Ketubot

— 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?