1) The Gemara asks why the widow was punished for her oath, and answers that
it was because she shortchanged the loaf by the amount of flour that was
displaced by the dinar. Can this be correct?
a) The Gemara says "u'netanato le-ani". Can we learn that she gave the loaf
as a gift, either by the choice of the verb, natan ("give"), or by the
specification of an ani ("a poor man")? If she gave the loaf instead of
selling it, then I could say she wasn't obliged to give him any particular
quantity of flour.
b) Even if we can't learn that the loaf was a gift, and we have to assume
that she sold it, how was the man short-changed? Can't we say that he found
the golden dinar, which was a return of his purchase price?
2) The Gemara goes on to ask why we specify that only a widow should refrain
from taking an oath, and that perhaps even a divorcee should refrain.
a) How is this anecdote relevant to our Mishna? It's not about a widow taking
an oath about a ketuba. Rather, it's an anecdote about a person entrusted to
guard property. The fact that the "shomer" was a woman, and a widowed woman,
seems an insignificant detail.
b) This would be a good anecdote to teach that no person (male or female)
should take an oath, or at least not one worded in a way that could endanger
a person. What does Rashas say about this?
3) The Gemara says that a widow is different from a divorcee, because a widow
might feel that since she's caring for the children, any partial payment she
received for her ketuba can be overlooked, and she would thus rationalize a
false oath. In contrast, a divorcee, not providing any continued services to
her ex-husband, wouldn't have any reason to self-justify a false oath.
a) But what about the case of a divorcee whose ex-husband died before she
collected payment of her kesuba? She's then in exactly the same situation as
a widow, and yet the rabbis aren't worried that she might rationalize a false
oath?
b) Is it true that a divorcee doesn't provide any continued services to her
ex-husband? Following a divorce, did minor children live with the mother, or
the father? If with the mother, did the father provide all the funds for
child-support?
1) The woman did not short-change anyone. However, the recipe called for two cups of flour, amd she saved some flour. This savings, however, was at the expense of the Mafkid, and not at the expense of the Ani (who, anyway, was receiving a free gift). Also, she was punished not necessarily for stealing, but for making a false Shevu'ah (since it is possible that the amount that she saved was not equal to a Shaveh Perutah).
2) The case relates to women as a whole. Rashash writes that for fear of a false Shevu'ah we would not absolve a woman who became liable to make a Shevu'ah through a denial (such as Modeh b'Miktsas). Even other claims which need a Shevu'ah would not be exempted; only the claim for a Kesuvah, which is generally not paid previously, is exempted. As for Gerushah, that is the Gemara's question.
3) Only an Almanah is required to care for the Yesomim, as the Mishnah writes in Kesuvos (11:1), "Almanah ha'Nizones Min ha'Achin Ma'aseh Yadehah she'Lahem." See the Gemara on 96a. As a matter of fact, she is evem liable to care for his orphans from another woman.
Dov Zupnik