Ketubot 107a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

One who went overseas

and his wife claims maintenance.

It was stated, Rav said: We provide maintenance to a married woman.

And we collect it from the husband’s property, for the court sells his property and provides her sustenance.

And

if

Shmuel said: We do not provide maintenance to a married woman,

as will be explained.

Shmuel said: Abba agrees with me

[Rav, who was called this because of his importance], that we do not provide maintenance to a married woman

during the first three months

after his departure,

because

there is a presumption that

a person does not leave his house empty

of provisions, and there is a presumption that he left her money with which to purchase provisions.

And the Gemara explains:

When word was heard concerning him that he had died,

and she is entitled to a ketuba—

everyone agrees

that the court provides her maintenance, up to the amount of her ketuba. For we have no reason to fear that she will collect unlawfully. For when she comes to collect her ketuba, the heirs will make her swear that her husband did not hand over bundles of money to her.

If you would say that there is reason to fear that her husband said to her, “Let the product of your hands be for your maintenance,” and she is not entitled to maintenance, since she accepted what her husband said to her, nevertheless now, after her husband has died, she is no longer subjugated to him for the product of her hands, and she has the right to eat maintenance as long as she has not collected her ketuba.

When they disagree—

when word was not heard concerning him that he had died.

Rav said: We provide it, for he is subjugated to her

for her maintenance.

And Shmuel said: We do not provide it!

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason,

what is Shmuel’s reason?

Rav Zevid said: Say

there is room to fear and say that

bundles of money,

bundles of money,

he handed over

to her husband for her maintenance.

Rav Pappa said: We are concerned that perhaps he said to her

her husband:

“Let the product of your hands be for your maintenance,”

and she agreed to this.

What is the difference between them

between the two reasons, in practical law?—

There is a difference between them:

a.

An adult woman,

concerning whom there is reason to fear that he handed over bundles of money to her,

but it did not suffice

through the product of her hands for her maintenance, because it was a year of famine, or she was incapable of doing work that supports her.

There is reason to fear bundles of money, but there is no reason to fear that she agreed to support herself from the product of her hands, for she does not succeed in doing so.

b.

Alternatively, a minor girl,

to whom he does not hand over bundles of money,

and

nevertheless she

suffices

through the product of her hands for her maintenance.

And the Gemara proves from our Mishna against Shmuel:

We learned: “One who went overseas, and his wife claims maintenance”—

Hanan said: She must swear

that her husband did not hand over bundles of money to her

at the end,

when she comes to collect her ketuba,

but

nevertheless

she does not swear at the beginning,

when she comes to claim maintenance.

The sons of the High Priests disagreed with him and said: She must swear at the beginning and at the end!

And the Gemara proves:

They disagree only concerning the matter of an oath,

whether she swears when she comes to collect maintenance,

but maintenance, we give it to her

according to everyone!

He explained

he interpreted

Shmuel

our Mishna, so that it would not be difficult for him: our Mishna is speaking

when word was heard concerning him that he had died,

for then even according to Shmuel we provide her maintenance.

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita in the Tosefta:

“One who went overseas, and his wife claims maintenance”—

The sons of the High Priests say: She must swear!

Hanan says: She does not swear!

And if he comes

the husband, after they provided her maintenance,

and said, “I provided her maintenance,”

that I left money for her for it—he is

believed

with an oath to take from her what she collected.

And it is proved that they provide her maintenance, unlike Shmuel!

And we answer:

Here too

it is speaking

when word was heard concerning him that he had died.

And the Gemara challenges this answer:

But “if he comes and says”—

he says

the tanna! And how did you say that word was heard concerning him that he had died!?

And we answer:

If he comes

the husband

after the report

that he had died.

Come and hear

against Shmuel from what we learned in a beraita:

“One who went overseas, and his wife claims maintenance”—

“If he comes and says: ‘Let the product of your hands be for your maintenance’”—

he is permitted.

If the court preceded him and provided

her with maintenance—

what they provided, they provided!

And we answer:

Here too

it is speaking

when word was heard concerning him that he had died.

Come and hear

from another beraita against Shmuel:

For it was taught:

“One who went overseas, and his wife claims maintenance, the court descends to his property, and feeds and supports his wife.”

But not

do they feed

his sons and daughters.

And not anything else!

As will be explained.

And here it is impossible to answer that word was heard concerning him that he had died, because then they give his property to his sons.

Rav Sheshet said

to explain [the matter] in accordance with Shmuel: here it is speaking

of one who placed his wife under the charge of a trustee,

who left money with a guardian to support her, and now the guardian does not wish to continue engaging in this.

And therefore there is no concern either for bundles of money, for he deposited the money with the guardian, or that she agreed to support herself from the product of her hands, for he entrusted money for her maintenance.

And we challenge:

If so,

that you established it as a case in which he entrusted money for maintenance,

his sons and daughters too

will be supported from his property, for he revealed his intention that he does not abandon them, but wants them to be fed from his property!

And we answer: here it is speaking explicitly

when he appointed for

the needs of

this one,

for he entrusted money with the trustee so that he would feed only his wife,

and he did not appoint for this one,

for the maintenance of his sons and daughters!

And the Gemara expresses astonishment at such an interpretation:

What decisive basis is there?

From where do you have grounds to decide and say that it is speaking of one who wants to feed only his wife and not his sons?

Rather, Rav Pappa said,

this is how it should be answered:

It is speaking

when she heard concerning him that he had died, through one witness

And from this report derives the distinction between her maintenance and the maintenance of the sons—

She

herself,

for if she wants to marry,

if she desires to marry,

through one witness,

on the basis of his testimony,

she may marry,

she is permitted to marry and take her ketuba—

we also give her maintenance,

as long as she has not exercised her right to take her ketuba.

But

his sons and daughters, for if they wish to descend,

if they wish to descend and inherit

his property

on the testimony of

one witness

that their father died,

they may not descend,

since monetary matters require two witnesses, and only in the testimony concerning a woman whose husband died did the Sages leniently permit reliance on one witness—

we also do not give them maintenance.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “anything else”,

that they do not give her?

Rav Hisda said:

They do not give her

ornamentation

from his property.

Rav Yosef said: Charity.

If charity is collected from the townspeople, they do not collect it from his property, for they sell from his property only if he is here and does not give willingly, but not when he is absent.