Rif Ketubot 47b {87a - b}

47b

{Mishna, 87a, continues}

היתה כתובתה אלף זוז ואמר לה התקבלת כתובתיך והיא אומרת לא התקבלתי אלא מנה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה
עד אחד מעידה שהיא פרועה כיצד היתה כתובתה אלף זוז ואמר לה התקבלת כתובתיך והיא אומרת לא התקבלתי ועד אחד מעידה שהיא פרועה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה
מנכסים משועבדים כיצד מכר כל נכסיו לאחרים והיא נפרעת מן הלקוחות לא תפרע אלא בשבועה

IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR A THOUSAND ZUZ AND [HER HUSBAND] SAID TO HER, 'YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED [THE FULL AMOUNT OF] YOUR KETHUBAH', AND SHE SAYS, 'I RECEIVED ONLY A MANEH', SHE IS NOT PAID [THE BALANCE] UNLESS SHE TAKES AN OATH.

WHAT IS MEANT BY 'IF ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES AGAINST HER THAT [HER KETHUBAH] HAS BEEN PAID'? IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR A THOUSAND ZUZ AND WHEN [HER HUSBAND] SAID TO HER, 'YOU HAVE RECEIVED [THE FULL AMOUNT OF] YOUR KETHUBAH', SHE REPLIED, 'I HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT WHILE ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES AGAINST HER THAT [THE KETHUBAH] HAS BEEN PAID SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH.

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE EXPRESSION, 'FROM ASSIGNED PROPERTY'? IF [HER HUSBAND] HAD SOLD HIS PROPERTY TO OTHERS AND SHE SEEKS TO RECOVER PAYMENT FROM THE BUYERS, SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH.

Gemara:

ואע"ג דכתב לה בעלה נאמנות לא תפרע אלא בשבועה דלא מהניא נאמנות אלא היכא דהמניה לוה למלוה עליה דידיה ועל ירתיה בתריה
אבל היכא דאיכא עליה חוב לאיניש אחרינא או כתובת אשה או לוקח דזבן מיניה לא מהניא

And even though her husband wrote to her trust, she only is paid with an oath, for trust does not help except where the borrower is trusted by the lender upon himself and upon his heir after him. But where there is upon him a {monetary} obligation to another person, or the ketuba of a wife, or a purchaser who bought from him, it does not help.

ומסתייע הדין סברא מהא דגרסי' פרק האשה שנתאלמנה
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב האומר שטר אמנה הוא זה אינו נאמן
ואמרינן דקאמר מאן אילימא דקאמר לוה פשיטא לאו כל כמיניה אלא דקאמר מלוה תבא עליו ברכה וכו'
אביי אמר לעולם דקאמר מלוה וכגון שחב לאחרים וכדר' נתן דאמר ר' נתן מניין לנושה בחבירו מנה וחבירו בחבירו מניין שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה ת"ל ונתן לאשר אשם לו
אלמא כל היכא דחב לאחרים וליכא גביה מהיכא דפרע אין הודאתו הודאה והא נמי דכותה

And this position is supported by this that we learn in perek haIsha sheNitalmena:
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: If one says "this is a bond of trust" {that no money was borrowed, but it would be used when the borrowing actually occured}, he is not believed. And we say: The case is where who said it? If that the borrower said it, it is obvious that he is not believed! Rather, that the lender said it? May blessing come upon him {for admitting this}! Etc. Abaye said: In truth, the lender said it, and in such a case where he owed others, and in accordance with Rabbi Natan. For Rabbi Natan said: How do we know that if one is owed money by his friend and his friend by his friend, how do we know that we take from this one and give to that one? Therefore it teaches us: {Bemidbar 5:7}:

ז וְהִתְוַדּוּ, אֶת-חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו; וְנָתַן, לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ.

7 then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him in respect of whom he hath been guilty.

Thus, wherever he owes others and there is not to him what to pay, his admission is not an admission. And this is also like it.

Mishna:

מנכסי יתומים כיצד
מת והניח נכסיו ליתומים והיא נפרעת מן היתומים לא תפרע אלא בשבועה:

WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE EXPRESSION, FROM THE PROPERTY OF ORPHANS'?
IF [HER HUSBAND] DIED AND LEFT HIS ESTATE TO HIS ORPHANS AND SHE SEEKS TO RECOVER PAYMENT FROM THE ORPHANS, SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH.

ושלא בפניו כיצד
הלך לו למדינת הים והיא נפרעת שלא בפניו לא תפרע אלא בשבועה

WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY 'AN ABSENT HUSBAND'?
IF HER HUSBAND WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND SHE SEEKS TO RECOVER PAYMENT IN HIS ABSENCE, SHE IS NOT PAID UNLESS SHE FIRST TAKES AN OATH.

{Ketubot 87b}

ר"ש אומר כל זמן שתובעת כתובתה יורשין משביעין אותה אינה תובעת כתובתה אין יורשין משביעין אותה

RABBI SHIMON RULED: WHENEVER SHE CLAIMS HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS MAY IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER BUT WHERE SHE DOES NOT CLAIM HER KETHUBAH THE HEIRS CAN NOT IMPOSE AN OATH UPON HER.

Gemara:

איבעיא להו פוגמת כתובתה בעדים מהו
אי איתא דפרעה בעדים הוה פרע לה או דילמא אתרמויי אתרמי ליה
ומסקנא בין בעדים בין שלא בעדים לא תפרע אלא בשבועה

The question was raised; What if a woman impaired her kethubah by {admitting that she received part payment in the presence of} witnesses? {Is it assumed that} were {her husband} to pay her {the balance} he would do it in the presence of witnesses, or it was a mere coincidence {that witnesses were present when the first payment was made}?
And the conclusion is that whether with witnesses or not with witnesses, she only collects with an oath.

איבעיא להו פוחתת כתובתה מהו
מי אמרינן היינו פוגמת או דילמא פוגמת מודה במקצת והא לא מודה במקצת
ת"ש פוחתת בכתובתה נפרעת שלא בשבועה פוחתת כיצד היתה כתובתה אלף זוז ואמר לה התקבלת כתובתיך והיא אומרת לא התקבלתי ואינה אלא מנה נפרעת שלא בשבועה

The question was raised: What if a woman declares her {original} kethubah to have been less {than the amount recorded in the written document}?
Is it assumed that such a woman is in the same position as the woman who impaired {her kethubah} or is it possible {that the two cases are unlike, since} the woman who impairs {her kethubah} admits a part {of the sum involved} while this one does not admit a part {of the sum involved}?
Come and hear: A woman who declares that her kethubah was less receives payment without an oath. How so? If her kethubah was for a thousand zuz and when her husband said to her, 'You have already received your kethubah,' she replies. 'I have not received it, but {the original kethubah} was only for one maneh,' she is to receive payment without an oath.

במאי גביא בהאי שטרא

With what does she collect?
With that document.