A question is asked regarding the language in the Mishna. Is it saying that “all widows get supported by the orphans” (as was the custom in the Galilee) or “a widow who gets supported by the orphans…” (as was the custom in Judea as the orphan could insist she stop taking food payments and they could just pay her the ketuba money and end the relationship). The Gemara tries to prove this from a statement of Shmuel’s regarding our Mishna. However, the proof is inconclusive. What responsibilities does the woman have toward the orphans – is it the same as the woman toward her husband? Even though she can’t collect her food stipend from moveable items, if she does, is it valid or can the court take it away from her? Is it the same for a ketuba? After a certain amount of time passes and she hasn’t demanded food payments, she can no longer collect them. After how much time and on what does that depend? Rabbi Yochanan asked about a case where there is a disagreement between the widow and the orphans about whether or not they gave her money for food, upon who lies the burden of proof? A braita is brought to prove that the burden of proof is on the orphans. Rav Shimi son of Ashi brings a Tosefta in an attempt to show that it is a tannaitic debate. However, the Gemara rejects his explanation of the debate and brings two alternative explanations.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Ketubot 96
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְצִיאַת אַלְמָנָה לְעַצְמָהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״הַנִּיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״נִיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן, נִיהְווֹ כְּבַעַל: מָה בַּעַל מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לַיּוֹרְשִׁים!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: Any lost article found by the widow she acquires for herself. Granted, if you say that we learned in the mishna: A widow who is sustained, Shmuel’s principle is well understood. Then, according to the mishna, there are cases where a widow is supported by her husband’s heirs and other cases where she is not. Shmuel is referring to a case where the heirs do not sustain her, and therefore any earnings and articles that she may find belong to her. However, if you say that we learned in the mishna: A widow is sustained by the heirs in place of her husband, then let the heirs be like the husband in every sense. Just as in the case of the husband, any lost article found by the wife belongs to the husband, here too, any lost article found by the widowed wife should belong to the heirs.
לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: ״נִיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן: טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ — דְּלָא תֶּיהְוֵי לַהּ אֵיבָה. הָנֵי — תֶּיהְוֵי לְהוּ אֵיבָה.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, I will say to you that we learned in the mishna: A widow is sustained, and this does not contradict Shmuel’s statement. What is the reason that the Sages said that any lost article found by the wife belongs to her husband? It is so that she should not be subject to her husband’s enmity. The Sages were concerned that if the husband saw that his wife had come into possession of money and did not know the source of that money, they would quarrel. However, these heirs, let them have enmity toward the widow.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כׇּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ, אַלְמָנָה עוֹשָׂה לַיּוֹרְשִׁים, חוּץ מִמְּזִיגַת הַכּוֹס וְהַצָּעַת הַמִּטָּה וְהַרְחָצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.
Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a widow performs for the husband’s heirs, except for filling his cup; and making his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet, which are expressions of affection that a woman performs specifically for her husband.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָעֶבֶד עוֹשֶׂה לְרַבּוֹ — תַּלְמִיד עוֹשֶׂה לְרַבּוֹ, חוּץ מֵהַתָּרַת (לוֹ) מִנְעָל.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All tasks that a Canaanite slave performs for his master, a student performs for his teacher, except for untying his shoe, a demeaning act that was typically performed by slaves and would not be appropriate for a student to do.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ לֵית לַן בַּהּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ נָמֵי, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין, אֲבָל מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
Rava said: We said this only if the teacher and the student are in a place where people are not familiar with the student and he could be mistaken for a slave. However, in a place where people are familiar with the student, we have no problem with it as everyone knows that he is not a slave. Rav Ashi said: And in a place where people are not familiar with the student, we said this halakha only if he is not donning phylacteries, but if he is donning phylacteries, we have no problem with it. A slave does not don phylacteries, and since this student is donning phylacteries, even if he unties his teacher’s shoes he will not be mistaken for a slave.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ תַּלְמִידוֹ מִלְּשַׁמְּשׁוֹ — כְּאִילּוּ מוֹנֵעַ מִמֶּנּוּ חֶסֶד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַמָּס מֵרֵעֵהוּ חָסֶד״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אַף פּוֹרֵק מִמֶּנּוּ יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיִרְאַת שַׁדַּי יַעֲזוֹב״.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he withheld from him kindness, as it is stated: “To him that is ready to faint [lamas], from his friend kindness is due” (Job 6:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan interprets this to mean that one who prevents [memis] another from performing acts on his behalf, prevents him from performing the mitzva of kindness. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He even removes from the student the fear of Heaven, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “Even to one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty.”
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה מִטַּלְטְלִין בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ — מַה שֶּׁתָּפְסָה תָּפְסָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה מִטַּלְטְלִין בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ — מַה שֶּׁתָּפְסָה תָּפְסָה.
Rabbi Elazar said: In the case of a widow who seized movable property for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized and it remains in her possession. That halakha is also taught in a baraita: A widow who seized movable property to provide for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַי שֶׁתָּפְסָה דִּסַקַּיָּא מְלֵאָה מָעוֹת, וְלֹא הָיָה כֹּחַ בְּיַד חֲכָמִים לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָהּ.
And likewise, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Shabbtai’s daughter-in-law, who seized a saddlebag [diskayya] full of coins for her sustenance, and the Sages did not have the authority to remove it from her possession.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לִמְזוֹנֵי, אֲבָל לִכְתוּבָּה — מַפְּקִינַן מִינַּהּ.
Ravina said: We said the halakha that we do not remove from her possession that which she seized only in a case where she seized the assets for her sustenance. However, if she seized the assets as payment of her marriage contract, we remove it from her.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא לִכְתוּבָּה, דְּמִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי? מְזוֹנוֹת נָמֵי מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי! אֶלָּא לִמְזוֹנֵי — מַאי דְּתָפְסָה תָּפְסָה, הָכִי נָמֵי לִכְתוּבָּה!
Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: What is different about seizing assets as payment of her marriage contract, that they are removed from her possession? If it is that a marriage contract is paid only from real estate and not from movable property, there is a rabbinic enactment that sustenance is also paid only from real estate and not from movable property. Rather, just as you say that if she seizes assets for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized, so too, her seizure is effective if she does so as payment of her marriage contract.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר נַפְתָּלִי לְרָבִינָא: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא כְּווֹתָיךְ.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Naftali said to Ravina: We say this halakha in the name of Rava, in accordance with your teaching that if she seized movable property as payment of her marriage contract, it is removed from her possession.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִימְרָא: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְלֹא תָּבְעָה מְזוֹנוֹת — אִיבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹת.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: A widow who waited two or three years after her husband’s death and did not demand sustenance from the heirs has forfeited the right to receive sustenance from them. Since she did not demand her sustenance, it is assumed that she must have forgone this right.
הַשְׁתָּא שְׁתַּיִם — אִיבְּדָה, שָׁלֹשׁ מִיבַּעְיָא?! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּעֲנִיָּה, כָּאן בַּעֲשִׁירָה.
The Gemara discusses the language of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra’s statement: Now that it was stated that after two years she forfeited her rights to receive sustenance, is it necessary to state that she also forfeited her rights after three years? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the first statement is referring to a poor woman for which two years is a long time. If she does not demand sustenance for two years, it is clear that she has forgiven the heirs this obligation. There, the second statement is referring to a rich woman who can support herself for two years. It is only clear after three years that she forgave the obligation.
אִי נָמֵי: כָּאן בִּפְרוּצָה, כָּאן בִּצְנוּעָה.
Alternatively, here it is referring to an unabashed woman, who is not ashamed to demand her rights from the heirs. If she does not demand sustenance within two years, it is assumed that she has forgone this right. There, it is referring to a modest woman, who is embarrassed to demand sustenance from the heirs and who waits until the third year to claim this right.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, אֲבָל לְהַבָּא יֵשׁ לָהּ.
Rava said: We said this halakha only retroactively; the widow cannot demand to be reimbursed for the past years in which she paid for her own sustenance. However, from here onward, once she demands sustenance she has the right to receive it from the heirs.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְתוֹמִים אוֹמְרִים נָתַנְנוּ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, עַל מִי לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה?
Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If the orphans say: We gave her sustenance, and she says: I took none, upon whom is it incumbent to bring proof to support his argument?
נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת יַתְמֵי קָיְימִי וְעַל אַלְמָנָה לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת אַלְמָנָה קָיְימִי, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
The Gemara presents the different options: Does one say that the property is in the possession of the orphans and it is incumbent upon the widow to bring proof of her claim, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests on the claimant? Or, perhaps one says that the property is in the widow’s possession given that it has a lien attached to it by virtue of her marriage contract, and it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof of their claim.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: אַלְמָנָה, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִיסֵּת — עַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. נִיסֵּת — עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
Come and hear proof from a baraita that Levi taught: In the case of a widow, as long as she has not married again, it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof that they provided sustenance for her. Once she has married and comes to demand the sustenance that she was supposed to receive in the past, it is incumbent upon her to bring proof that she never received anything.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, כְּתַנָּאֵי: מוֹכֶרֶת, וְכוֹתֶבֶת: ״אֵלּוּ לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִּי״ וְ״אֵלּוּ לִכְתוּבָּה מָכַרְתִּי״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מוֹכֶרֶת וְכוֹתֶבֶת סְתָם, וְכֵן כֹּחָהּ יָפֶה.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question is subject to a dispute between tanna’im in the following baraita: A widow sells parts of her deceased husband’s property and writes: These I sold for my sustenance and these I sold as payment for my marriage contract; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: She sells and writes how much she sold without specification of the purpose for which it was sold. And so her power to support herself is enhanced, as she will be able to decide if what she took was payment for her marriage contract or if it was for her sustenance, based on the status of other claims to her husband’s property.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר בָּעֵי לְפָרוֹשֵׁי, סָבַר: נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת יַתְמֵי קָיְימִי, וְעַל הָאַלְמָנָה לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵי לְפָרוֹשֵׁי, נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת אַלְמָנָה קָיְימִי, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this question? According to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that she is required to specify the purpose for which it was sold, it is implied that he holds that the property is in the possession of the orphans, and it is incumbent upon the widow to provide proof. This is why she needs to write precisely for what purpose the property was sold. And Rabbi Yosei holds that she does not need to specify the purpose for which it was sold because the property is in the widow’s possession, and it is incumbent upon the orphans to provide proof.
מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת אַלְמָנָה קָיְימִי, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דְּלָא לִיקְרוֹ לַהּ רַעַבְתָנוּתָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof: From where do you arrive at this conclusion? Perhaps everyone agrees that the property is in the widow’s possession and it is incumbent upon the orphans to provide proof. And Rabbi Yehuda simply teaches us a measure of good advice, so that they will not call her a glutton if they think that she spends excessively on her sustenance. He therefore advises her to specify the purpose for which everything was sold so that she can prove that she did not spend excessively on her sustenance.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָא דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין: מוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, וְכוֹתֶבֶת: ״אֵלּוּ לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִּי״! אֶלָּא מִמַּתְנִיתִין לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, דְּעֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. הָכִי נָמֵי עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
As, if you do not say so, then with regard to the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yoḥanan, why not resolve the dilemma from the mishna that states (97b): A woman sells her husband’s property for her sustenance when not in court, and writes: These I sold for my sustenance? Based on the reasoning used earlier, one could have resolved the question by proving from here that the property is in the possession of the orphans, and it is incumbent upon the widow to bring proof for her claim. Rather, it must be that this halakha cannot be derived from this mishna, as it teaches us only good advice to keep the heirs from complaining about her. So too, in the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us a measure of good advice, not a halakha.
אִי נָמֵי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת יַתְמֵי קָיְימִי, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — כִּדְאַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא, מָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לִשְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר ״תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי בַּעַל חוֹבִי״, רָצָה — בְּחוֹבוֹ נוֹטְלָן, רָצָה — בְּמַתָּנָה נוֹטְלָן.
