Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the Shevu'ah from which the Tana in our Mishnah exempts her is that of an administrator or of a store-keeper during her husband's lifetime - according to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, the Tana is referring to 'Pigmies K'suvasah' (a woman who received part payment of her Kesuvah whilst she was still married, and was claiming the rest of her Kesuvah after it was due.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah certainly agrees with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav however, disagrees with Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah - because he maintains, her husband only exempted her from Shevu'os that *he* makes her swear, but not those that she is Chayav at the hand of Beis-Din.

(c) Rav Mordechai assumes that the man only exempts his wife at the beginning of their marriage following a request on her part. That being the case, he says, it is logical for the woman to anticipate that she may require extra money and will need to ask her husband for an advance on her Kesuvah. But why should it enter her mind that her husband will appoint her an administrator, that it should be necessary to ask him in advance to exempt her from a Shevu'ah.

(a) Rav Ashi agreed with Rav Mordechai. In his opinion, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah refers to the Reisha of the Mishnah, like before. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav however, pertains to the Seifa ('Halchah mi'Kever Ba'alah ... Ein ha'Yorshin Mashbi'in Osah') which specifically speaks about the Shevu'ah of administration, but regarding the past. By establishing the Mishnah by a woman who was appointed an administrator *during her husband's lifetime* - Rav Yehudah Amar Rav is now coming to teach us that she will remain obligated to swear what she does between the time of her husband's death and his burial.

(b) Rav Masna. who disagrees with him, bases his opinion on a statement by the Neherda'i - who ruled that, even though we do not sell the property of orphans without first announcing it (to get the best price), when it comes to Karga (the king's head-tax for the orphans), Mezoni and Kevurah, we do, because the money is needed immediately, and there is no time to delay.

(c) The Neherda'i were referring to the Mezonos of the widow, the daughters and the orphans, who all require sustenance immediately.

(d) Rav Masna learned the Din of not making the widow swear on her transactions between her husband's death and his burial from the Neherda'i - because, like Karga, Mezoni and Kevurah, there is no time to waste and, as administrator, she would have had to act quickly. Consequently, making her swear at that stage is tantamount to forcing her to make a false oath.

(a) Rabah Amar Rebbi Chiya restricts our Mishnah, which permits the husband's heirs to demand a Shevu'ah from her even after he exempted her - to where the husband said 'Lo Neder Lo Shevu'ah', but 'Naki Neder, Naki Shevu'ah' implies that he exempts her altogether, even from the heirs (since the word 'Naki' means 'free').

(b) Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Chiya disagrees. According to him - 'Naki Neder Naki Shevu'ah' is an order to exempt herself through a Shevu'ah, and she will be Chayav to swear even if her husband demands it.

(c) Rebbi Zakai sent Mar Ukva a third opinion. He makes no distinction between 'Lo Neder ... ' and 'Naki Neder ... '. If however, he uses the Lashon mi'Nechasai', then, although *he* may no longer demand a Shevu'ah, *his heirs* may - whereas should he use the Lashon 'mi'Nichsaya Ilein', then not even his heirs can demand a Shevu'ah from her.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel cites a fourth opinion in the name of Aba Shaul ben Eima Miriam, who holds that, strictly speaking, whichever Lashon he uses, she ought to be exempt from a Shevu'ah whether it is he who demands it or his heirs. This is not the Halachah however - because the Chachamim decreed that, whoever claims money from orphans, is obligated to take an oath first.

(b) According to the second Lashon, Aba Shaul ben Eima Miriam is quoted directly in a Beraisa, and not by Amora'im - Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel's final comment is 'Halachah ke'ben Eima Miriam'.

(a) A Pigmies K'suvasah requires a Shevu'ah (as we learned above), and so does a woman who claims and one witness testifies that it is already paid. Besides a woman who claims from the orphans, a woman who claims from Nechasim Meshubadim (from Karka that someone purchased from her husband) and a divorced woman who claims when her ex-husband is overseas also require a Shevu'ah.

(b) The case of 'ha'Pogemes K'suvasah' is when - following her divorce, she comes to claim her Kesuvah, her ex-husband claims that she received her entire Kesuvah of a thousand Zuz when they were still married, whilst she counters that she received only half of it.

(c) A woman who claims from Nechasim Meshubadim cannot claim without a Shevu'ah - because, had she claimed from her husband, and *he* would have said to her 'Swear that I have not already paid you'! she would have been obligated to swear. So in the case of a purchaser, who cannot know whether she has already been paid or not, Beis-Din demand a Shevu'ah on his behalf.

(d) She is not automatically obligated to swear when claiming her Kesuvah from her husband (only when he asks her to do so) - because she is holding a Sh'tar.

6) Rebbi Shimon says - that as long as she claims her Kesuvah, the heirs can make her swear, but when she is not claiming it, they cannot.

