Ketubot 96a (צו.) — the Talmud in English

Come and hear

a proof that “a widow

who is sustained” is what we learned, and that the anonymous tanna of our Mishna follows the people of Judea, from that which

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel:

A widow’s lost object

is

hers,

even though the husband would have acquired her lost object!

The Gemara infers:

Granted, if you say that the phrase “A widow

who

is sustained” is what we learned,

and the anonymous tanna of our Mishna follows the people of Judea, according to whom the orphans are not obligated to sustain her, then

it is well

to explain Shmuel’s statement as referring to a widow who is not being sustained, and therefore her lost object belongs to her.

But if you say that the phrase “A widow

is sustained” is what we learned,

and the orphans are obligated to sustain her, without the ability to free themselves of this obligation by giving her the amount of her ketuba, this is difficult:

Let

the orphans

be like the husband [

the law governing the orphans should be the same as the law governing the husband]—

Just as,

when she was with the

husband, a

woman’s lost object belonged to her husband

because he sustained her, so too

here—

when the orphans sustain her—

also let

the

lost object of the

woman

belong to the heirs!?

And we reject this:

I will always tell you: “A widow is sustained” is what we learned,

and they are obligated to sustain her. Nevertheless, their law differs from that of a husband, and the woman’s lost object does not belong to them:

For

what is the reason the Sages said: A woman’s lost object belongs to her husband?

It is

so that there should not be enmity between them

because he sustains her while she does not give him her lost object.

But

these

orphans—we are not concerned that

there should be enmity between them

and her, since they sustain her against their will. Therefore, the woman’s lost object does not belong to the orphans.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

All the tasks that a woman performs for her husband,

the

widow performs

them

for the heirs

who sustain her—

except for mixing the cup and making their bed

for them,

and washing his face, his hands, and his feet,

which she does not do for the orphans, although she is obligated to do so for her husband, because these tasks create affection and lead to intimacy.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the tasks that a slave performs for his master,

a

student performs for his teacher, except for removing his shoe,

because an observer might say: He is his Canaanite slave.

Rava said: We said

that a student does not remove his teacher’s shoe

only in a place where they do not recognize him

as his student;

but in a place where they recognize him

as his student,

there is no concern [

there is nothing to worry about], since there is no reason to fear that they will say: He is a Canaanite slave.

Rav Ashi said: Even in a place where they do not recognize him, we said

that he does not remove his teacher’s shoe

only

in a case

where the student is not wearing

his

tefillin.

But

when

the student

is

wearing tefillin

regularly,

there is no concern,

because Canaanite slaves do not wear tefillin, and everyone will see that he is known as a student and is not a slave!

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Anyone who prevents his student from serving him

is

as though he prevents him from performing an act of kindness.

As it is stated [Job 6:13]: “Is there no help for me, and has resourcefulness been driven away from me?

For melting away [

the lamed has a pataḥ and the mem a kamatz]

kindness from his fellow, and he abandons the fear of the Almighty.”

That is, one who melts away [prevents] himself from receiving the assistance of his fellow melts away [prevents] him from the possibility of performing an act of kindness.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He also removes from him the fear of Heaven, as it is stated

there,

“and he abandons the fear of the Almighty

.”

Rabbi Elazar said:

Although the Sages said that a woman is sustained only from the land that her husband left to the orphans, nevertheless:

If a widow seized movable property

that the orphans inherited from her husband

for her sustenance, whatever she seized, she has seized!

A beraita likewise teaches

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar’s statement:

If a widow seized movable property for her sustenance, whatever she seized, she has seized.

And likewise, when

when

Rav Dimi

came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said:

There was an incident involving the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Shabbtai, who seized

from the heirs

a leather sack [

a leather bag]

filled with coins

for her sustenance,

and the Sages had no power to take it from her,

because once she had seized it, she had seized it.

Ravina said: We said

that when she seizes movable property, it is not taken from her

only

when she seized it

for sustenance.

But

if she seized movable property

for her ketuba,

which may be collected only from land,

we take it from her [

we remove it from her]!

Mar bar Rav Ashi challenged

Ravina’s statement:

What is different about a ketuba

that we take the property from her? Is it because

a

woman’s ketuba is collected

from land and not from movable property?

If so,

sustenance as well—the Sages said that it is collected

from land and not from movable property!?

Rather,

just as

with regard to sustenance, whatever she seized, she has seized, so too with regard to a ketuba!

Rav Yitzḥak bar Naftali said to Ravina:

This is what we say in the name of Rava, in accordance with your view [

like you]: when a widow seizes movable property for her ketuba, we take it from her!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra:

A widow

who waited two or three years without claiming sustenance

from the orphans,

forfeited

her right to claim the

sustenance

that she had not claimed until now, because since she did not claim it, she certainly waived it!

The Gemara wonders about Rabbi Yoḥanan’s wording, “two or three years.”

Now,

if she waited

two

years and

forfeited

it—because she certainly would not have waited so long to claim it unless she had waived it—if she waited

three

years before claiming her sustenance,

is it

necessary for us to say that she certainly waived it and forfeited her sustenance!?

The Gemara explains:

It is not difficult:

there are women who forfeit their sustenance after two years, while others forfeit it only after three years:

Here—

two years—

in the case of

a poor woman,

who certainly would not wait two years, and therefore she must have waived it.

Here—

three years—

in the case of

a wealthy woman,

who meanwhile has means with which to sustain herself; until three years have passed, it is possible that she did not waive it but intended to claim it.

Alternatively:

Here—

two years—

in the case of an

immodest woman,

who is not embarrassed to come to court and claim what is owed to her.

Here—

three years—

in the case of a

modest woman,

who is embarrassed to come to court to make a claim; until three years have passed, it may be said that she did not waive it.

Rava said: We said

that if she delayed claiming her sustenance, she forfeited it

only

with regard to the sustenance

retroactively

that the orphans had become obligated to provide her for the past, before she made her claim—

But with regard to the sustenance that they are obligated to provide her from this point

and onward,

after she made her claim,

she is entitled to it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma: The orphans say, “We gave her”

the money for her sustenance,

and she says, “I did not receive it”—upon whom

—upon the widow or upon the orphans— is it incumbent to bring proof?