Alternatively, one can say the opposite: Everyone agrees that the property is in the possession of the orphans, and this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, as explained by Abaye the Elder, as Abaye the Elder said a parable to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: To what is this matter comparable? To a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my creditor. Because the word give is usually used in the context of a gift, the creditor can decide: If he desires, he takes the money as payment of the debt owed to him. This gives the creditor the advantage of being able to collect his debt from liened properties that were sold to a third party. Or, if he so desires, he takes the money as a gift.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Ketubot 96
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְצִיאַת אַלְמָנָה לְעַצְמָהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״הַנִּיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״נִיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן, נִיהְווֹ כְּבַעַל: מָה בַּעַל מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לַיּוֹרְשִׁים!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: Any lost article found by the widow she acquires for herself. Granted, if you say that we learned in the mishna: A widow who is sustained, Shmuel’s principle is well understood. Then, according to the mishna, there are cases where a widow is supported by her husband’s heirs and other cases where she is not. Shmuel is referring to a case where the heirs do not sustain her, and therefore any earnings and articles that she may find belong to her. However, if you say that we learned in the mishna: A widow is sustained by the heirs in place of her husband, then let the heirs be like the husband in every sense. Just as in the case of the husband, any lost article found by the wife belongs to the husband, here too, any lost article found by the widowed wife should belong to the heirs.
לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: ״נִיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן: טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ — דְּלָא תֶּיהְוֵי לַהּ אֵיבָה. הָנֵי — תֶּיהְוֵי לְהוּ אֵיבָה.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, I will say to you that we learned in the mishna: A widow is sustained, and this does not contradict Shmuel’s statement. What is the reason that the Sages said that any lost article found by the wife belongs to her husband? It is so that she should not be subject to her husband’s enmity. The Sages were concerned that if the husband saw that his wife had come into possession of money and did not know the source of that money, they would quarrel. However, these heirs, let them have enmity toward the widow.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כׇּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ, אַלְמָנָה עוֹשָׂה לַיּוֹרְשִׁים, חוּץ מִמְּזִיגַת הַכּוֹס וְהַצָּעַת הַמִּטָּה וְהַרְחָצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.
Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a widow performs for the husband’s heirs, except for filling his cup; and making his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet, which are expressions of affection that a woman performs specifically for her husband.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָעֶבֶד עוֹשֶׂה לְרַבּוֹ — תַּלְמִיד עוֹשֶׂה לְרַבּוֹ, חוּץ מֵהַתָּרַת (לוֹ) מִנְעָל.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All tasks that a Canaanite slave performs for his master, a student performs for his teacher, except for untying his shoe, a demeaning act that was typically performed by slaves and would not be appropriate for a student to do.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ לֵית לַן בַּהּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ נָמֵי, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין, אֲבָל מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
Rava said: We said this only if the teacher and the student are in a place where people are not familiar with the student and he could be mistaken for a slave. However, in a place where people are familiar with the student, we have no problem with it as everyone knows that he is not a slave. Rav Ashi said: And in a place where people are not familiar with the student, we said this halakha only if he is not donning phylacteries, but if he is donning phylacteries, we have no problem with it. A slave does not don phylacteries, and since this student is donning phylacteries, even if he unties his teacher’s shoes he will not be mistaken for a slave.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ תַּלְמִידוֹ מִלְּשַׁמְּשׁוֹ — כְּאִילּוּ מוֹנֵעַ מִמֶּנּוּ חֶסֶד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַמָּס מֵרֵעֵהוּ חָסֶד״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אַף פּוֹרֵק מִמֶּנּוּ יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיִרְאַת שַׁדַּי יַעֲזוֹב״.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he withheld from him kindness, as it is stated: “To him that is ready to faint [lamas], from his friend kindness is due” (Job 6:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan interprets this to mean that one who prevents [memis] another from performing acts on his behalf, prevents him from performing the mitzva of kindness. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He even removes from the student the fear of Heaven, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “Even to one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty.”