7)

(a) Rami bar Chama thought that the Shevu'ah of 'ha'Pogemes K'suvasah' is a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa - because the Torah obligates anyone who admits to part of a claim ('Modeh be'Miktzas ha'Ta'anah') to swear on the rest.

(b) If it was - then under no circumstances, would we switch the Shevu'ah to her husband (but we would say that, either she swears or she does not receive her Kesuvah).

(c) Rav pointed out to him that for two reasons, it cannot be a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa: one, because min ha'Torah, it is always the defendant who swears, and not the plaintiff - the other, because min ha'Torah, one never swears on Shibud Karka, and since she claims with a Sh'tar, and every Sh'tar is tied up with a claim on Karka, and, there would be no Shevu'ah d'Oraysa when claiming a Kesuvah.

(d) The Rabbanan instituted a Shevu'ah here - because generally, it is the person who pays (the husband) who is careful to note all the details of the claim, not the person who is getting paid (the woman). Consequently, she might mistakenly believe that she only received half, when really, she received the entire Kesuvah.

9)

(a) The B'nei Yeshivah asked whether a 'Pigmies K'suvasah' with witnesses will need to swear when she ultimately claims the rest - whether, from the fact that she insists on witnesses, it is clear that she *is* being careful to note all the details, and can therefore be believed; or whether we say that she claimed with witnesses because they happened to be there, but not because she is any more particular than other women.

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Mishnah in Shevu'os, which lists among those who swear and take 'ha'Pogem Sh'taro she'Lo be'Eidim' - from which we can infer that *with witnesses*, she does not need to swear.

(c) In fact we conclude, there is no proof from there - because the Tana mentions 'she'Lo be'Eidim', not because of the inference - but because had he mentioned the case S'tam, we might have thought that it is only if she claims *with* witnesses, that she has to swear, but without them, she would be believed even without a Shevu'ah, because, seeing as she has a Sh'tar, she has a 'Migu': she could have denied outright that she had already received part of the money.

(a) The list of those who swear and take includes a hired worker, someone who is claiming from a thief, a man who is claiming from the man who wounded him, someone whose opponent is suspect of swearing falsely and a storekeeper and his ledger. The reason that governs two of the three middle cases is because the defendant is suspect of swearing falsely. We switch the Shevu'ah to the claimant in the first and last cases - because, due to pressing circumstances, they tend to become confused, and cannot be trusted not to swear erroneously.

(b) The case of ...

1. ... someone who is claiming from a thief is - where two witnesses witnessed the thief (who denies having stolen anything from the claimant) leaving his house with vessels hidden in his clothes, though they do not know what he stole. The thief is now obligated to swear that he did not steal what the claimant says he did.
2. ... the storekeeper and his ledger is - where the store-keeper wrote in his ledger that he had paid so-and-so's employees, as requested, whereas the employees insist that they have not been paid. Now both the employees and the storekeeper are claiming from the employer, who ought to wear in order to exempt himself.

(c) In fact - we switch the Shevu'ah to the two claimants, both of whom swear and take what they are due from the employer (as the Gemara explains in Shevu'os).

(a) A woman who is Pigmies K'suvasah in small amounts of less than a Perutah might, at a time, might later ...

1. ... be permitted to claim the rest without a Shevu'ah - because seeing as she is so scrupulously careful to record all the details of what she received (which she later presents to her ex-husband when claiming her Kesuvah), it seems that we can trust her not to err.
2. ... still require a Shevu'ah, notwithstanding her scrupulous care for those details - because it may well be that she is putting on an act to obtain half her Kesuvah a second time.

(b) We ask whether a 'Pocheses K'suvasah' also requires a Shevu'ah. A 'Pocheses K'suvasah' - is a woman who counters her husband's claim that she has already been paid, by denying having received anything at all. However, she admits that her Kesuvah is not two hundred Zuz (as is written on her Kesuvah), but one hundred.

(c) Based on the ruling of a Beraisa, we conclude that she does not require a Shevu'ah - because she did not admit to part of her husband's claim.

(d) Despite the fact that she herself seems to admit that the Sh'tar with which she is claiming the Manah is false, she nevertheless receives the Manah - because she also claims that the Sh'tar is an Amanah (written legally, but that they then agreed orally to reduce the amount on the Sh'tar to one Manah, and that he trusted her that she would not claim more).

(a) We initially think that the Shevu'ah in the case in our Mishnah 'Eid Echad Me'idah she'Hi Peru'ah' is a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa - because the Torah obligates anyone who denies the claim of one witness, to swear.

(b) We conclude, on the same grounds as in the previous case (of ha'Pogemes K'suvasah), that it cannot be a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa. The Rabbanan instituted a Shevu'ah here - in order to pacify her husband.