Ketubot 96

תא שמע אמר רבי זירא אמר שמואל מציאת אלמנה לעצמה אי אמרת בשלמא הניזונת תנן שפיר אלא אי אמרת ניזונת תנן ניהוו כבעל מה בעל מציאת אשה לבעלה הכא נמי מציאת אשה ליורשים

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.

לעולם אימא לך ניזונת תנן טעמא מאי אמור רבנן מציאת אשה לבעלה דלא תיהוי לה איבה הני תיהוי להו איבה

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.

אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא כל מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה אלמנה עושה ליורשים חוץ ממזיגת הכוס והצעת המטה והרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו

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.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל מלאכות שהעבד עושה לרבו תלמיד עושה לרבו חוץ מהתרת (לו) מנעל

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.

אמר רבא לא אמרן אלא במקום שאין מכירין אותו אבל במקום שמכירין אותו לית לן בה אמר רב אשי ובמקום שאין מכירין אותו נמי לא אמרן אלא דלא מנח תפלין אבל מנח תפלין לית לן בה

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.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל המונע תלמידו מלשמשו כאילו מונע ממנו חסד שנאמר למס מרעהו חסד רב נחמן בר יצחק אומר אף פורק ממנו יראת שמים שנאמר ויראת שדי יעזוב

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.”

אמר רבי אלעזר אלמנה שתפסה מטלטלין במזונותיה מה שתפסה תפסה תניא נמי הכי אלמנה שתפסה מטלטלין במזונותיה מה שתפסה תפסה

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.

וכן כי אתא רב דימי אמר מעשה בכלתו של רבי שבתי שתפסה דסקיא מלאה מעות ולא היה כח ביד חכמים להוציא מידה

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.

אמר רבינא ולא אמרן אלא למזוני אבל לכתובה מפקינן מינה

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.

מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי מאי שנא לכתובה דממקרקעי ולא ממטלטלי מזונות נמי ממקרקעי ולא ממטלטלי אלא למזוני מאי דתפסה תפסה הכי נמי לכתובה

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.

אמר ליה רב יצחק בר נפתלי לרבינא הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא כוותיך

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.

אמר רבי יוחנן משמיה דרבי יוסי בן זימרא אלמנה ששהתה שתים ושלש שנים ולא תבעה מזונות איבדה מזונות

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.

השתא שתים איבדה שלש מיבעיא לא קשיא כאן בעניה כאן בעשירה

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.

אי נמי כאן בפרוצה כאן בצנועה

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.

אמר רבא לא אמרן אלא למפרע אבל להבא יש לה

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.

בעי רבי יוחנן יתומים אומרים נתננו והיא אומרת לא נטלתי על מי להביא ראיה

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?

נכסי בחזקת יתמי קיימי ועל אלמנה להביא ראיה או דלמא נכסי בחזקת אלמנה קיימי ועל היתומים להביא ראיה

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.

תא שמע דתני לוי אלמנה כל זמן שלא ניסת על היתומים להביא ראיה ניסת עליה להביא ראיה

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.

אמר רב שימי בר אשי כתנאי מוכרת וכותבת אלו למזונות מכרתי ואלו לכתובה מכרתי דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר מוכרת וכותבת סתם וכן כחה יפה

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.

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי לרבי יהודה דאמר בעי לפרושי סבר נכסי בחזקת יתמי קיימי ועל האלמנה להביא ראיה ורבי יוסי סבר לא בעי לפרושי נכסי בחזקת אלמנה קיימי ועל היתומים להביא ראיה

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.

ממאי דלמא דכולי עלמא נכסי בחזקת אלמנה קיימי ועל היתומים להביא ראיה ורבי יהודה עצה טובה קא משמע לן דלא ליקרו לה רעבתנותא

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.

דאי לא תימא הכי הא דבעי רבי יוחנן תפשוט ליה ממתניתין מוכרת למזונות שלא בבית דין וכותבת אלו למזונות מכרתי אלא ממתניתין ליכא למשמע מינה דעצה טובה קא משמע לן הכי נמי עצה טובה קא משמע לן

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.

אי נמי דכולי עלמא נכסי בחזקת יתמי קיימי והיינו טעמא דרבי יוסי כדאביי קשישא דאמר אביי קשישא משל דרבי יוסי למה הדבר דומה לשכיב מרע שאמר תנו מאתים זוז לפלוני בעל חובי רצה בחובו נוטלן רצה במתנה נוטלן

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.