The Daf B.I.S. Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, has dedicated Masechet Ketubot in honor of our dear friend Mr. Elliot Shasha, may Hashem protect and sustain him. May the merit of the study of Masechet Ketubot stand for him, and may he, with God's help, have a good and blessed year, filled with happiness, prosperity, respect, peace in his home, and success in all his endeavors. Furthermore, may he continue to be a supporter of Torah and all holy projects, Amen. Today's daf has also been dedicated by Mr. Uri Nidam, may Hashem protect and sustain him, in honor of all the members of the minyan, all the members of the Daf Yomi, and in honor of the rabbi. May he continue to succeed and have success and abundance in all his endeavors, Amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the soul of Hashem rest in Gan Eden, Amen. Today’s daf is also being studied for Asher Shamai Yosef ben Sarah and Sarah bat Rachel. May it be Your will, Hashem, that You heal them among all the sick of Your people Israel, Amen.
We begin, with God’s help, the eleventh chapter, Perek Ha'isha Nizonet, and we begin with the first Mishnah: “An almanah nizonet minikhsei yetomim.” As we learned earlier in the Masechet, the almanah, a woman whose husband has passed away, receives sustenance from the estate of the orphans. Her work goes to them; they support her, meaning they provide her with food, and in compensation, she gives them the fruits of her labor. However, they are not obligated to pay for her burial. Why? As she states, “If she dies, her heirs collect her ketubah from her husband's heirs.” This means that when a woman dies, the ketubah goes to her inheritors. Therefore, as a sort of reward, since they will receive the ketubah, the sages placed the obligation of burying her upon them. Thus, the heirs are responsible for the burial. The husband, while married, is obligated to bury her because he inherits the ketubah. However, now that she is not inheritable by him, she must bury herself.
In other words, normally when she is married and dies, the husband is responsible for the burial. Why? Because he inherits the ketubah, and thus the sages mandated that he pay for the burial. Similarly, in the case where the woman dies while she is an almanah, she had the ketubah by her. When she dies, where does her ketubah go? To the heirs. Just as the husband receives the ketubah and pays for the burial, the heirs must pay for the burial. However, the estate of the husband is not required to pay for her burial in such a case. The Mishnah states: “Her work goes to them, and they are not obligated to pay for her burial; her heirs, the heirs of the ketubah, are obligated to pay for the burial.” This is exactly what the Mishnah says: her inheritors, the inheritors of the ketubah, are responsible for the burial.
The Gemara then asks: “Iba’iya lehu,” the Gemara raises a question regarding the proper text of our Mishnah. “Nizonet t’nan,” is the proper text of the Mishnah “almanah nizonet” as we have it? Or perhaps it should be “ha’nizonet”? What is the difference between the two texts if you have just “nizonet” or “ha’nizonet”? If it simply states the word “nizonet,” like the custom of the people of the Galil, then they must provide it to her. This implies that sustenance is a guarantee. Rashi explains that the people of the Galil would write in the ketubah: “You are going to be living by my family or my supporters, and they will provide you sustenance from the estate for as long as you are an almanah living in my home.” Thus, it is not negotiable; the almanah nizonet is a fact, indefinitely. She receives it; it is not up for discussion. Why? Because in the ketubah it is written that the custom of the people of the Galil obligates the orphans to pay her as long as she is an almanah.
Or do you say, “O dilma ha’nizonet t’nan”? This refers to a lady who is receiving sustenance. This implies that it is flexible; she is receiving it now, but it implies that she does not have to receive it indefinitely. The Mishnah states, “Like the people of Yehuda,” and if they want to, they do not have to give it to her. Why? What was the custom in Yehuda? Rashi states that the people of Yehuda would write in the ketubah: “Until the heirs wish to give you your ketubah.” Therefore, if the heirs want, they give her the ketubah and dismiss her. In Yehuda, the custom is that they would write in the ketubah that if the orphans wish, they can give her the ketubah and dismiss her. Thus, if they paid her the ketubah, they are no longer obligated to support her. According to the first explanation, it is not “ha’nizonet”; even if they paid her the ketubah, they still have to support her. It is “nizonet,” which means she receives payment until she remarries.
This presents the Gemara's question: Is it “nizonet,” which is under all circumstances until she gets married, or is it “ha’nizonet,” which means she is being supported, suggesting that it is within their control to pay off the ketubah, and then she will no longer receive support? To which custom does the Mishnah adhere? The custom of the people of the Galil, that she receives support until she remarries, or the custom of the people of Yehuda, that the orphans can pay off the ketubah and then she loses her sustenance?
The Gemara responds: “Ta shema,” come and hear: Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel: “Metziat almanah le’atzmah.” What does this mean? Let’s say an almanah finds a lost object. She gets to keep it for herself. The Gemara explains: If you say that the Mishnah is learning “ha’nizonet,” which means that after she receives her ketubah, she is on her own, then I understand why she keeps it. However, if you say that it is “nizonet,” which means she is paid under all circumstances, then the orphans should be like the husband. Just as when a woman is married, if she finds a lost object, who receives it? The husband, because he is providing her sustenance. Therefore, we say that the lost object should go to him as well. Hence, the statement that says, “Metziat almanah le’atzmah,” implies that it is speaking about “ha’nizonet,” and the case was where they paid off her ketubah. Thus, she is on her own and therefore can keep the lost object.
However, if it is “nizonet,” which means she receives sustenance until she remarries, she is still an almanah, meaning she has not yet remarried. Thus, she is still being supported by the estate. Why should she keep it? Just like in the case of a husband, she must give the lost object to him as well. The Gemara responds: No, I can tell you it is “nizonet,” which means she receives sustenance until she remarries. What is the reason? The sages said, “A woman’s lost object belongs to her husband,” to avoid resentment. He may come along and say, “I am supporting you, and you are not giving me your lost object?” We are concerned that the husband might stop his support, which could lead to strife. However, in the case of the orphans, what about resentment? They must pay her anyway. The court will enforce it, saying, “You must provide her with sustenance.” So what are we worried about? If she keeps the lost object, will it cause strife? Let it cause strife; they still have to pay. In the case of a husband, we are more concerned with maintaining peace in the home.
The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said, “All work that a woman does for her husband, as we learned in the previous chapter, the almanah does for the heirs.” The almanah has to perform all those chores for the heirs as well, except for pouring the wine for him and preparing the bed for sleeping, and washing his face, hands, and feet, because these are intimate tasks that could lead to closeness. Therefore, these tasks are not performed for the heirs.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi stated: “All the work that a Canaanite servant does for his master, a student does for his rabbi, except for untying his shoes.” The concern here is that a Canaanite servant performs even menial jobs like untying the master’s shoes. However, if they see a student doing this for his rabbi, they might think he is a Canaanite servant, and what will happen? Nobody will want to marry into his family. Therefore, to avoid causing a blemish in the family lineage, the student should not untie the rabbi’s shoes.
Rava said: “This applies only in a place where they do not recognize him, but in a place where they do recognize him, we have no concern.” Rav Ashi added: “And in a place where they do not recognize him, this applies only if he is not wearing tefillin, but if he is wearing tefillin, there is no problem.” Why? Because a Canaanite servant does not wear tefillin. Therefore, if he is wearing tefillin, it is permissible for him to untie his rabbi’s shoes.
Rav Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: “Any rabbi who prevents his student from serving him is as if he is preventing him from performing acts of kindness.” This means it is a merit for the student to serve the rabbi; that is how he learns, as it provides him with an opportunity to understand the Torah in action, like an apprenticeship. Therefore, if you stop the student from having this opportunity to serve a Torah scholar, you are depriving him of kindness. What is the proof? The verse states, “Lamas m'rei'eihu chesed.” What does this mean? Rashi explains that when you deprive your friend, it is as if you are taking kindness away from him. Thus, when a rabbi refrains from allowing his student to serve him, he is depriving him of kindness.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: “By not allowing the student to serve him, you are also causing the student to lose his fear of Heaven.” Why? The end of that verse states, “Lamas m'rei'eihu chesed v'yiras Shaddai ya'azov.” This indicates that it will cause him to abandon his fear of Heaven. The explanation is that a rabbi who possesses fear of Heaven will have that fear overflow into his students. Therefore, when the rabbi pushes the student away and does not allow him to serve, you are taking away the student's opportunity to develop fear of Heaven.
