AN OATH FROM HER BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS CANNOT IMPOSE AN OATH  UPON HER. And they  differ on the same principles as those on which Abba Saul and the Rabbis differed; for we have learned: An administrator whom the father of the orphans had appointed must take an oath,  but one whom the Beth din have appointed need not take an oath. Abba Saul, however, said, The rule is to be reversed: If Beth din appointed him he must take an oath but if the father of the orphans appointed him he need not take an oath.  R. Simeon [thus holds the same view] as Abba Saul  and the Rabbis [in our Mishnah hold the same view] as the Rabbis.  Abaye demurred: Then  [rather than say,] WHEREVER SHE CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH  it should have said,  'If  she claims'.  The fact, however, is, said Abaye, [that R. Simeon referred] to this: [If a husband] gave to his wife an undertaking in writing, 'I renounce my claim upon you for either vow or oath', he cannot impose an oath upon her etc. [If the written undertaking read,] 'Neither I nor my heirs nor my lawful successors will have any claim upon you. or your heirs or 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;  and [in reference to this ruling]  R. Simeon came to lay down the rule  that  WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS MAY ENACT AN OATH FROM HER. And they  [consequently] differ on the same principles as those on which Abba Saul the son of Imma Miriam, and the Rabbis differed.  R. Simeon agreeing with Abba Saul and the Rabbis [of our Mishnah] with the Rabbis.  R. Papa demurred: This would satisfactorily explain [the expression] WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH.  What, however, can be said [in justification of] BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER KETHUBAH?  The fact, however, is, said R. Papa, [R. Simeon's ruling was intended] to oppose the views of both R. Eliezer and those who differed from him. MISHNAH. IF SHE  PRODUCED A LETTER OF DIVORCE WITHOUT A KETHUBAH