## Ketubot Daf 87b

###### Ketubot 87b:1
[Ketubot 87b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:1)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא תּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ — הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ, וְאִם אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ — אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she claims** payment of **her marriage contract, the heirs administer an oath to her. And if she does not claim** payment of **her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.**


###### Ketubot 87b:2
[Ketubot 87b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** סָבַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְמֵימַר שְׁבוּעָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — דְּקָא טָעֵין מָאתַיִם וְקָא מוֹדֵה לֵיהּ בְּמֵאָה, הָוְיָא לֵיהּ הוֹדָאָה בְּמִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה, וְכׇל הַמּוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה — יִשָּׁבַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rami bar Ḥama thought to say** that the oath of a woman who vitiates her marriage contract is **an oath** required **by Torah** law, which is the oath of one who makes a partial admission, **as** the husband **claims** that he paid her **two hundred and she concedes to him with regard to one hundred. This is a partial admission of the claim, and** the principle is that **whoever admits to part of a claim must take an oath** according to Torah law to receive the remaining amount.


###### Ketubot 87b:3
[Ketubot 87b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁתֵּי תְשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר: חֲדָא — דְּכׇל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין, וְהִיא נִשְׁבַּעַת וְנוֹטֶלֶת. וְעוֹד: אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל כְּפִירַת שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** There are **two answers in the matter,** in refutation of your argument: **One** response is **that anyone who** is obligated to **take an oath** that is enumerated **in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay.** By Torah law, one takes an oath only to exempt himself from payment, **and** in this case **she takes an oath and takes** her money. **And furthermore,** there is a principle that **one does not take an oath with regard to a denial of a lien on land.** The oaths of the Torah apply only to moveable property, not land. This means that if a claim involves a lien on land of any form, the oath of a partial admission does not apply, and a marriage contract includes a lien on land.


###### Ketubot 87b:4
[Ketubot 87b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מִדְּרַבָּנַן, דְּפָרַע — דָּיֵיק, דְּמִיפְּרַע — לָא דָּיֵיק, וּרְמוֹ רַבָּנַן שְׁבוּעָה עֲלַהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִידּוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** This oath is **by rabbinic** law. It was instituted because the one **who pays is precise** and recalls that he paid his debt, whereas the one **who was paid is not precise.** When the husband claims to have paid her, he remembers clearly what happened, **and** therefore **the Sages imposed** the obligation of **an oath upon her, so that she should be precise** and remember exactly what occurred.


###### Ketubot 87b:5
[Ketubot 87b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ בְּעֵדִים, מַהוּ? אִם אִיתָא דְּפָרְעָה — בְּעֵדִים הֲוָה פָּרַע לַהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִיתְרְמוֹיֵי אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In a case where **a woman vitiates her marriage contract** by accepting partial payment **in** the presence of **witnesses, what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **if it is** so **that he has paid her** the rest of the marriage contract, **he would have paid her in** the presence of **witnesses,** and since he has no such witnesses, this is proof that she never received the rest of the money, and she is exempt from an oath? **Or perhaps he** simply **happened to have** witnesses for part of the payment, and he gave her the rest without witnesses, and she must take an oath with regard to the remainder of the sum?


###### Ketubot 87b:6
[Ketubot 87b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: כׇּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין. וְאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין: הַשָּׂכִיר, וְהַנִּגְזָל, וְהַנֶּחְבָּל, וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ, וְהַפּוֹגֵם שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים. שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים — אִין, בְּעֵדִים — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from a mishna (*Shevuot* 44b): **Anyone who** is obligated to **take an oath** that is enumerated **in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay. And these take an oath and take** their payment: **The hired worker** who demands his wages from his employer; **and one who was robbed; and one who was injured,** who claims compensation from the one who caused him damage; **and** if **the one opposing him,** the other litigant in a case, was supposed to take an oath but he is **suspected with regard to oaths; and a storekeeper** who makes a claim **on** the basis of what is written in **his notebook [*pinkaso*]; and one who receives partial payment of his document not in** the presence of **witnesses.** Conclude from this last clause that if one received partial payment of a document **not in** the presence of **witnesses,** then **yes,** he is obligated to take an oath, but if he received the payment **in** the presence of **witnesses,** then **no,** he is not obligated to take an oath.


###### Ketubot 87b:7
[Ketubot 87b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:7)

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא בְּעֵדִים — דְּוַדַּאי צְרִיכָה שְׁבוּעָה, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים, אֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה וְתִשְׁקוֹל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: The mishna **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary: It is not necessary** to state that if part of the marriage contract was paid **in** the presence of **witnesses, she certainly requires an oath. However,** if a partial payment was made **not in** the presence of **witnesses,** one might **say** that her partial admission **should be like one who restores lost property.** Since there are no witnesses that the husband paid anything, when she concedes to part of the claim it is as though she has restored to him a lost item. **And she should** therefore **take** the rest of the money **without an oath,** in accordance with the *halakha* that one who returns lost property does not have to take an oath that he did not appropriate part of what he found for himself. The *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that even in this case an oath is required.


