Parallel
כתובות 96:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— Come and hear what R. Zera stated in the name of Samuel: 'The find of a widow belongs to herself'. Now if you grant that what we learnt was, one who is maintained' [this ruling is] quite justified, but if you insist that what we learnt was 'is to be maintained' [why, it might be objected, should they not] have the same rights as a husband, and just as in the latter case a wife's find belongs to her husband, so it, the former case also the find of the woman should belong to the heirs? — I may still insist that what we have learnt was 'is to be maintained'; for the reason why the Rabbis have ordained that the find of a wife belonged to her husband is in order that he shall bear no grudge against her, but as regards these let them bear the grudge. R. Jose b. Hanina ruled: All manner of work which a wife must render to her husband a widow must render to the orphans, with the exception of serving one's drinks, making ready one's bed and washing one's face, hands or feet. R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: All manner of service that a slave must render to his master a student must render to his teacher, except that of taking off his shoe. Raba explained: This ruling applies only to a place where he is not known, but where he is known there can be no objection. R. Ashi said: Even where he is not known the ruling applies only where he does not put on tefillin but where he puts on tefillin, he may well perform such a service. R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan. A man who deprives his student of [the privilege of] attending on him acts as if he had deprived him of [an act of] kindness, for it is said in Scripture, To him that deprives his friend of kindness. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He also deprives him of the fear of heaven, for it is said in Scripture, And he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty. R. Eleazar ruled: If a widow seized movables [to provide] for her maintenance, her act is valid. So it was also taught: If a widow seized movables [to provide] for her maintenance, her act is valid. And so R. Dimi, when he came, related: It once happened that the daughter-in-law of R. Shabbethai seized a saddle bag that was full of money, and the Sages had no power to take it out of her possession. Rabina ruled: This applies only to maintenance but [movables seized] in payment of a kethubah may be taken away from her. Mar son of R. Ashi demurred: Wherein [is the case of seizure] for a kethubah different [from the other]? Is it because [the former may be distrained for] on landed property and not on movables, may not maintenance also, [it may be objected, be distrained] on landed property and not on movables? The fact, however, is that as in respect of maintenance seizure is valid, so it is also valid in respect of a kethubah. Said R. Isaac b. Naphtali to Rabina: Thus, in agreement with your view, it has also been stated in the name of Raba. R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: A widow who allowed two or three years to pass before she claimed maintenance loses her maintenance. Now [that it has been said that] she loses [her maintenance after] two years, was it necessary [to mention also] three? — This is no difficulty; the lesser number refers to a poor woman while the bigger one refers to a rich woman; or else: The former refers to a bold woman and the latter to a modest woman. Raba ruled: This applies only to a retrospective claim, but in respect of the future she is entitled [to maintenance]. R. Johanan enquired: If the orphans plead, 'We have already paid [the cost of maintenance in advance]', and she retorts, 'I did not receive it', who must produce the proof?
—