ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 87
KESUVOS 87 - Sponsored anonymously in honor of Yakir and Mira Wachstock, in
honor of their upcoming marriage.
(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
(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
(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
(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
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.
(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.
Granted, even a woman who denies having received anything has to swear if
her husband claims that he has already paid her Kesuvah - but only if he
specifically asks her to, whereas a 'Pigmies K'suvasah' has to swear even if
he does not.
(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.
(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
(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.
(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
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.