###### Ketubot 87b:8
[Ketubot 87b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא דָיְיקָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי, קוּשְׁטָא קָא אַמְרַהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִיעָרוֹמֵי קָא מִעָרְמָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **a woman who vitiates her marriage contract** and details with precision every sum of money that she received, specifying not only large sums of money but also sums so small that they amounted to **less than the value of a *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **since she is precise to such an extent she** must be **telling the truth, or perhaps** she **is deceiving** us? This question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Ketubot 87b:9
[Ketubot 87b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:9)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פּוֹחֶתֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן הַיְינוּ פּוֹגֶמֶת, אוֹ דִלְמָא: פּוֹגֶמֶת מוֹדְיָא בְּמִקְצָת, הָא לָא קָא מוֹדְיָא בְּמִקְצָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Another **dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In the case of a woman who **reduces her marriage contract** by saying that its sum was less than the usual amount, or less than the figure specified in the document, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **this is** like the case of **a woman who vitiates** her marriage contract, and the *halakha* is the same in both instances? **Or perhaps** there is a difference between the two cases because **a woman who vitiates** her marriage contract **admits to part of** the claim, whereas **this one does not admit to** part of the claim. Here, she claims that she has received nothing at all, but that she is owed less than what was initially thought.


###### Ketubot 87b:10
[Ketubot 87b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹחֶתֶת — תִּפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד? הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז, וְאָמַר לָהּ ״הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתוּבָּתִיךְ״, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת ״לֹא הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי, וְאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מָנֶה״ — נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from a *baraita*: **One who reduces** her marriage contract **can collect** it **without an oath. How so?** If **her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and** her husband **said to her: You have received your marriage contract, and she says: I have not received** my marriage contract, **but it is only one hundred dinars,** she **may collect** it **without an oath.**


###### Ketubot 87b:11
[Ketubot 87b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:11)

בְּמַאי גָּבְיָא? בְּהַאי שְׁטָרָא? הַאי שְׁטָרָא חַסְפָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! אָמַר רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: בְּאוֹמֶרֶת ״אֲמָנָה הָיְתָה לִי בֵּינִי לְבֵינוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If her claim is accepted, **with what does she** in fact **collect** payment? **With this** marriage contract **document? This document is merely** a shard of **earthenware,** as she herself admits that the document is not a valid document because it records a fictitious sum. **Rava, son of Rabba, said:** It is referring **to one who says: There was** an agreement of **trust between him and me** that although the marriage contract records a large sum, I will claim only part of it, but the document itself is genuine.


###### Ketubot 87b:12
[Ketubot 87b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:12)

עֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְּרוּעָה. סְבַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְמֵימַר שְׁבוּעָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ לְכׇל עָוֹן וּלְכׇל חַטָּאת״. לְכׇל עָוֹן וּלְכׇל חַטָּאת הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ קָם, אֲבָל קָם הוּא לִשְׁבוּעָה. וְאָמַר מָר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן — אֶחָד מְחַיְּיבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if **one witness testifies that** the marriage contract **was paid** she must take an oath. **Rami bar Ḥama thought to say** that this is **an oath** required **by Torah** law, **as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin”** (Deuteronomy 19:15). From here it is inferred: **It is for any iniquity or for any sin that he may not rise up,** i.e., the testimony of one witness is not enough for these purposes, **but he may rise up for an oath. And the Master said:** In **any place,** i.e., situation, **where two** witnesses are able to **deem one liable** to pay **money,** the testimony of **one** witness **obligates him to take an oath.**


###### Ketubot 87b:13
[Ketubot 87b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:13)

אָמַר רָבָא, שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר. חֲדָא: דְּכׇל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין, וְהִיא נִשְׁבַּעַת וְנוֹטֶלֶת. וְעוֹד: אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל כְּפִירַת שִׁיעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** There are **two answers in the matter,** in refutation of your argument: **One** response is **that anyone who** is obligated to **take an oath** that is enumerated **in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay.** By Torah law, one takes an oath only to exempt himself from payment, **and** in this case **she takes an oath and takes** her money. **And furthermore,** there is a principle that **one does not take an oath with regard to a denial of a lien on land.**


###### Ketubot 87b:14
[Ketubot 87b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מִדְּרַבָּנַן, כְּדֵי לְהָפִיס דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** That oath was instituted **by rabbinic** law, **in order to put the husband’s mind at ease.** Since a witness contradicts her claim, the Sages imposed an oath upon her so that the husband would be sure that he is not giving away his money for no reason.


###### Ketubot 87b:15
[Ketubot 87b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/87b:15)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:**