The rabbis teach about debtors who first deny their debt, but when faced with witnesses, amend their statements and admit that they already repaid that debt. These debtors are held to the presumptive status of one who denies that they owe a debt. Any subsequent claims are ignored. Similar consequences face those who claim that they are completely innocent when it comes to other cases - money, a cloak, an oath.
The rabbis wonder whether oaths should be treated with the same gravitas as the other claims. One might say that he will take an oath but later he reconsiders and does not take the oath.
Returning to the question raised in our Gemara regarding a found promissory note, the Gemara reminds us that Rabbi Asi quoted Rabbi Yochanan: if a person finds a promissory note in the marketplace that is ratified and dated the same day as that of the loan, it should be returned to its owner. The rabbis attempt to clarify why such a note is necessary - if the loan was repaid the same day that it was given, and all agree to the transaction, why is the note important? Perhaps the loan was not yet repaid, suggests Rabbi Asi, or perhaps there will be a conflict in the future regarding payment.
Amud (b) considers a ma'aseh bet din, a court enactment. Our notes (Steinsaltz) teach that this could be either: a) a financial document ratified and validated by the court, or b) an court-declared ordinance regarding financial rights, for example the main sum that a woman receives when divorced and the inheritance of her children.
Rabbis including Rabbi Yochanan and Abaye argue about a woman who holds her get but does not have her marriage contract. In such a situation, the rabbis differ in their opinions regarding whether she should be granted the amount of her marriage contract, the amount of a standard marriage contract, or nothing at all.
Based on their conversations and the notes by Steinsaltz, some women are granted their get without their ketubot but others are given nothing. Why would some rabbis give nothing to these women? It seems that the concern would be that she has already received the amount stated in her marriage contract. Such a situation would only make sense if the woman moved to a different place where her financial dealings were not known. If she and her ex-husband lived in the same town as the court, surely someone would remember whether or not her ex-husband had paid her the amount agreed to in their contract. Or perhaps I am missing a piece of information.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment