## Ketubot Daf 96a

###### Ketubot 96a:1
[Ketubot 96a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:1)

תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְצִיאַת אַלְמָנָה לְעַצְמָהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״הַנִּיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״נִיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן, נִיהְווֹ כְּבַעַל: מָה בַּעַל מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לַיּוֹרְשִׁים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from that which **Rabbi Zeira said** that **Shmuel said:** Any lost **article found by the widow** she acquires **for herself. Granted, if you say** that **we learned** in the mishna: A widow **who is sustained,** Shmuel’s principle is **well** understood. Then, according to the mishna, there are cases where a widow is supported by her husband’s heirs and other cases where she is not. Shmuel is referring to a case where the heirs do not sustain her, and therefore any earnings and articles that she may find belong to her. **However, if you say** that **we learned** in the mishna: A widow **is sustained** by the heirs in place of her husband, then **let** the heirs **be like the husband** in every sense. **Just as** in the case of **the husband,** any lost **article found by** the **wife** belongs **to the husband, here too,** any lost **article found by** the widowed **wife** should belong **to the heirs.**


###### Ketubot 96a:2
[Ketubot 96a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:2)

לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: ״נִיזּוֹנֶת״ תְּנַן: טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ — דְּלָא תֶּיהְוֵי לַהּ אֵיבָה. הָנֵי — תֶּיהְוֵי לְהוּ אֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Actually, I will say to you** that **we learned** in the mishna: A widow **is sustained,** and this does not contradict Shmuel’s statement. **What is the reason** that **the Sages said** that any lost **article found by** the **wife** belongs **to her husband?** It is **so that she should not be subject to** her husband’s **enmity.** The Sages were concerned that if the husband saw that his wife had come into possession of money and did not know the source of that money, they would quarrel. However, **these** heirs, **let them have enmity** toward the widow.


###### Ketubot 96a:3
[Ketubot 96a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כׇּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ, אַלְמָנָה עוֹשָׂה לַיּוֹרְשִׁים, חוּץ מִמְּזִיגַת הַכּוֹס וְהַצָּעַת הַמִּטָּה וְהַרְחָצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a widow performs for the** husband’s **heirs, except for filling** his **cup; and making** his **bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet,** which are expressions of affection that a woman performs specifically for her husband.


###### Ketubot 96a:4
[Ketubot 96a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָעֶבֶד עוֹשֶׂה לְרַבּוֹ — תַּלְמִיד עוֹשֶׂה לְרַבּוֹ, חוּץ מֵהַתָּרַת (לוֹ) מִנְעָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All tasks that** a Canaanite **slave performs for his master, a student performs for his teacher, except for untying his shoe,** a demeaning act that was typically performed by slaves and would not be appropriate for a student to do.


###### Ketubot 96a:5
[Ketubot 96a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ לֵית לַן בַּהּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ נָמֵי, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין, אֲבָל מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: We said this only** if the teacher and the student are **in a place where** people are **not familiar with** the student and he could be mistaken for a slave. **However, in a place where** people are **familiar with** the student, **we have no** problem **with it** as everyone knows that he is not a slave. **Rav Ashi said: And in a place where** people are **not familiar with** the student, **we said this** *halakha* **only** if **he is not donning phylacteries, but if he is donning phylacteries, we have no** problem **with it.** A slave does not don phylacteries, and since this student is donning phylacteries, even if he unties his teacher’s shoes he will not be mistaken for a slave.


###### Ketubot 96a:6
[Ketubot 96a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ תַּלְמִידוֹ מִלְּשַׁמְּשׁוֹ — כְּאִילּוּ מוֹנֵעַ מִמֶּנּוּ חֶסֶד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַמָּס מֵרֵעֵהוּ חָסֶד״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אַף פּוֹרֵק מִמֶּנּוּ יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיִרְאַת שַׁדַּי יַעֲזוֹב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he withheld from him kindness, as it is stated: “To him that is ready to faint [*lamas*], from his friend kindness is due”** (Job 6:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan interprets this to mean that one who prevents [*memis*] another from performing acts on his behalf, prevents him from performing the mitzva of kindness. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He even removes from** the student **the fear of Heaven, as it is stated** in the continuation of the verse: **“Even to one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty.”**