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה מִטַּלְטְלִין בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ — מַה שֶּׁתָּפְסָה תָּפְסָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה מִטַּלְטְלִין בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ — מַה שֶּׁתָּפְסָה תָּפְסָה.
Rabbi Elazar said: In the case of a widow who seized movable property for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized and it remains in her possession. That halakha is also taught in a baraita: A widow who seized movable property to provide for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַי שֶׁתָּפְסָה דִּסַקַּיָּא מְלֵאָה מָעוֹת, וְלֹא הָיָה כֹּחַ בְּיַד חֲכָמִים לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָהּ.
And likewise, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Shabbtai’s daughter-in-law, who seized a saddlebag [diskayya] full of coins for her sustenance, and the Sages did not have the authority to remove it from her possession.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לִמְזוֹנֵי, אֲבָל לִכְתוּבָּה — מַפְּקִינַן מִינַּהּ.
Ravina said: We said the halakha that we do not remove from her possession that which she seized only in a case where she seized the assets for her sustenance. However, if she seized the assets as payment of her marriage contract, we remove it from her.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא לִכְתוּבָּה, דְּמִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי? מְזוֹנוֹת נָמֵי מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי! אֶלָּא לִמְזוֹנֵי — מַאי דְּתָפְסָה תָּפְסָה, הָכִי נָמֵי לִכְתוּבָּה!
Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: What is different about seizing assets as payment of her marriage contract, that they are removed from her possession? If it is that a marriage contract is paid only from real estate and not from movable property, there is a rabbinic enactment that sustenance is also paid only from real estate and not from movable property. Rather, just as you say that if she seizes assets for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized, so too, her seizure is effective if she does so as payment of her marriage contract.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר נַפְתָּלִי לְרָבִינָא: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא כְּווֹתָיךְ.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Naftali said to Ravina: We say this halakha in the name of Rava, in accordance with your teaching that if she seized movable property as payment of her marriage contract, it is removed from her possession.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִימְרָא: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְלֹא תָּבְעָה מְזוֹנוֹת — אִיבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹת.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: A widow who waited two or three years after her husband’s death and did not demand sustenance from the heirs has forfeited the right to receive sustenance from them. Since she did not demand her sustenance, it is assumed that she must have forgone this right.
הַשְׁתָּא שְׁתַּיִם — אִיבְּדָה, שָׁלֹשׁ מִיבַּעְיָא?! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּעֲנִיָּה, כָּאן בַּעֲשִׁירָה.
The Gemara discusses the language of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra’s statement: Now that it was stated that after two years she forfeited her rights to receive sustenance, is it necessary to state that she also forfeited her rights after three years? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the first statement is referring to a poor woman for which two years is a long time. If she does not demand sustenance for two years, it is clear that she has forgiven the heirs this obligation. There, the second statement is referring to a rich woman who can support herself for two years. It is only clear after three years that she forgave the obligation.
אִי נָמֵי: כָּאן בִּפְרוּצָה, כָּאן בִּצְנוּעָה.
Alternatively, here it is referring to an unabashed woman, who is not ashamed to demand her rights from the heirs. If she does not demand sustenance within two years, it is assumed that she has forgone this right. There, it is referring to a modest woman, who is embarrassed to demand sustenance from the heirs and who waits until the third year to claim this right.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, אֲבָל לְהַבָּא יֵשׁ לָהּ.
Rava said: We said this halakha only retroactively; the widow cannot demand to be reimbursed for the past years in which she paid for her own sustenance. However, from here onward, once she demands sustenance she has the right to receive it from the heirs.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְתוֹמִים אוֹמְרִים נָתַנְנוּ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, עַל מִי לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה?
Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If the orphans say: We gave her sustenance, and she says: I took none, upon whom is it incumbent to bring proof to support his argument?
נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת יַתְמֵי קָיְימִי וְעַל אַלְמָנָה לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת אַלְמָנָה קָיְימִי, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
The Gemara presents the different options: Does one say that the property is in the possession of the orphans and it is incumbent upon the widow to bring proof of her claim, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests on the claimant? Or, perhaps one says that the property is in the widow’s possession given that it has a lien attached to it by virtue of her marriage contract, and it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof of their claim.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: אַלְמָנָה, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִיסֵּת — עַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. נִיסֵּת — עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
Come and hear proof from a baraita that Levi taught: In the case of a widow, as long as she has not married again, it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof that they provided sustenance for her. Once she has married and comes to demand the sustenance that she was supposed to receive in the past, it is incumbent upon her to bring proof that she never received anything.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, כְּתַנָּאֵי: מוֹכֶרֶת, וְכוֹתֶבֶת: ״אֵלּוּ לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִּי״ וְ״אֵלּוּ לִכְתוּבָּה מָכַרְתִּי״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מוֹכֶרֶת וְכוֹתֶבֶת סְתָם, וְכֵן כֹּחָהּ יָפֶה.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question is subject to a dispute between tanna’im in the following baraita: A widow sells parts of her deceased husband’s property and writes: These I sold for my sustenance and these I sold as payment for my marriage contract; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: She sells and writes how much she sold without specification of the purpose for which it was sold. And so her power to support herself is enhanced, as she will be able to decide if what she took was payment for her marriage contract or if it was for her sustenance, based on the status of other claims to her husband’s property.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר בָּעֵי לְפָרוֹשֵׁי, סָבַר: נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת יַתְמֵי קָיְימִי, וְעַל הָאַלְמָנָה לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵי לְפָרוֹשֵׁי, נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת אַלְמָנָה קָיְימִי, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this question? According to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that she is required to specify the purpose for which it was sold, it is implied that he holds that the property is in the possession of the orphans, and it is incumbent upon the widow to provide proof. This is why she needs to write precisely for what purpose the property was sold. And Rabbi Yosei holds that she does not need to specify the purpose for which it was sold because the property is in the widow’s possession, and it is incumbent upon the orphans to provide proof.
מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת אַלְמָנָה קָיְימִי, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דְּלָא לִיקְרוֹ לַהּ רַעַבְתָנוּתָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof: From where do you arrive at this conclusion? Perhaps everyone agrees that the property is in the widow’s possession and it is incumbent upon the orphans to provide proof. And Rabbi Yehuda simply teaches us a measure of good advice, so that they will not call her a glutton if they think that she spends excessively on her sustenance. He therefore advises her to specify the purpose for which everything was sold so that she can prove that she did not spend excessively on her sustenance.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָא דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין: מוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, וְכוֹתֶבֶת: ״אֵלּוּ לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכַרְתִּי״! אֶלָּא מִמַּתְנִיתִין לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, דְּעֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. הָכִי נָמֵי עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
As, if you do not say so, then with regard to the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yoḥanan, why not resolve the dilemma from the mishna that states (97b): A woman sells her husband’s property for her sustenance when not in court, and writes: These I sold for my sustenance? Based on the reasoning used earlier, one could have resolved the question by proving from here that the property is in the possession of the orphans, and it is incumbent upon the widow to bring proof for her claim. Rather, it must be that this halakha cannot be derived from this mishna, as it teaches us only good advice to keep the heirs from complaining about her. So too, in the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us a measure of good advice, not a halakha.
אִי נָמֵי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת יַתְמֵי קָיְימִי, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — כִּדְאַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא, מָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לִשְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר ״תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי בַּעַל חוֹבִי״, רָצָה — בְּחוֹבוֹ נוֹטְלָן, רָצָה — בְּמַתָּנָה נוֹטְלָן.
Alternatively, one can say the opposite: Everyone agrees that the property is in the possession of the orphans, and this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, as explained by Abaye the Elder, as Abaye the Elder said a parable to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: To what is this matter comparable? To a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my creditor. Because the word give is usually used in the context of a gift, the creditor can decide: If he desires, he takes the money as payment of the debt owed to him. This gives the creditor the advantage of being able to collect his debt from liened properties that were sold to a third party. Or, if he so desires, he takes the money as a gift.
