12th CYCLE DEDICATION
KESUVOS 96 - dedicated by Michael Miller l'Iluy Nishmos Aharon ben Mendel Miller, Rivkah bas Yosef Miller.

1)

A WIDOW'S EARNINGS (cont.)

(a)

Answer: Shmuel taught that a widow keeps Metzi'os that she finds.

1.

We understand this if the text of the Mishnah is 'a widow who is fed' (Shmuel discusses a widow who is not fed).

2.

But if the text is 'a widow is fed', the orphans are like the husband. Just like a husband gets his wife's Metzi'os, also they should get them!

(b)

Rejection: Really, the text can be 'is fed.' Chachamim enacted that a husband gets her Metzi'os to avoid enmity. We are not concerned for this regarding the orphans.

(c)

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): A widow does for the heirs all tasks that a wife does for her husband, except for mixing drinks, spreading the bed, and washing the hands, feet and face.

(d)

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): A Talmid does for his Rebbi all tasks that a slave does for his master, except for untying his shoe (lest people think that the Talmid is a slave).

(e)

(Rava): This is only in a place where people do not recognize him. Where people recognize him, it is no problem (to untie his shoe).

(f)

(Rav Ashi): Even where people do not recognize him, it is only a problem if the Talmid is not wearing Tefilin (slaves do not wear Tefilin).

(g)

(R. Chiya bar Avin): Anyone who prevents his Talmid from serving him withholds from him Chesed - "He withholds Chesed from his friend"

1.

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): He removes fear of Shamayim from him - "he (causes that he) abandons fear of Hash-m".

2)

A WIDOW'S RIGHT TO BE FED

(a)

(R. Elazar, and also a Beraisa): If a widow seized Metaltelim to pay for her food, she keeps them.

(b)

(Rav Dimi): A case occurred in which R. Shabtai's daughter-in-law seized a sack of coins, and Chachamim could not take it from her.

(c)

(Ravina): This applies only to food. If she seized Metaltelim to collect her Kesuvah, we take them from her.

(d)

Objection (Mar bar Rav Ashi): Surely, when she seized for her Kesuvah we take from her because a Kesuvah is collected only from land, not from Metaltelim;

1.

Also food may be collected only from land!

2.

Rather when she seizes for food, she keeps it. The same applies when she seizes for her Kesuvah.

(e)

(R. Yitzchak bar Naftali): Rava taught like Ravina.

(f)

(R. Yochanan): If a widow did not claim food for two or three years, she lost rights to food.

(g)

Question: If she loses after two years, why does he mention three years?

(h)

Answer #1: A poor woman loses after two, and a rich woman after three.

(i)

Answer #2: An immodest woman loses after two, and a modest woman after three.

(j)

(Rava): She loses only for the past (for when she did not claim), but she is entitled to receive food in the future.

(k)

Question (R. Yochanan): If the orphans say that they fed her and she says that she did not receive, who must bring a proof?

96b----------------------------------------96b

1.

Do we consider the property to be in the possession of the orphans, and she must bring a proof?

2.

Or, is the property Muchzak by her, and the orphans must bring a proof?

(l)

Answer #1: Levi taught that as long as a widow did not remarry, the orphans must bring proof that she collected. After she married, she must bring proof.

(m)

Answer #2 (Rav Simi bar Ashi): Tana'im argue about who is Muchzak in the property:

1.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): She sells and writes 'this was sold for food, and this was sold for payment of the Kesuvah';

2.

R. Yosi says, she does not specify for what she sold. This gives to her greater power of collection.

3.

Suggestion: R. Yehudah requires her to specify because he holds that the orphans are Muchzakim, and she must bring proof. R. Yosi does not require her to specify, since he holds that she is Muchzekes, and the orphans must bring proof.

(n)

Rejection #1: Perhaps all agree that she is Muchzekes, and the orphans must bring proof;

1.

R. Yehudah merely counsels her to write that some property was sold for the Kesuvah, so people will not think that she eats a lot.

(o)

Support: This must be correct. If not, R. Yochanan would have settled his question from a Mishnah!

1.

(Mishnah): She may sell for food outside of Beis Din, and she writes 'I sold this for food.'

2.

Rather, we must say that there is no proof from the Mishnah, for perhaps it is merely good counsel.

3.

There is no proof about R. Yehudah's opinion for the same reason!

(p)

Rejection #2: Perhaps all hold that the orphans are Muchzakim, and R. Yosi holds like Abaye Kashisha. (When selling for food she tells witnesses, so the orphans cannot say that it was for the Kesuvah. She does not write specify in the document, lest buyers will be able to show when she collected her entire Kesuvah, and stop her from collecting from Bnei Chorin afterwards.)

1.

(Abaye Kashisha): A parable for R. Yosi is a dying man who said 'give 200 Zuz to Ploni my creditor.' Ploni can take (from Bnei Chorin) for his debt, or for a gift.

2.

Surely, it is better to take it for the gift! (Tosfos - in either case he is entitled to get both. It is better to take the gift from Bnei Chorin, so he can collect the debt from sold property!)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF