Ketubot 96a — the Talmud in English

Come and hear

a proof that “a widow who is sustained” is what we learned, and that the anonymous tan­ nai of our Mishna follows the people of Judea, from this, that

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said:

although the work of a widow’s hands belongs to the orphans, as it does to the husband, nevertheless

a widow’s find

is

hers alone,

even though the husband would acquire her find!

And the Gemara infers:

If you say it is reasonable that “a widow

who is

sustained” is what we learned,

and the anonymous tan­ nai of our Mishna follows the people of Judea, that the orphans are not obligated to sustain her, then

well

it is properly possible to explain Shmuel’s words as dealing with a widow who is not sustained, and therefore her find belongs to her.

But if you say that “a widow

is

sustained” is what we learned,

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

Let

the orphans

be like the husband

[let the law of the orphans be like the law of the husband] —

What

just as when she was with the

husband, a woman’s find belongs to her husband

because he sustains her, so too

here —

with the orphans who sustain her —

also

let

the find

of the

woman belong to the heirs!?

And we reject this:

I will always say to you: “A widow who 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 find does not belong to them:

For

what is the reason the Sages said: A woman’s find belongs to her husband

?

So that she should not have hostility toward him

because he sustains her and she does not give him her find.

But

these

orphans, we do not care that

they should have hostility toward her

since, against their will, they sustain her; therefore the woman’s find does not belong to the orphans.

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina 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

of the heirs,

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 bring closeness and habitual intimacy.

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

a

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

because one who sees him says: “He is his Canaanite slave.”

Rava said: We said

that the student does not remove his master’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,

we have no concern

[there is nothing in this], for there is no concern that they will say: “He is a Canaanite slave.”

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

that he does not remove his master’s shoe

only

in a case

where he does not place

the student

tefillin.

But

when

he places

the student

tefillin

regularly,

we have no concern,

for it is not the way of Canaanite slaves to put on tefillin, and everyone will see that the designation of student applies to him, and he is not a slave!

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

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 resourcefulness is driven away from me?

To withhold

[the lamed with a patah and the mem with a kamatz]

kindness from his fellow,

and he abandons the fear of the Almighty.” That is, one who withholds [prevents] himself from the help of his fellow, withholds [prevents] from him the possibility of performing an act of kindness.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak 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: a woman is sustained only from the lands that her husband left for the orphans, nevertheless:

a widow who seized movable property

—that the orphans inherited from her husband —

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

A beraita was also taught thus

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar’s words:

A widow who seized movable property for her sustenance, whatever she seized, she has seized.

And likewise, when

when

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said:

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

from the heirs

a leather bag

[a leather sack]

full of coins

for her sustenance,

and the Sages had no power to remove it from her hand,

because once she seized it, she had seized it.

Ravina said: We said

—that if she seized movable property, they do not remove it from her hand —

only

when she seized it

for sustenance.

But

if she seized movable property

for the ketuba,

which is collected only from land,

we remove it from her

[we take it from her]!

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised an objection

to Ravina’s words:

What is different with regard to the ketuba

that we remove it from her, because

the

woman’s ketuba is collected

from land and not from movable property —

if so,

sustenance also,

for 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 the ketuba!

Rav Yitzhak bar Naftali said to Ravina:

This is what we say in the name of Rava, in accordance with you

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

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

A widow

who remained for two or three years without claiming sustenance

from the orphans

lost

her right to claim the

sustenance

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

And the Gemara expresses astonishment at Rabbi Yohanan’s wording, “two or three years.”

Now,

if when she remained

two

years

she lost

—for she certainly would not have waited so long to claim it if she had not waived it — if she remained

three

years before claiming her sustenance,

is it necessary

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

And the Gemara explains:

It is not difficult,

for there are women who lose their sustenance after two years, and there are those who lose it only after three years:

Here —

two years —

with a poor woman,

who certainly would not wait two years, and necessarily she waived it.

Here —

three years —

with a wealthy woman,

who meanwhile has what to sustain herself with, and until three years it is possible that she did not waive it, but had the intention of claiming it.

Alternatively:

Here —

two years —

with an immodest woman,

who is not ashamed to come to the court and claim what is due to her.

Here —

three years —

with a modest woman,

who is ashamed to come to the court to claim it, and until three years one can say that she did not waive it.

Rava said: We said

that if she delayed claiming her sustenance, she forfeited it

only

the sustenance

retroactively

that the orphans became obligated to her for the past, before she claimed it —

but

the sustenance that they are obligated to her from here

onward,

after she claimed it —

she has it.

Rabbi Yohanan raised a question: The orphans say, “We gave”

the money for sustenance,

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

—upon the widow or upon the orphans—

is it incumbent to bring proof?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the doubt: