Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 96 - Highlights

Mishna

The Mishna states: A widow is supported from the property inherited by the orphans and they are entitled to her earnings. They are not obligated in her burial. Her inheritors, the inheritors of her kesuvah are obligated to bury her. (95b)

Orphans Supporting the Widow

The Gemora inquires: Does the Mishna say, “A widow is supported,” or is it saying, “A widow who is supported”?

The Gemora explains: Is the Mishna saying that the widow is supported from the property inherited by the orphans, and it would be like the people of Galil, and the orphans will always be obligated to support the widow (as the people of Galil would explicitly write in their kesuvahs)? Or perhaps, the Mishna is saying that the orphans can support the widow, but if they desire, they would not be required to support her; and this would be like the people of Yehudah (who write that the orphans will support her until they decide to pay her the kesuvah)?

The Gemora attempts to bring a proof from that which Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel: The findings of a widow belong to herself. If the orphans are always obligated to support her, her findings should belong to them, just as her findings would belong to her husband! This proves that the orphans may decline to support her by paying her the kesuvah.

The Gemora deflects the proof: The reason why the findings of a woman belong to her husband is because we do not want there to be animosity between them; however, by the orphans, there is no such concern, and perhaps, she may keep possession of her findings. (95b – 96a)



Chores of a Widow and a Student

Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said: All chores that a wife performs for her husband, the widow must perform for the orphans, except for diluting the wine, making his bed and washing his hands, face and feet.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All chores that a slave performs for his master, a student must perform for his teacher, except for untying his shoes (people might thing that he is a Canaanite slave).

Rava qualifies this ruling: If people recognize the student, he may untie his teacher’s shoes.

Rav Ashi qualifies this ruling: If he is wearing tefillin, he may untie his teacher’s shoes even if people do not recognize him.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If a teacher prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he is withholding kindness from him.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: It is also removing from the student his fear of Heaven. (96a)

Moveable Property for her Support

Rabbi Elozar said: If a widow seized moveable property (as support; although only real estate is mortgaged for this), she is not required to return it.

The Gemora cites a braisa which supports this ruling.

Rav Dimi related an incident that occurred with the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Shabsai, where she grabbed a sack full of money, and the Chachamim did not have the strength to take it away from her.

Ravina qualifies the ruling: This is true only in respect to her support; however, if she took moveable property for her kesuvah, she is required to return it.

Mar bar Rav Ashi challenges Ravina: What should be the difference between her support and her kesuvah?

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Naftoli said to Ravina: Rava has ruled according to you. (96a)

Widow’s Silence Regarding Support

Rabbi Yochanan ruled in the name of Rabbi Yosi ben Zimra: A widow who did not demand support for two or three years loses her right to be supported.

The Gemora states: A rich widow loses this right only after remaining silent for three years, whereas a poor widow loses her right even after two years.

The Gemora also differentiates between a modest widow, who loses this right only after remaining silent for three years, whereas an immodest widow loses her right even after two years.

Rava rules: She only loses her right to be compensated for the pat years; however, she may now demand to be supported for the future. (96a)

Rabbi Yochanan’s Inquiry

Rabbi Yochanan inquires: If the orphans claim that they gave her money for support, but she denies it, who is required to present proof?

The Gemora explains: Is the property of the deceased husband regarded as being in the orphan’s possession, and therefore, the widow is required to bring proof (for she is attempting to take money which is in their possession)? Or perhaps, the property of the deceased husband is regarded as being in the widow’s possession, and therefore, the orphans would be required to bring proof that they did indeed pay her?

The Gemora attempts to resolve this inquiry by citing the following braisa: Levi taught: If the widow has not remarried, the orphans are required to bring the proof; if she has remarried, she is required to bring the proof.

Rav Simi bar Ashi said: This is actually a Tannaic dispute. For we learned in the following braisa: A widow may sell portions of her deceased husband’s estate, but she must specify in writing, “These I have sold for my support,” and “These I have sold for my kesuvah.” These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosi, however, ruled: She may sell portions of his estate and she is not required to specify the purpose in writing, and so her power is great.

Rav Simi explains the dispute: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that she is required to specify the purpose of the sale because he holds that the property of the deceased husband is regarded as being in the orphan’s possession, and therefore, she is the one required to bring the proof. Rabbi Yosi, however, holds that she is not required to specify the purpose of the sale because he maintains that the property of the deceased husband is regarded as being in the widow’s possession, and therefore, she is not required to bring any proof.

The Gemora disagrees with the proof: Perhaps both Tannaim hold that the property of the deceased husband is regarded as being in the widow’s possession, and the orphans are required to bring the proof; Rabbi Yehudah does not obligate her to bring proof; rather, he is offering her good advice, so that people will not refer to her as a woman with an insatiable appetite.

Alternatively, we can disagree with Rav Simi’s proof as follows: Perhaps both Tannaim hold that the property of the deceased husband is regarded as being in the orphan’s possession; Rabbi Yosi maintains that she does not have to specify the purpose of her sale in accordance with Abaye the Elder. For Abaye the Elder said: To what may the ruling of Rabbi Yosi be compared to? To the instructions of a dying man who said, “Give two hundred zuz to So-and-so, my creditor.” The creditor may take them as settlement of his debt or, if he prefers, he may take them as a gift. Now, is he not at an advantage if he chooses to take them as a gift, for then, he can still collect his debt from land which was sold? (96a – 97a)

[END]