כתובות 96 — parallel

96:1

— 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?

—

96:2

Is the estate [of the deceased man] in the presumptive possession of the orphans and consequently it is the widow who must produce the proof, or is the estate rather in the presumptive possession of the widow and the proof must be produced by the orphans? Come and hear what Levi taught: [In a dispute on the maintenance of] a widow, the orphans must produce the proof so long as she is unmarried, but if she was married the proof must be produced by her. R. Shimi b. Ashi said: [This point is a matter in dispute between] the following Tannaim: She may sell [portions of her deceased husband's estate] but should specify in writing, 'These I have sold for maintenance,' and 'These I have sold for the kethubah' [as the case may be]; so R. Judah. R. Jose, however, ruled: She may sell [such portions] and need not specify the purpose in writing, for in this manner she gains an advantage. They thus apparently differ on the following point: R. Judah, who ruled that it is necessary to specify the purpose, holds that the [deceased man's] estate is in the presumptive possession of the orphans and that it is the widow who must produce the proof, whilst R. Jose, who ruled that it was not necessary to specify the purpose, upholds the view that the estate is in the presumptive possession of the widow and that it is the orphans who must produce the proof. Whence [is this made so obvious]? It is quite possible that all agree that the [deceased man's] estate is in the presumptive possession of his widow and that the orphans must produce the proof, but R. Judah is merely tendering good advice [by following which the widow] would prevent people from calling her a glutton. For were you not to admit this, could not the question raised by R. Johanan be answered from the Mishnah: She may sell [her deceased husband's estate] for her maintenance out of court but should enter [in the deed of sale,] 'I have sold these for maintenance'? Consequently It must be concluded that no deduction may be made from the Mishnah because therein only good advice was tendered; and so also here [it may similarly be submitted that R. Judah] was only tendering good advice. Or else: All may agree that the estate [of the deceased] is in the presumptive possession of the orphans, but R. Jose's reason is exactly the same as [that given by] Abaye the Elder who stated: To what may the ruling of R. Jose be compared? To [the instructions of] a dying man who said, 'Give two hundred zuz to So-and-so, my creditor, who may take them, if he wishes, in settlement of his debt or, if he prefers, he may take then, as a gift',

—