טז מתיב רב נתן בר הושעיא יפה כח הבן מכח האב
16 From the time that the borrower died, the lender had already become liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he died before bringing his claim to the court, he had already become liable for the oath; i.e., he could not have obtained payment from the borrower's heirs except with the oath. Hence, if the lender cannot bequeath an oath to his children, they cannot, even in such a case, take the oath of heirs.');"><sup>20</sup></span> But, said R'Nahman, if the ruling of Rab and Samuel is accepted, it is accepted; and if not, not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either the lender can, or cannot, bequeath his oath; we cannot accept R. Ammi's distinction.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Hence, he is in doubt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether the ruling of Rab and Samuel holds good or not.');"><sup>22</sup></span> But did not R'Joseph B'Minyomi say that R'Nahman decided a case that they should divide?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 47a, where it is explained that according to Rab and Samuel 'the oath returns to Sinai', and the case lapses. Hence, R. Nahman, in deciding that the claimant and borrower divide, does not agree with Rab and Samuel.');"><sup>23</sup></span> - According to the view of R'Meir, he means; but he himself does not agree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling of Rab and Samuel is applicable to R. Meir's view that the oath returns to Sinai; and on this R. Nahman says that R. Ammi's differentiation is irrational; but R. Nahman himself does not agree with R. Meir, but with R. Jose, that they divide. [MS.M. substitutes 'R. Ammi' for R. Meir, which simplifies the argument.]');"><sup>24</sup></span> R'Oshaia raised an objection: If she died, her heirs mention her kethubah until twenty five years [have elapsed]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 104a. A widow who had not yet been paid her kethubah from her husband's estate, and died, bequeaths this claim to her heirs; but they must 'mention' it, i.e., claim it, within 25 years of her husband's death. Now the widow herself could not have obtained her kethubah from the husband's heirs except with an oath (supra 45a) ; yet when she dies, her heirs can claim the kethubah with the oath that heirs take ('Our mother did not leave instructions that she had received the kethubah') . Hence, though the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender (the husband who owes the kethubah died during the lifetime of the wife) , and the lender (wife) had already become liable to take an oath to the heirs, she may bequeath the oath to her heirs. This is an argument against Rab and Samuel.');"><sup>25</sup></span> Here we are discussing a case where she took the oath, and then died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she had already taken the oath, the kethubah is virtually in her possession, and her heirs do not need to take an oath, but merely exact payment.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Come and hear: If he married a first [wife], and she died; and he married a second, and he died, the second and her heirs come before the heirs of the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 90a; when he died, the second wife who is still alive, has a claim (the kethubah) against his estate, if she dies before receiving the money, her heirs exact payment; but the heirs of the first wife have no claim for kethubah (for she died before her husband) . When the kethubah has been paid to the heirs of the second wife, the heirs of the first wife also, of course, participate in their father's inheritance together with their stepbrothers. The Mishnah states, however, that the heirs of the second wife can exact payment of the kethubah; the second wife herself can obtain the kethubah only with an oath from the husband's heirs; her heirs must also take an oath; hence she can bequeath an oath to her heirs. This is an argument against Rab and Samuel.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - Here also, she took the oath and then died. Come and hear: But his heirs make her take an oath, and her heirs, and those who come with her authority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 86b. If he gave his wife a written agreement that he would not demand an oath of her (in a case where she would otherwise have to take an oath, e.g., if she impairs a kethubah, supra 45a) , nor would he demand an oath of her heirs, nor of those who come with her authority (i.e., those to whom she sold her kethubah, and who would be entitled to the kethubah on her divorce or death) , he cannot impose an oath upon her, her heirs, etc. But if he dies, his heirs may impose the oath upon her, her heirs, etc., i.e., if she claims her kethubah from the husband's heirs, she must take an oath; if she dies, her heirs take an oath and obtain the kethubah. Hence she bequeaths the oath to her heirs. This is an argument against Rab and Samuel. Here it cannot be said that she had already taken the oath, and then died; for in that case her heirs would not require to take an oath, whereas the Mishnah states definitely that the husband's heirs make the wife's heirs take an oath.');"><sup>28</sup></span> - R'Shemaiah said: Alternatives are stated: 'her', if she is a widow; and 'her heirs', if she is divorced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband's heirs make 'her' take an oath, if she is a widow; she can obtain her kethubah from her husband's estate only by taking an oath to his heirs (that she has not yet been paid) ; but if she dies before she obtains her kethubah, 'her heirs' cannot obtain it from the husband's heirs, because she cannot bequeath the oath (as Rab and Samuel say) . The Mishnah which states that the husband's heirs make her heirs take an oath refers to a case where she was divorced (the husband now being liable to pay her the kethubah without imposing an oath on her, for he had given her a written agreement that he himself would not demand an oath of her) , then she died before obtaining the kethubah, then the husband died; now, when she died, the kethubah was already due to her without an oath: this money claim she may bequeath to her heirs; but when her heirs wish to exact payment from the husband's heirs, they must take an oath (for orphans from orphans can only exact payment with an oath) .');"><sup>29</sup></span> R'Nathan B'Hoshaia raised an objection: The son's power is more extensive than the father's power.