Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 10, 2022 | 讟状讜 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 96

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鈥” (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鈥檚 regarding our Mishna. However, the proof is inconclusive. What responsibilities does the woman have toward the orphans 鈥 is it the same as the woman toward her husband? Even though she can鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪爪讬讗转 讗诇诪谞讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 转谞谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬讝讜谞转 转谞谉 谞讬讛讜讜 讻讘注诇 诪讛 讘注诇 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讬讜专砖讬诐

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鈥檚 principle is well understood. Then, according to the mishna, there are cases where a widow is supported by her husband鈥檚 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 谞讬讝讜谞转 转谞谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛 讗讬讘讛 讛谞讬 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讗讬讘讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讗诇诪谞讛 注讜砖讛 诇讬讜专砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪诪讝讬讙转 讛讻讜住 讜讛爪注转 讛诪讟讛 讜讛专讞爪转 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a widow performs for the husband鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讜转 砖讛注讘讚 注讜砖讛 诇专讘讜 转诇诪讬讚 注讜砖讛 诇专讘讜 讞讜抓 诪讛转专转 (诇讜) 诪谞注诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讞 转驻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诪谞讞 转驻诇讬谉 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

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鈥檚 shoes he will not be mistaken for a slave.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讜谞注 转诇诪讬讚讜 诪诇砖诪砖讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪讜谞注 诪诪谞讜 讞住讚 砖谞讗诪专 诇诪住 诪专注讛讜 讞住讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讗祝 驻讜专拽 诪诪谞讜 讬专讗转 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬专讗转 砖讚讬 讬注讝讜讘

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone who prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he withheld from him kindness, as it is stated: 鈥淭o him that is ready to faint [lamas], from his friend kindness is due鈥 (Job 6:14). Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: He even removes from the student the fear of Heaven, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: 鈥淓ven to one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇诪谞讛 砖转驻住讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 诪讛 砖转驻住讛 转驻住讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诇诪谞讛 砖转驻住讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 诪讛 砖转驻住讛 转驻住讛

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.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘讻诇转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖讘转讬 砖转驻住讛 讚住拽讬讗 诪诇讗讛 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讻讞 讘讬讚 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讛

And likewise, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Shabbtai鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讗讘诇 诇讻转讜讘讛 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻转讜讘讛 讚诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 谞诪讬 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 诪讗讬 讚转驻住讛 转驻住讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讻转讜讘讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞驻转诇讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讱

Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讝讬诪专讗 讗诇诪谞讛 砖砖讛转讛 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 转讘注讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬讘讚讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: A widow who waited two or three years after her husband鈥檚 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.

讛砖转讗 砖转讬诐 讗讬讘讚讛 砖诇砖 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注谞讬讛 讻讗谉 讘注砖讬专讛

The Gemara discusses the language of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra鈥檚 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讗谉 讘驻专讜爪讛 讻讗谉 讘爪谞讜注讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪驻专注 讗讘诇 诇讛讘讗 讬砖 诇讛

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞转谞谞讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 谞讟诇转讬 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讗诇诪谞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讬住转 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 谞讬住转 注诇讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讻转谞讗讬 诪讜讻专转 讜讻讜转讘转 讗诇讜 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讻专转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇讻转讜讘讛 诪讻专转讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专转 讜讻讜转讘转 住转诐 讜讻谉 讻讞讛 讬驻讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in the following baraita: A widow sells parts of her deceased husband鈥檚 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鈥檚 property.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讘注讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 住讘专 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讗诇诪谞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

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鈥檚 possession, and it is incumbent upon the orphans to provide proof.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讗诇诪谞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 诇讬拽专讜 诇讛 专注讘转谞讜转讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: From where do you arrive at this conclusion? Perhaps everyone agrees that the property is in the widow鈥檚 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.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讜讻专转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻讜转讘转 讗诇讜 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讻专转讬 讗诇讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

As, if you do not say so, then with regard to the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yo岣nan, why not resolve the dilemma from the mishna that states (97b): A woman sells her husband鈥檚 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讬 专爪讛 讘讞讜讘讜 谞讜讟诇谉 专爪讛 讘诪转谞讛 谞讜讟诇谉

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 93-98 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how we divide a limited estate between surviving wives each with a different Ketuva value....
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 96: Taking Care of the Widow (Via the Orphans?)

