Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she claims payment of her marriage contract, the heirs administer an oath to her. And if she does not claim payment of her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.

GEMARA: Rami bar Ḥama thought to say that the oath of a woman who vitiates her marriage contract is an oath required by Torah law, which is the oath of one who makes a partial admission, as the husband claims that he paid her two hundred and she concedes to him with regard to one hundred. This is a partial admission of the claim, and the principle is that whoever admits to part of a claim must take an oath according to Torah law to receive the remaining amount.

Rava said: There are two answers in the matter, in refutation of your argument: One response is that anyone who is obligated to take an oath that is enumerated in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay. By Torah law, one takes an oath only to exempt himself from payment, and in this case she takes an oath and takes her money. And furthermore, there is a principle that one does not take an oath with regard to a denial of a lien on land. The oaths of the Torah apply only to moveable property, not land. This means that if a claim involves a lien on land of any form, the oath of a partial admission does not apply, and a marriage contract includes a lien on land.

Rather, Rava said: This oath is by rabbinic law. It was instituted because the one who pays is precise and recalls that he paid his debt, whereas the one who was paid is not precise. When the husband claims to have paid her, he remembers clearly what happened, and therefore the Sages imposed the obligation of an oath upon her, so that she should be precise and remember exactly what occurred.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where a woman vitiates her marriage contract by accepting partial payment in the presence of witnesses, what is the halakha? Do we say that if it is so that he has paid her the rest of the marriage contract, he would have paid her in the presence of witnesses, and since he has no such witnesses, this is proof that she never received the rest of the money, and she is exempt from an oath? Or perhaps he simply happened to have witnesses for part of the payment, and he gave her the rest without witnesses, and she must take an oath with regard to the remainder of the sum?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Shevuot 44b): Anyone who is obligated to take an oath that is enumerated in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay. And these take an oath and take their payment: The hired worker who demands his wages from his employer; and one who was robbed; and one who was injured, who claims compensation from the one who caused him damage; and if the one opposing him, the other litigant in a case, was supposed to take an oath but he is suspected with regard to oaths; and a storekeeper who makes a claim on the basis of what is written in his notebook [pinkaso]; and one who receives partial payment of his document not in the presence of witnesses. Conclude from this last clause that if one received partial payment of a document not in the presence of witnesses, then yes, he is obligated to take an oath, but if he received the payment in the presence of witnesses, then no, he is not obligated to take an oath.

The Gemara refutes this argument: The mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary: It is not necessary to state that if part of the marriage contract was paid in the presence of witnesses, she certainly requires an oath. However, if a partial payment was made not in the presence of witnesses, one might say that her partial admission should be like one who restores lost property. Since there are no witnesses that the husband paid anything, when she concedes to part of the claim it is as though she has restored to him a lost item. And she should therefore take the rest of the money without an oath, in accordance with the halakha that one who returns lost property does not have to take an oath that he did not appropriate part of what he found for himself. The tanna therefore teaches us that even in this case an oath is required.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a woman who vitiates her marriage contract and details with precision every sum of money that she received, specifying not only large sums of money but also sums so small that they amounted to less than the value of a peruta, what is the halakha? Do we say that since she is precise to such an extent she must be telling the truth, or perhaps she is deceiving us? This question shall stand unresolved.

Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a woman who reduces her marriage contract by saying that its sum was less than the usual amount, or less than the figure specified in the document, what is the halakha? Do we say that this is like the case of a woman who vitiates her marriage contract, and the halakha is the same in both instances? Or perhaps there is a difference between the two cases because a woman who vitiates her marriage contract admits to part of the claim, whereas this one does not admit to part of the claim. Here, she claims that she has received nothing at all, but that she is owed less than what was initially thought.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: One who reduces her marriage contract can collect it without an oath. How so? If her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and her husband said to her: You have received your marriage contract, and she says: I have not received my marriage contract, but it is only one hundred dinars, she may collect it without an oath.

The Gemara asks: If her claim is accepted, with what does she in fact collect payment? With this marriage contract document? This document is merely a shard of earthenware, as she herself admits that the document is not a valid document because it records a fictitious sum. Rava, son of Rabba, said: It is referring to one who says: There was an agreement of trust between him and me that although the marriage contract records a large sum, I will claim only part of it, but the document itself is genuine.

§ The mishna teaches that if one witness testifies that the marriage contract was paid she must take an oath. Rami bar Ḥama thought to say that this is an oath required by Torah law, as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin” (Deuteronomy 19:15). From here it is inferred: It is for any iniquity or for any sin that he may not rise up, i.e., the testimony of one witness is not enough for these purposes, but he may rise up for an oath. And the Master said: In any place, i.e., situation, where two witnesses are able to deem one liable to pay money, the testimony of one witness obligates him to take an oath.

Rava said: There are two answers in the matter, in refutation of your argument: One response is that anyone who is obligated to take an oath that is enumerated in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay. By Torah law, one takes an oath only to exempt himself from payment, and in this case she takes an oath and takes her money. And furthermore, there is a principle that one does not take an oath with regard to a denial of a lien on land.

Rather, Rava said: That oath was instituted by rabbinic law, in order to put the husband’s mind at ease. Since a witness contradicts her claim, the Sages imposed an oath upon her so that the husband would be sure that he is not giving away his money for no reason.

Rav Pappa said: