## Ketubot Daf 107a

###### Ketubot 107a:1
[Ketubot 107a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:1)

פּוֹסְקִין מְזוֹנוֹת לְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין פּוֹסְקִין מְזוֹנוֹת לְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוֹדֶה לִי אַבָּא בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַנִּיחַ בֵּיתוֹ רֵיקָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The court **apportions sustenance for a married woman,** i.e., if a husband went overseas and left behind nothing with which his wife could provide for her sustenance, the court withdraws money from his estate for this purpose. **And Shmuel said:** The court **does not apportion sustenance for a married woman. Shmuel** further **said: Abba,** i.e., Rav, **concedes to me** that the court does not touch the husband’s estate **for the first three months.** This is **because a person does not leave his house empty,** and therefore it is certain that he left something with which his wife can sustain herself at least in the short term.


###### Ketubot 107a:2
[Ketubot 107a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:2)

בְּשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, בְּשֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת. רַב אָמַר: פּוֹסְקִין, דְּהָא מְשׁוּעְבַּד לַהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין פּוֹסְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: In a case **where they heard that** the husband **died, everyone agrees** that the court sustains his wife from his estate. **When they disagree** it is in a case **where they did not hear that he had died** abroad. **Rav said** that the court **apportions** sustenance for the wife, **as** his estate is legally **mortgaged to her** and must provide her with sustenance, **and Shmuel said** that in this case the court **does not apportion** sustenance for her.


###### Ketubot 107a:3
[Ketubot 107a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: אֵימָא צְרָרֵי אַתְפְּסַהּ. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא אָמַר לָהּ ״צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for Shmuel’s ruling? **Rav Zevid said:** One can **say that he gave her a bundle** of money before he departed. **Rav Pappa said: We are concerned** that **perhaps he said to her** before his departure: **Spend your earnings to sustain yourself,** i.e., he renounced his rights to her earnings and in exchange he is no longer required to provide her with support.


###### Ketubot 107a:4
[Ketubot 107a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:4)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ גְּדוֹלָה, וְלָא סָפְקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between** these two explanations? The Gemara answers: **There is** a practical difference **between them** in a case where the woman is **an adult,** and therefore it is possible that he left her money, **and** the amount she earns is **not enough** for her needs. According to the opinion of Rav Zevid, one can assume that he gave her money and therefore it is not necessary for the court to allocate her sustenance from his estate, whereas according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, as her earnings are not enough for her sustenance the court apportions more for her from his estate, despite the husband’s possible stipulation.


###### Ketubot 107a:5
[Ketubot 107a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:5)

אִי נָמֵי קְטַנָּה וְסָפְקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** there is a difference between them in the case of **a minor** wife, with whom the husband would not have left money, **but** her earnings are **enough** for her sustenance. Rav Zevid would claim that the court must provide for her from his estate, as he would not have left her money, whereas Rav Pappa would argue that he might have told her to sustain herself from her own earnings.


###### Ketubot 107a:6
[Ketubot 107a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:6)

תְּנַן: מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹת, חָנָן אָמַר: תִּשָּׁבַע בַּסּוֹף, וְלֹא תִּשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה. נֶחְלְקוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ: תִּשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן שְׁבוּעָה, אֲבָל מְזוֹנֵי יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ! תַּרְגְּמַהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in the mishna: With regard to **one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, Ḥanan says: She takes an oath at the end, and she does not take an oath at the outset. The sons of High Priests disputed** Ḥanan’s opinion **and said: She takes an oath** both **at the outset and at the end.** The Gemara comments: **They disagree only with regard to an oath; however,** with regard to **sustenance** everyone agrees **that** the court **gives** it **to her.** This apparently contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains that **Shmuel interpreted** the mishna in accordance with his opinion as referring to a case **when they heard concerning him that he died** overseas. In this scenario, everyone agrees that the court provides her with sustenance from the husband’s estate.


###### Ketubot 107a:7
[Ketubot 107a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹת, בְּנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים אוֹמְרִים: תִּשָּׁבַע, חָנָן אוֹמֵר: לֹא תִּשָּׁבַע. וְאִם בָּא וְאָמַר: פָּסַקְתִּי לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת — נֶאֱמָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: With regard to **one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, the sons of High Priests say: She takes an oath. Ḥanan says: She does not take an oath,** i.e., she receives sustenance without having to swear. **And if he came and said: I apportioned** money **for her sustenance** and left her with sufficient funds, **he is deemed credible** and she must return all that she received from his estate through the court. This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel, who maintains that the court does not supply her with sustenance *ab initio*.


###### Ketubot 107a:8
[Ketubot 107a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:8)

הָכָא נָמֵי בְּשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת. וְהָא ״אִם בָּא וְאָמַר״ קָאָמַר! אִם בָּא לְאַחַר שְׁמוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here, too,** it is referring to a case **where they heard concerning him that he died** abroad. The Gemara asks: **But** the *tanna* **said: If he came and said,** which indicates that the husband is not dead. The Gemara explains that the *baraita* means: **If he came after the rumor.** There was a rumor that he had died, and for this reason the court provided her with sustenance, and later it was determined that the rumor was false.


###### Ketubot 107a:9
[Ketubot 107a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹת, וְאִם בָּא וְאָמַר ״צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ״ — רַשַּׁאי. קָדְמוּ בֵּית דִּין וּפָסְקוּ — מַה שֶּׁפָּסְקוּ פָּסְקוּ. הָכָא נָמֵי בְּשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another *baraita*: With regard to **one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, if he came and said** that prior to his departure he told her: **Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, he is permitted** to act accordingly. **If the court went ahead and apportioned** sustenance for her, **what they apportioned is apportioned,** and she is not required to return it. Again, this poses a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: **Here, too,** it is referring to a case **where they heard concerning him that he died** abroad.


###### Ketubot 107a:10
[Ketubot 107a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹת — בֵּית דִּין יוֹרְדִים לִנְכָסָיו וְזָנִין וּמְפַרְנְסִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו, וְלֹא דָּבָר אַחֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another *baraita*: With regard to **one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance,** the **court descends to his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, but not** for **his sons and daughters, and** they do **not** give her **something else.** Once again this presents a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel.


###### Ketubot 107a:11
[Ketubot 107a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:11)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּמַשְׁרֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ. אִי הָכִי, בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו נָמֵי! כְּשֶׁהִשְׁרָה לָזוֹ, וְלֹא הִשְׁרָה לָזוֹ. מַאי פַּסְקָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said:** This is referring **to one who feeds his wife by means of a third party.** In this case, even if the husband was available he would not be providing her with her sustenance directly, as he appointed someone else to give her money in accordance with her needs. The Gemara asks: **If so, his sons and daughters** should **also** receive this support. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case **where he appointed** a third party **for this** purpose, his wife’s sustenance, **but he did not appoint** a third party **for this** purpose, the sustenance of his children. The Gemara asks: If that is correct, **why** was it stated **without qualification?** There is no hint in the *baraita* that the husband differentiated in this manner.


###### Ketubot 107a:12
[Ketubot 107a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּשֶׁשָּׁמְעָה בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת בְּעֵד אֶחָד. הִיא, דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא אִינְּסוֹבֵי בְּעֵד אֶחָד מָצְיָא מִינַּסְבָא — מְזוֹנֵי נָמֵי יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Pappa said** that Shmuel would explain this *baraita* as referring to a case **where she heard that he had died,** and she was told this **by one witness.** Therefore, as far as **she** is concerned, since this is a case **where if she wanted to remarry** based **on** the testimony of that **one witness she may marry,** as in this situation the Sages permitted her to rely on the account of a single witness so that she not end up a deserted woman, the court **also provides her with sustenance,** as she may claim her marriage contract based on this testimony.


###### Ketubot 107a:13
[Ketubot 107a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:13)

בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו, דְּאִי בָּעוּ לְמֵיחַת לִנְכָסָיו בְּעֵד אֶחָד לָא מָצוּ נָחֲתִי — מְזוֹנֵי נָמֵי לָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, with regard to **his sons and daughters,** since this is a case **where if they wanted to descend to his estate on** the basis of the testimony of **one witness, they may not descend** and take the property, as two witnesses are required for matters of inheritance, the court **also does not provide them with sustenance.** As far as the children are concerned, there is still insufficient evidence for the death of their father.


###### Ketubot 107a:14
[Ketubot 107a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/107a:14)

מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: תַּכְשִׁיט. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: צְדָקָה. מַאן דְּאָמַר תַּכְשִׁיט, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Incidentally, the Gemara asks: **What is: Something else,** mentioned in the *baraita*? **Rav Ḥisda said:** This is a wife’s **ornaments,** to which she is entitled in addition to her sustenance. **Rav Yosef said:** It is money for **charity.** The Gemara comments: According to **the one who said** that the court does not pay for her **ornaments** if the husband has gone overseas, **all the more so**