A new mishnah: a widow is provided for from the orphans' inheritance of the estate. Plus, a Gemara that queries...

Ketubot 96

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 96

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪爪讬讗转 讗诇诪谞讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬讝讜谞转 转谞谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬讝讜谞转 转谞谉 谞讬讛讜讜 讻讘注诇 诪讛 讘注诇 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讬讜专砖讬诐

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鈥檚 principle is well understood. Then, according to the mishna, there are cases where a widow is supported by her husband鈥檚 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 谞讬讝讜谞转 转谞谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛 讗讬讘讛 讛谞讬 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讗讬讘讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讗诇诪谞讛 注讜砖讛 诇讬讜专砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪诪讝讬讙转 讛讻讜住 讜讛爪注转 讛诪讟讛 讜讛专讞爪转 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a widow performs for the husband鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讜转 砖讛注讘讚 注讜砖讛 诇专讘讜 转诇诪讬讚 注讜砖讛 诇专讘讜 讞讜抓 诪讛转专转 (诇讜) 诪谞注诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讞 转驻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诪谞讞 转驻诇讬谉 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

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鈥檚 shoes he will not be mistaken for a slave.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讜谞注 转诇诪讬讚讜 诪诇砖诪砖讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪讜谞注 诪诪谞讜 讞住讚 砖谞讗诪专 诇诪住 诪专注讛讜 讞住讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讗祝 驻讜专拽 诪诪谞讜 讬专讗转 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬专讗转 砖讚讬 讬注讝讜讘

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone who prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he withheld from him kindness, as it is stated: 鈥淭o him that is ready to faint [lamas], from his friend kindness is due鈥 (Job 6:14). Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: He even removes from the student the fear of Heaven, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: 鈥淓ven to one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇诪谞讛 砖转驻住讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 诪讛 砖转驻住讛 转驻住讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诇诪谞讛 砖转驻住讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 诪讛 砖转驻住讛 转驻住讛

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.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘讻诇转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖讘转讬 砖转驻住讛 讚住拽讬讗 诪诇讗讛 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讻讞 讘讬讚 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讛

And likewise, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Shabbtai鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讗讘诇 诇讻转讜讘讛 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻转讜讘讛 讚诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 谞诪讬 诪诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 诪讗讬 讚转驻住讛 转驻住讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讻转讜讘讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞驻转诇讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讱

Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讝讬诪专讗 讗诇诪谞讛 砖砖讛转讛 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 转讘注讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬讘讚讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: A widow who waited two or three years after her husband鈥檚 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.

讛砖转讗 砖转讬诐 讗讬讘讚讛 砖诇砖 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注谞讬讛 讻讗谉 讘注砖讬专讛

The Gemara discusses the language of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra鈥檚 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讗谉 讘驻专讜爪讛 讻讗谉 讘爪谞讜注讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪驻专注 讗讘诇 诇讛讘讗 讬砖 诇讛

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞转谞谞讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 谞讟诇转讬 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讗诇诪谞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讗诇诪谞讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讬住转 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 谞讬住转 注诇讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讻转谞讗讬 诪讜讻专转 讜讻讜转讘转 讗诇讜 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讻专转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇讻转讜讘讛 诪讻专转讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专转 讜讻讜转讘转 住转诐 讜讻谉 讻讞讛 讬驻讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in the following baraita: A widow sells parts of her deceased husband鈥檚 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鈥檚 property.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讘注讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 住讘专 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讗诇诪谞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

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鈥檚 possession, and it is incumbent upon the orphans to provide proof.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讗诇诪谞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 诇讬拽专讜 诇讛 专注讘转谞讜转讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: From where do you arrive at this conclusion? Perhaps everyone agrees that the property is in the widow鈥檚 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.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讜讻专转 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻讜转讘转 讗诇讜 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讻专转讬 讗诇讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

As, if you do not say so, then with regard to the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yo岣nan, why not resolve the dilemma from the mishna that states (97b): A woman sells her husband鈥檚 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讬 专爪讛 讘讞讜讘讜 谞讜讟诇谉 专爪讛 讘诪转谞讛 谞讜讟诇谉

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.

Scroll To Top