###### Ketubot 96a:7
[Ketubot 96a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה מִטַּלְטְלִין בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ — מַה שֶּׁתָּפְסָה תָּפְסָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁתָּפְסָה מִטַּלְטְלִין בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ — מַה שֶּׁתָּפְסָה תָּפְסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said:** In the case of **a widow who seized movable property for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized** and it remains in her possession. **That** *halakha* **is also taught** in a *baraita*: **A widow who seized movable property** to provide **for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized.**


###### Ketubot 96a:8
[Ketubot 96a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:8)

וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַי שֶׁתָּפְסָה דִּסַקַּיָּא מְלֵאָה מָעוֹת, וְלֹא הָיָה כֹּחַ בְּיַד חֲכָמִים לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And likewise, when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael **he said:** There was **an incident involving Rabbi Shabbtai’s daughter-in-law, who seized a saddlebag [*diskayya*] full of coins** for her sustenance, **and the Sages did not have the authority to remove it from her possession.**


###### Ketubot 96a:9
[Ketubot 96a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:9)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לִמְזוֹנֵי, אֲבָל לִכְתוּבָּה — מַפְּקִינַן מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: We said** the *halakha* that we do not remove from her possession that which she seized **only** in a case where she seized the assets **for her sustenance. However,** if she seized the assets **as** payment of **her marriage contract, we remove it from her.**


###### Ketubot 96a:10
[Ketubot 96a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא לִכְתוּבָּה, דְּמִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי? מְזוֹנוֹת נָמֵי מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי! אֶלָּא לִמְזוֹנֵי — מַאי דְּתָפְסָה תָּפְסָה, הָכִי נָמֵי לִכְתוּבָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: What is different** about seizing assets **as** payment of **her marriage contract,** that they are removed from her possession? If it is **that** a marriage contract is paid only **from real estate and not from movable property,** there is a rabbinic enactment that **sustenance** is **also** paid only **from real estate and not from movable property. Rather,** just as you say that if she seizes assets **for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized, so too,** her seizure is effective if she does so **as** payment of **her marriage contract.**


###### Ketubot 96a:11
[Ketubot 96a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר נַפְתָּלִי לְרָבִינָא: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא כְּווֹתָיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak bar Naftali said to Ravina: We say this** *halakha* **in the name of Rava, in accordance with your** teaching that if she seized movable property as payment of her marriage contract, it is removed from her possession.


###### Ketubot 96a:12
[Ketubot 96a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִימְרָא: אַלְמָנָה שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְלֹא תָּבְעָה מְזוֹנוֹת — אִיבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: A widow who waited two or three years** after her husband’s death **and did not demand sustenance** from the heirs **has forfeited** the right to receive **sustenance** from them. Since she did not demand her sustenance, it is assumed that she must have forgone this right.


###### Ketubot 96a:13
[Ketubot 96a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:13)

הַשְׁתָּא שְׁתַּיִם — אִיבְּדָה, שָׁלֹשׁ מִיבַּעְיָא?! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּעֲנִיָּה, כָּאן בַּעֲשִׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the language of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra’s statement: **Now** that it was stated that after **two** years **she forfeited** her rights to receive sustenance, **is** it **necessary** to state that she also forfeited her rights after **three** years? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. Here,** the first statement is referring **to a poor woman** for which two years is a long time. If she does not demand sustenance for two years, it is clear that she has forgiven the heirs this obligation. **There,** the second statement is referring **to a rich woman** who can support herself for two years. It is only clear after three years that she forgave the obligation.


###### Ketubot 96a:14
[Ketubot 96a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:14)

אִי נָמֵי: כָּאן בִּפְרוּצָה, כָּאן בִּצְנוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively, here** it is referring **to an unabashed woman,** who is not ashamed to demand her rights from the heirs. If she does not demand sustenance within two years, it is assumed that she has forgone this right. **There,** it is referring **to a modest woman,** who is embarrassed to demand sustenance from the heirs and who waits until the third year to claim this right.


###### Ketubot 96a:15
[Ketubot 96a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, אֲבָל לְהַבָּא יֵשׁ לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: We said** this *halakha* **only retroactively;** the widow cannot demand to be reimbursed for the past years in which she paid for her own sustenance. **However, from** here **onward,** once she demands sustenance **she has** the right to receive it from the heirs.


###### Ketubot 96a:16
[Ketubot 96a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/96a:16)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְתוֹמִים אוֹמְרִים נָתַנְנוּ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, עַל מִי לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma:** If the **orphans say: We gave** her sustenance, **and she says: I took none, upon whom** is it incumbent **to bring proof** to support his argument?