Ketubot

it is the duty of her heirs, even those who inherit her kethubah, to bury her. Said Abaye, We also have learned a [similar Mishnah]: A widow is to be maintained out of the estate of [her deceased husband's] orphans, and her handiwork belongs to them. It is not their duty, however, to bury her; it is the duty of her heirs, even those who inherit her kethubah, to bury her.  Now, what widow is it that has two kinds of heirs?  Obviously  she who is awaiting the decision of a levir. Said Raba: But could  he not plead, 'I am only heir to my brother; it is not my duty to bury his wife'!  — Abaye replied: [Such a plea would be untenable] because he is approached by two alternative demands:  If he is heir to his brother he should bury his wife;  if he does not bury his wife he should return her kethubah.  [Raba] retorted, it is this that I mean: [Might he not plead], 'I am only heir to my brother; it is not my duty to bury his wife; and if [I am expected to bury her] on account of the kethubah  [I may point out that] a kethubah is not payable during [the husband's] lifetime'?  — Who is it that was heard to admit the kethubah as a text for legal exposition?  Beth Shammai, of course.  But Beth Shammai have also been heard to lay down the rule that a note of indebtedness which is due for payment is regarded as repaid.  For we have learned: If their husbands  died before they drank,  Beth Shammai rule that they are to receive their kethubah and that they need not drink,  and Beth Hillel rule that they either drinks or they do not receive their kethubah.  [Now how could it be said,] 'They either drink', when the All-Merciful said, Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest,  and he is not there? [The meaning must] consequently be: As they do not drink  they are not to receive their kethubah. Again 'Beth Shammai rule that they are to receive their kethubah and that they need not drink', but why [should they receive their kethubah]? Is not their claim of a doubtful nature,  it being uncertain whether she had committed adultery or not;  then how could an uncertainty  override a certainty?  Beth Shammai [must consequently] hold the view that 'a note of indebtedness that is due for payment is regarded as repaid'.  But is it not required [that the proviso], 'When thou wilt be married to another man thou wilt receive what is prescribed for thee' [be complied with], which is not the case here?  — R. Ashi replied: A levir is also regarded as 'another man'. Raba addressed [the following message] to Abaye  through R. Shemaya b. Zera: Is a kethubah  indeed payable during [the levir's] lifetime? Has it not, in fact, been taught: R. Abba  stated, 'I asked Symmachus, "How is a man  who desires to sell his brother s property to proceed" [and he replied,] "If he is a priest,  he should prepare a banquet  and use persuasive means;  if he is an Israelite  he may divorce her and then marry her again".'