## Ketubot Daf 108b

###### Ketubot 108b:1
[Ketubot 108b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:1)

כִּיסּוּפָא מִי לֵית לֵיהּ? הָתָם נָמֵי אִית לֵיהּ הֲנָאָה בְּהָהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּמִיכְּסִיף מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**doesn’t he have shame** due to his failure to repay the debt? **There too,** in the case of one prohibited by a vow, **he has benefit;** namely, the **benefit that he is ashamed before him** until the loan is repaid.


###### Ketubot 108b:2
[Ketubot 108b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעָה: מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרוּבִּין — הַבָּנִים יוֹרְשִׁים, וְהַבָּנוֹת נִזּוֹנוֹת. וּבִנְכָסִים מוּעָטִים — הַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ, וְהַבָּנִים — יְחַזְּרוּ עַל הַפְּתָחִים. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֲנִי זָכָר הִפְסַדְתִּי?! אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Admon states** a dissenting opinion to that of the Rabbis in **seven** cases. The mishna elaborates: With regard to **one who died and left** behind both **sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit** the property **and the daughters are provided with sustenance** from it. **And with regard to a small estate,** which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, **the daughters are provided with sustenance and the sons** have neither inheritance nor sustenance, and therefore, if they have no other means with which to support themselves, they must **go round** begging **at the doors. Admon says: Because I am a male,** will **I lose out? Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon.**


###### Ketubot 108b:3
[Ketubot 108b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֲנִי זָכָר וְרָאוּי לַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה — הִפְסַדְתִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to Admon’s statement: Because I am a male will I lose out, the Gemara asks: **What is he saying?** What is the significance of the fact that one is male? **Abaye said** that **this is what he is saying: Because I am a male and,** unlike women, I **am fit to engage in Torah** study, should **I lose out?**


###### Ketubot 108b:4
[Ketubot 108b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאן דְּעָסֵיק בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא דְּיָרֵית, מַאן דְּלָא עָסֵיק בַּתּוֹרָה לָא יָרֵית?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֲנִי זָכָר וְרָאוּי לִירַשׁ בִּנְכָסִים מְרוּבִּין — הִפְסַדְתִּי בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him:** Is that to say that it is **one who is engaged in Torah** study **who inherits,** whereas **one** who is **not engaged in Torah** study **does not inherit?** What does the study of Torah have to do with the matter at hand? **Rather, Rava said** that **this is what** Admon **is saying: Because I am a male,** who has a greater right to the property by Torah law, **and** therefore **it is fitting** for me **to inherit when the estate is large,** will **I** now **lose out** entirely **in** a case of **a small estate?**


###### Ketubot 108b:5
[Ketubot 108b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה בַּקַּנְקַנִּים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַטְּעָנָה — יִשָּׁבַע. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הוֹדָאַת מִקְצָת מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The mishna cites another case involving a dispute between Admon and the Rabbis. With regard to **one who claims** that **another** owes him **jugs of oil, and** the other **admits to** the claim of **pitchers** but not the oil, **Admon says: Since he made a partial admission to the claim, he takes an oath** swearing that he owes only what he has admitted to and no more. **And the Rabbis say: The partial admission** in this case **is not of the same type as the claim,** as the claim specified oil and the admission referred to pitchers. **Rabban Gamliel said: I see** as correct **the statement of Admon.**


###### Ketubot 108b:6
[Ketubot 108b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְרַבָּנַן: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְהוֹדָה בִּשְׂעוֹרִין — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** One can **conclude from here** that according **to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** if one **claimed** that another owed him **wheat and barley, and** the other party partially **admitted** that the claim was true only with regard **to the barley,** he is **exempt,** just as he is exempt in this case when the claim was for jugs of oil and the admission referred only to jugs.


###### Ketubot 108b:7
[Ketubot 108b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:7)

לֵימָא תִּהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן — חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of** the opinion that **Rav Naḥman** said that **Shmuel said. As Rav Naḥman said** that **Shmuel said:** If one **claimed against** another that he owed him **wheat and barley, and** the other **admitted to** owing **one of** the types, **he is obligated** to take an oath, as he partially admitted to the claim.


###### Ketubot 108b:8
[Ketubot 108b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:8)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ מִדָּה. אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּאַדְמוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** The mishna is not referring **to** a case where one claimed that another owed him oil and pitchers. Rather, **he claimed** that another owed him a certain **measure** of oil, i.e., an amount of oil that would fill a certain number of jugs, while he did not claim the jugs at all. Consequently, the admission was not of the same type as the claim at all. The Gemara asks: **If so, what is the rationale** for the ruling **of Admon** that he must take an oath? Clearly, the admission and the claim do not refer to the same objects.


###### Ketubot 108b:9
[Ketubot 108b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״מְלֹא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי בְּבוֹרֶךָ״, שֶׁמֶן קָטָעֵין לֵיהּ, קַנְקַנִּים לָא קָטָעֵין לֵיהּ. ״עֲשָׂרָה כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן מְלֵאִים יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ״ — שֶׁמֶן וְקַנְקַנִּים קָטָעֵין לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: Everyone agrees that** in a case **where he said to him: I have ten jugfuls of oil in your pit, he is claiming oil from him** and **he is not claiming pitchers from him** at all. In this case, it is clear that admitting to owing pitchers is not a partial admission whatsoever that would lead to an obligation to take an oath. Similarly, if he said to him: **I have ten full jugs of oil with you, he is claiming from him** both **oil and pitchers,** and therefore if the other party concedes to owing pitchers, this is a partial admission to the claim and everyone agrees that he must take an oath.


###### Ketubot 108b:10
[Ketubot 108b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:10)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״עֲשָׂרָה כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ״. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לְשׁוֹן קַנְקַנִּים, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לְשׁוֹן קַנְקַנִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they disagree** in the mishna is in a case **where he said to him** simply: **I have ten jugs of oil with you. Admon says: This expression includes** a reference to the **pitchers,** while **the Rabbis hold** that **this expression does not include** a reference to the **pitchers.**


###### Ketubot 108b:11
[Ketubot 108b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:11)

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּאֵין בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לְשׁוֹן קַנְקַנִּים, הָא יֵשׁ בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לְשׁוֹן קַנְקַנִּים — חַיָּיב. לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם — פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **Rather, the reason** for the ruling of the Rabbis **is** specifically **that the expression does not include** a reference to **pitchers,** which indicates that if **the expression includes** a reference to **pitchers,** one is **obligated** to take an oath. If so, **let us say** that **this is a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said:** If one **claimed** against another that he owed him **wheat and barley, and** the other **admitted to one of** the types, **he is exempt** from an oath.


###### Ketubot 108b:12
[Ketubot 108b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:12)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ רִימּוֹן בִּקְלִיפָּתוֹ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: רִימּוֹן בְּלֹא קְלִיפָּתוֹ לָא מִינְּטַר, שֶׁמֶן מִינְּטַר בְּלֹא קַנְקַנִּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said:** The case of the mishna is not similar to that of wheat and barley, as those two types are not connected to one another. Rather, the case of jugs of oil **is** more **like** that of **one who claimed** that **the other** owed him **a pomegranate in its peel,** as the jugs are as necessary for the oil as the peel of a pomegranate protecting its fruit. **Ravina strongly objects to this:** The comparison between these cases does not bear close scrutiny. **A pomegranate without its peel cannot be preserved,** and therefore it is obvious that when one claims a pomegranate, he must be referring to the peel as well. By contrast, **oil can be preserved without** the **pitchers,** as it can be placed in another receptacle.


###### Ketubot 108b:13
[Ketubot 108b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:13)

אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲשָׂרָה כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: שֶׁמֶן — לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם, קַנְקַנִּים נָמֵי — חַמְשָׁה אִית לָךְ, וְחַמְשָׁה לֵית לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, here we are dealing with** a case where one **said to** another: **I have ten jugs of oil with you, and the other said to him:** With regard to the **oil, these matters never occurred;** I never borrowed oil from you. Concerning the **pitchers as well, you do have five** of them with me and these I admit I took from you, **but you do not have** the other **five** you claim.


###### Ketubot 108b:14
[Ketubot 108b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:14)

אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לְשׁוֹן קַנְקַנִּים, וּמִגּוֹ דְּקָמִשְׁתְּבַע אַקַּנְקַנִּים מִשְׁתְּבַע נָמֵי אַשֶּׁמֶן עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לְשׁוֹן קַנְקַנִּים. מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה לוֹ — לֹא טָעֲנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Admon says: This expression includes** a reference to **pitchers, and since he takes an oath about the pitchers,** as he partially admitted to owing them, **he takes an oath about the oil as well, by means of an extension** of the first oath. **And the Rabbis hold** that **this expression does not include** a reference to the **pitchers,** and therefore **that which** the first person **claimed from him** the second person **did not admit to** at all, **and that which** the second person **admitted to,** the first person **had not claimed from him.** The second individual denied owing any oil, and as for his partial admission with regard to the pitchers, there was no claim about pitchers at all. Consequently, no oath is required whatsoever.


###### Ketubot 108b:15
[Ketubot 108b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ, וּפָשַׁט לוֹ אֶת הָרֶגֶל —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The mishna states another case involving a ruling of Admon. With regard to one who promises and **apportions money for his son-in-law** as a dowry, **and he went bankrupt,** and he now claims that he does not have the money to fulfill his financial obligations,