Kesubos 108b

כתובות ק״ח ע״ב

Ketubot 108b

Learn Kesubos 108b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Kesubos 108b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

אדמון's disputes with the חכמים: sons and daughters sharing a small estate, and a claim for jugs of oil where only the jugs are admitted.

Overview

The amud opens with the last lines of an earlier discussion: a borrower's shame before his lender counts as something he benefits from being freed of. Then a new משנה lists disputes of אדמון. In the first, sons inherit a large estate while daughters are fed from it, but from a small estate only the daughters are fed. אדמון protests, 'Because I am a male, I lose?' and רבן גמליאל agrees. אביי says אדמון is pointing to the male's Torah learning. רבא rejects that and explains that the heir of a large estate should not lose everything in a small one. The next משנה is about someone who claims jugs of oil while the other admits only to the jugs. אדמון requires an oath, and חכמים exempt him. The גמרא tests several readings against rulings of שמואל and רבי חייא בר אבא. It concludes that the argument is whether 'ten jugs of oil' includes the jugs, in a case where the oil is denied and five jugs are admitted. The amud ends as a third משנה begins, about a father-in-law who promised a dowry and went bankrupt.

Opening lines

The steps (23)

1. ChallengeDoesn't the borrower feel shame?
2. ResolutionBeing freed from shame counts as benefit
3. StatementThe rule: large estate vs. small estate
4. Challengeאדמון protests: Should I lose because I'm male?
5. Statementרבן גמליאל sides with אדמון
6. QuestionWhat does אדמון mean?
7. Responseאביי: Because I can learn Torah
8. Challengeרבא: Inheritance doesn't depend on Torah learning
9. Responseרבא: The heir of a large estate shouldn't lose a small one
10. StatementNew משנה: Claiming jugs of oil, admitting only to the jugs
11. StatementLearning from חכמים: admitting to barley out of a wheat-and-barley claim is exempt
12. ChallengeDoes this refute רב נחמן in the name of שמואל?
13. ResolutionThe claim was only for an amount of oil
14. ChallengeIf so, why does אדמון require an oath?
15. Resolutionרבא's new approach: two cases everyone agrees on
16. ResolutionWhere אדמון and the רבנן disagree: the unclear wording
17. Challengeרבא's reading seems to clash with רבי חייא בר אבא
18. Resolutionרב שימי בר אשי: oil in jugs is like a pomegranate in its peel
19. Challengeרבינא: oil can survive without its jugs
20. ResolutionA new case: the oil is denied completely, and only some of the jugs are admitted
21. Resolutionאדמון's reasoning: the jug oath pulls in the oil
22. ConclusionThe רבנן's reasoning: the claim and the admission don't match
23. StatementNew משנה: a man promises money to his son-in-law and then goes broke