To sponsor Daf Shevui, please click here.

Ketubot, Daf Kuf Zayin, Part 2
Reading for Monday
, May 15
Ketubot 107-2

 

Introduction

Today’s sugya continues the discussion of whether a court will allot maintenance money to a woman whose husband has gone abroad. According to Rav they do, and according to Shmuel they do not.

 

תנן: מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות, חנן אמר: תשבע בסוף ולא תשבע בתחלה, נחלקו עליו בני כהנים גדולים ואמרו: תשבע בתחלה ובסוף; עד כאן לא פליגי אלא לענין שבועה, אבל מזוני יהבינן לה!

תרגמה שמואל: בששמעו בו שמת.

We learned: If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance:

Hanan says: she must take an oath at the end but not at the beginning. 

The sons of the high priests differed from him and ruled that she must take an oath both at the beginning and at the end.

They thus differ only in respect of the oath but they do not disagree that maintenance must be given to her?  

Shmuel explained [this to refer to a case] where they heard that he was dead.

 

The Mishnah is raised as a difficulty against Shmuel. Both disputing parties in the Mishnah agree that the wife receives maintenance. The only question was regard to the oaths that she must take.

Shmuel resolves the difficulty by saying that this was a case where they had heard that the husband had died. In such a case he agrees that she receives maintenance, as I explained in yesterday’s section.

 

תא שמע: מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות, בני כהנים גדולים אומרים: תשבע, חנן אומר: לא תשבע, ואם בא ואמר פסקתי לה מזונות – נאמן!

 

Come and hear: If [a husband] went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance: The sons of the High Priests say she must take an oath,  

Hanan said: She need not take an oath.

If [the husband] came and declared, “I have provided for her maintenance,” he is believed.

 

This is in essence the same difficulty as above. The baraita adds that if a husband states that he left her with provisions and he takes an oath to such, he is believed and she will have to return all the money she used to buy provisions.

 

הכא נמי בששמעו בו שמת. והא אם בא ואמר קאמר! אם בא לאחר שמועה.

 

Here also [it may be replied] is a case where a report was received that he was dead.

But did it not say, “If [the husband] came and declared…”?  

If he came after the report had been received. 

 

The resolution is the same as above. The court will order her husband’s property sold and the proceeds used for her provisions only if they have heard that he died. The Talmud interprets the end of the baraita to mean that if he comes back after he was reported (falsely) as having died, he is believed.

image_print