Different rabbis suggest that they can convince their wives to take Biblical oaths. Steinsaltz explains some of the dispute regarding Biblical and rabbinic oaths. Certainly Torah oaths require a Torah scroll and a promise. Rabbinical oaths may or may not include that step; they involve invoking the name of G-d. They may or may not hold equal value, and they may or may not be used interchangeably, depending on the rabbi asked.
In comparison with women who are claiming their ketubot, the rabbis discuss law surrounding orphans who must take oaths. Orphans must take oaths before collecting a debt. However, do they have to take oaths when their father was the borrower? And, more generally, what difference might it make if the borrower or the lender took the oath?
Our daf ends with a conversation regarding whether or not the borrower and lender must both be present when the oath is taken.
It is so foreign to envision the requirement of oaths in legal proceedings, no matter how small. How can we trust that a person isn't going to lie? We can't. Even today, when our promises are made haphazardly, we often swear when we wish to emphasize our trustworthiness. But the fear of excommunication or dying due to a broken oath does not exist for most of us today. Were we better off when we knew that we could be horribly punished for lying? Were people more truthful in the past? It is tough to imagine.
Another interesting point is the running theme throughout this Perek: in a discussion about ketubot, continual comparisons are made among orphans and others who are ordered to take oaths. The rabbis better understand the question at hand by comparing it with other, similar conversations.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment