Commentary for Shevuot 96:3

אמר רב יוסף הא מני בית שמאי היא דאמרי שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי

and yet it states that the son exacts payment either with an oath or without an oath: 'with an oath' - the oath of heirs; without an oath' - as R'Simeon B'Gamaliel says!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 45a; if there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that the document was not settled, the heir obtains payment of the debt without an oath. However, the Baraitha states that the son exacts payment with an oath from the heirs, where the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender. This is opposed to the view of Rab and Samuel.');">⁴</span> - R'Joseph said: This is in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai who hold that a bond which is ready to be collected is counted as if it is already collected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 25a; if the husband of a woman suspected of infidelity (sotah, v. Glos.) died before she drank of the 'bitter waters' (Num. V, 11-31) , she does not need to undergo the ordeal, and obtains payment of her kethubah; and though it is possible that she did, in fact, commit adultery, yet, since she has the document (ketubah) setting forth her husband's indebtedness to her, it is as if her husband's property were assigned to her and in her possession; and it is the husband's heirs who would require to bring proof that she was unfaithful, if they desired to deprive her of the kethubah; and if no proof is forthcoming, she obtains payment of the kethubah. This is the view of Beth Shammai, who hold that the money in the document is reckoned as if it is already collected and in the possession of the holder of the document. Here also, if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender, the money is counted as if it is already in the possession of the lender (since he produces a document) , though the Sages made a regulation that the lender must take an oath to the borrower's heirs. Hence, the lender is not bequeathing an oath to his sons, but a definite money asset (though the sons, when claiming from the borrower's heirs, must also take an oath, according to Rabbinic regulation) . Rab and Samuel, however, agree with Beth Hillel that the money in the document is not counted as if it is already collected; Sot. 25b.');">⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 96:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.