הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָתַב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ, שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה, קַיָּם. כָּתַב לָהּ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרֵי פֵרוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵרֵי פֵרוֹתֵיהֶן עַד עוֹלָם. כָּתַב לָהּ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵרֵי פֵרוֹתֵיהֶן בְּחַיַּיִךְ וּבְמוֹתֵךְ, אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אִם מֵתָה, יִירָשֶׁנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, תְּנָאוֹ בָטֵל: One who writes for his wife in a document the declaration: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, thereby relinquishing his rights to her possessions, may nevertheless consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies before him, he inherits from her. If this is so, if he still retains his rights, why would he write for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property? The result of this declaration is that if she sold or gave away her property, the transaction is binding, and he cannot claim it. If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, he may not consume the produce of her property during her lifetime, but if she dies he still retains the right to inherit from her. Rabbi Yehuda says: He always consumes the produce of the produce. Although he has waived his rights to consume the produce itself, it becomes her usufruct property, whose yield belongs to him. He remains entitled to the produce of the produce until he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce forever. If he writes for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property or with its produce, or with the produce of its produce, in your lifetime and after your death, he may not consume the produce of her property in her lifetime. And if she dies, he does not inherit from her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she dies, he does inherit from her, because he stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, a husband inherits from his wife by Torah law, and whoever stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.
מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב וְיוֹרְשִׁין, וְהָיָה לוֹ פִקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִלְוֶה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִנָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין, אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁין, שֶׁכֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה: With regard to one who died and left behind a wife, and a creditor to whom he owed money, and heirs, all of whom claim payment from his property, and he had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others, Rabbi Tarfon says: The deposit or the loan will be given to the weakest one of them, i.e., the one most in need of the money. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. If the halakha is that it belongs to one party, one follows the halakha and leaves aside considerations of mercy. Rather, the halakha is that the money will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath. They therefore have a more absolute right than the others to their father’s property.
הִנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה בָהֶן. זָכְתָה אִשָּׁה יוֹתֵר מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ, וּבַעַל חוֹב יוֹתֵר עַל חוֹבוֹ, הַמּוֹתָר, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִנָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין, אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁים, שֶׁכֻּלָּם צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה: If the deceased left behind produce that was detached from the ground, whoever first took possession of them as compensation for what was owed, whether the creditor, the wife, or the heirs, acquired the produce. If the wife acquired this produce and it was worth more than the payment of her marriage contract, or the creditor acquired this produce and it was worth more than the value of his debt, what should be done with the surplus? Rabbi Tarfon says: It will be given to the weakest one of them, either the creditor or the wife, depending on the circumstances. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. Rather, it will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath.
הַמּוֹשִׁיב אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ חֶנְוָנִית אוֹ שֶׁמִּנָּהּ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא, הֲרֵי זֶה מַשְׁבִּיעָהּ כָּל זְמָן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ עַל פִּלְכָּהּ וְעַל עִסָּתָהּ: If there is one who establishes his wife as a storekeeper in his store, or if he appointed her as a steward to handle his property and workers, this one, i.e., the husband, can administer an oath to her, having her state that she did not appropriate any of his possessions, whenever he wants. Rabbi Eliezer says: He can administer an oath even with regard to the products of her spindle and for her dough, which are matters related to the household, and not her function as a storekeeper.
כָּתַב לָהּ, נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלָיִךְ, אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, אֲבָל מַשְׁבִּיעַ הוּא אֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְאֶת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִךְ וְעַל יוֹרְשַׁיִךְ וְעַל הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִיךְ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, לֹא הִיא וְלֹא יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְלֹא אֶת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. אֲבָל יוֹרְשָׁיו מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ, וְאֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְאֶת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי וְלֹא לְיוֹרְשַׁי וְלֹא לַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִי עָלַיִךְ וְעַל יוֹרְשַׁיִךְ וְעַל הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתִיךְ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, לֹא הוּא וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו וְלֹא הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, לֹא אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְלֹא הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ: If one wrote to his wife in the marriage contract: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, he cannot administer an oath to her.However, he can administer an oath to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority, either as her representatives or because they purchased her marriage contract. If the husband wrote: I do not have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, or upon your heirs, or upon those who come on your authority, he cannot administer an oath to her; not to her, nor her heirs, nor those who come on her authority. But the husband’s heirs can administer an oath to her, and to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority. If he wrote: Neither I, nor my heirs, nor those who come on my authority have the right to administer a vow or an oath upon you, or upon your heirs, or upon those who come on your authority, he cannot administer an oath to her or to them; not he, nor his heirs, nor those who come on his authority may administer an oath, not to her, nor to her heirs, nor to those who come on her authority.
הָלְכָה מִקֶּבֶר בַּעְלָהּ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ אוֹ שֶׁחָזְרָה לְבֵית חָמִיהָ, וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם נַעֲשֵׂית אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא, הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבֹא וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ עַל מַה שֶּׁעָבָר: If a woman who was exempted from an oath by her husband went from her husband’s grave, immediately after her husband’s death, to her father’s house, without handling her late husband’s property, or in a case where she returned to her father-in-law’s house and did not become a steward over the property at all throughout this period, then the heirs cannot administer an oath to her with regard to her actions in their father’s lifetime, as the husband exempted her from an oath to the heirs. And if she became a steward, the heirs may administer an oath to her about the future, i.e., anything she did with the property after the death of her husband, but they cannot administer an oath to her with regard to what took place in the past, during her husband’s lifetime.
הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים וּמִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין וְשֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: A woman who vitiates her marriage contract by acknowledging that she has received partial payment can collect the rest of her marriage contract only by means of an oath. Similarly, if one witness testifies that her marriage contract is paid, she can collect it only by means of an oath.In any case where she seeks to claim her marriage contract from the property of orphans, or from liened property that has been sold to a third party, or when not in her husband’s presence, she can collect it only by means of an oath.
הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז, וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתֻבָּתֵךְ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי אֶלָּא מָנֶה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז, וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתֻבָּתֵךְ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבָּלְתִּי, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים כֵּיצַד, מָכַר נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כֵּיצַד, מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו לַיְתוֹמִים, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הַיְתוֹמִים, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו כֵּיצַד, הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו, אֵינָהּ נִפְרַעַת אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא תוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ: The mishna elaborates: With regard to a woman who vitiates her marriage contract, how so, how does this situation arise? If her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and her husband said to her: You already received your marriage contract, and she says: I received only one hundred dinars, she has made a partial admission and can collect her marriage contract only by means of an oath. If one witness testifies that her marriage contract is paid, how so? If her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and her husband said to her: You already received your marriage contract, and she says: I did not receive payment, and one witness testifies about the marriage contract that it is paid, she can collect it only by means of an oath. From liened property, how so? If while they were married the husband sold his property to others, and she comes to collect her marriage contract from the purchasers, she can collect it only by means of an oath. She may seize property from the purchasers because her husband’s obligation undertaken in the marriage contract predates his obligation in the document of sale. From the property of orphans, how so? If the husband died and left his property to orphans, and she comes to collect her marriage contract from the orphans, she can collect it only by means of an oath. Or when not in his presence, how so? If he went to a country overseas and sent her a bill of divorce, so that she collects her marriage contract when not in his presence, she can collect it only by means of an oath. 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.
הוֹצִיאָה גֵט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְתֻבָּה, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. כְּתֻבָּה וְאֵין עִמָּהּ גֵּט, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אָבַד גִּטִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אָבַד שׁוֹבְרִי, וְכֵן בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב וְאֵין עִמּוֹ פְרוֹזְבּוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִפָּרֵעוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִן הַסַּכָּנָה וְאֵילָךְ, אִשָּׁה גוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְגֵט, וּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִפְרוֹזְבּוּל. שְׁנֵי גִטִּין וּשְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת, גּוֹבָה שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת. שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת וְגֵט אֶחָד, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וּשְׁנֵי גִטִּין, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וְגֵט וּמִיתָה, אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּה אַחַת, שֶׁהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ, עַל מְנָת כְּתֻבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מַחֲזִירָהּ. קָטָן שֶׁהִשִּׂיאוֹ אָבִיו, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ: In a case where a woman produced a bill of divorce and it was unaccompanied by a marriage contract, and she demands that her husband pay her marriage contract, she collects payment of her marriage contract, and he cannot claim that he already paid it. If she produced a marriage contract, and it was unaccompanied by a bill of divorce, and she says: My bill of divorce was lost, and he says: Just as your bill of divorce was lost, so too my receipt for the payment of your marriage contract was lost; and likewise, in a case of a creditor who produced a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, unaccompanied by a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from forgiving an outstanding debt [prosbol], and demanded payment of the debt, these debts may not be collected. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, after the ruling authorities banned the performance of mitzvot, people would destroy a bill of divorce or a prosbol immediately after they were signed, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects debts owed to him without a prosbol. The assumption is that due to the circumstances these documents were written but were not preserved. If a woman had two bills of divorce and two marriage contracts as a result of her divorce and remarriage to the same man, the fact that she is in possession of these documents proves that she was never paid for her first marriage contract, and she collects two marriage contracts. If she was in possession of two marriage contracts and only one bill of divorce; or if she had one marriage contract and two bills of divorce; or if she had a marriage contract, a bill of divorce, and witnesses to her husband’s death after their remarriage, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because there is a presumption that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, and she agrees that she collects payment of only the original document. This is the presumption, unless he wrote another marriage contract for her. In the case of a minor who was married off by his father, the wife’s marriage contract that the minor wrote is valid even after the husband comes of age. He cannot excuse himself by saying that it was drafted when he was a minor, as it is on this condition, the terms of this marriage contract, that he maintained her as his wife upon his maturity. Similarly, in the case of a convert whose wife converted with him, the marriage contract that she had as a gentile is valid, for on this condition he maintained her as his wife.