Study Ketubot folio 87A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
It is referring to a woman who became a steward during her husband’s lifetime, as it was common for a man to leave his wife in charge of his property while exempting her from taking an oath. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is referring to a woman who claims that she received partial p
Rav Mordekhai went and said this halakha before Rav Ashi and asked him the following question: Granted, according to the one who says that it is referring to a woman who claims that she received partial payment of her marriage contract, it makes sense that it enters her mind that this might happen,
Rav Ashi said to him: You teach this halakha of Rav Yehuda with regard to that part of the Mishnah, and therefore you find it difficult. We, however, teach it with regard to this part of the Mishnah: If she went from her husband’s grave to her father’s house without handling her late husband’s prop
It was with regard to this statement that the Talmud asked: What is the purpose of mentioning the past? What oath would they have wanted her to take with regard to the past? And it was in response to this question that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is referring to a woman who became a steward
The Talmud presents a dispute as to what is considered the past, first continuing the quote from Rav Yehuda: But they can administer an oath to her with regard to her conduct between her husband’s death and his burial. And Rav Mattana said: Even concerning her actions between her husband’s death and