Ketubot 87: On Oaths

Amud (a) focuses on what should be done when a husband has specified that his wife need not take an oath but following his death, she is forced to do just that.  This would happen if she were to ask his heirs for money, for anyone requesting money from orphans is required to take an oath.  The rabbis wonder exactly which words are used when the husband creates this stipulation.  How specific is he?  From which oaths specifically is she exempted?  

Shaul ben Imma Miriam introduces a solution that is accepted by the rabbis.  He states that it should not matter exactly which words are used by the husband; if his intention is to prevent his wife from having to take an oath, then she does not have to take an oath. That holds, even in the case where the widow is asking her deceased husband's heirs for funds.

Another point of note is the name of this Sage: Shaul ben Imma Miraim.  Although our notes explain that we do not know much of this Sage, he clearly has been named for his mother or another prominent female figure.  Steinsaltz teaches that a number of rabbis were named for women in these traditions.  It makes me wonder who those women were; what were their accomplishments and characteristics that were so outstanding as to name men in their honour.

A new Mishna teaches us that in a number of specific situations, women can collect their ketubot by taking oaths.  For example, if the oath has been partially paid to her, she can collect the remainder only through taking an oath.  Liened property is supposed to be exempt from oaths, but they apply in cases of ketubot.  Whenever there is a conflict regarding the amount of the ketubot or the timing of payment, etc., she can collect her ketuba after taking an oath.

The Gemara walks us through some of the specifics around taking oaths, particularly in these cases.  The rabbis describe other cases where oaths are required; still others where they are not required.  Some of the examples are relatively complex.  The rabbis use the Torah's directions around oaths to better understand exactly when we must take oaths and when we should not do so. 

One of my favourite examples is when women reduce the amounts of their ketubot. If the ketuba is 1000 dinars and the husband says that he paid it partially or that he paid it fully, the wife can claim her ketuba if she says that the ketuba was only 100 dinars.  Basically, as long as the wife puts herself at a disadvantage, she is permitted to take the ketuba without an oath.

The meaning of an oath must be very different today than it was in ancient times.  Today, we make oaths and break oaths without considering the consequences beyond our own inconvenience.  In antiquity, an oath was a promise between oneself and G-d.  To break that promise was to court death at the hand of G-d as decreed on Yom Kippur.  People went to great lengths to ensure that their oaths were kept or, at least, forgiven by G-d.  But we don't seem to have much respect for our relationship with G-d today - at least not regarding commitments, trust, and honouring our word.  I think that if we can't keep our promises to G-d - or to ourselves - how can we keep any other promises?