The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yochanan said, “An almanah who has been a widow for two or three years and has not demanded sustenance loses her claim to sustenance.” This means she cannot come and say, “Oh, by the way, you owe me two or three years of back sustenance.” Why? The Gemara explains: “If you told me that after being silent for two years, she loses her claim, do you have to tell me three years?” You have already stated that if she is silent for two years, she loses her claim; certainly, if she is silent for three years, she loses it as well. The Gemara answers: “No question.” Here, we are referring to a poor woman, and there, we are referring to a wealthy woman. What is the difference? A wealthy woman can afford to wait longer. She is able to sustain herself in the meantime.
Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Zimra: “An almanah who has been a widow for two or three years and has not demanded sustenance loses her claim.” If you state that two years of silence results in the loss of sustenance, then three years must certainly do so. The Gemara clarifies: “No question.” Here, we refer to a poor woman, and there, we refer to a wealthy woman. A wealthy woman can afford to wait longer. Therefore, for the wealthy woman, the silence lasts for three years, but for the poor woman, she cannot live without food for two years.
Alternatively, the distinction may be between an immodest woman and a modest woman. What is the difference? The modest woman is embarrassed to come to the court. Therefore, we give her three years. However, for the immodest woman, we say, “Where were you after two years?” Hence, she loses her ketubah and her sustenance retroactively. The Gemara concludes: “This applies only retroactively. However, going forward, she is entitled to sustenance.” This means that the two years have passed, and she loses her claim for that period. However, she is still entitled to future sustenance.
The Gemara then discusses a case where the orphans say, “We have already given her sustenance in advance for the coming year.” She responds, “I did not receive anything.” The question arises: Who bears the burden of proof? Is it upon the orphans to prove they paid, or is it upon the almanah to prove she did not receive payment? The Gemara explains: “Are the assets in the possession of the orphans? Therefore, the burden of proof is on the almanah.” This follows the principle of “hamotzi mechavero alav hara’aya.” When the father died, who received the assets? The orphans. Therefore, the assets are considered theirs, and they claim they paid her. Hence, the burden of proof lies with her.
Alternatively, one could argue that the assets are in the possession of the almanah because the orphans owe her sustenance. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the orphans. Rashi explains that the first opinion holds that the orphans possess the assets, and she must bring witnesses that testify that they heard the orphans admit they did not pay her. If she does not bring witnesses, she cannot collect. Conversely, if the assets are in the possession of the almanah, the court will enforce that they must pay sustenance. Therefore, she can collect from the orphans.
Come and hear: Rabbi Levi taught: “An almanah, so long as she has not remarried, the burden of proof is on the orphans.” Once she remarries, the burden of proof is on her. This means that while she is unmarried, she is considered to possess the assets, and thus the orphans must prove they paid her. However, once she remarries, she is no longer entitled to sustenance from the orphans, and the assets revert to them. Therefore, the burden of proof shifts to her.
The Gemara asks: “What is this about?” Rav Shimi bar Ashi states: “This is a subject of debate among the Tannaim.” When she sells property from her husband’s estate in order to pay for her ketubah or sustenance, she must write on the document exactly what she is selling the property for. She should state, “These are for sustenance, and these are for the ketubah.” Rabbi Yehuda says that she must be explicit about what she is selling the property for. He holds that the orphans are the ones in possession of the assets, and therefore the burden of proof lies with the almanah.
Rabbi Yose, however, argues that she does not need to be explicit about what she is selling. He believes that the assets are in the possession of the almanah, and therefore the burden of proof lies with the orphans. The Gemara explains that the root of the debate is whether the orphans or the almanah are considered to possess the assets. Rabbi Yehuda believes that the orphans hold the assets, while Rabbi Yose believes the almanah possesses them.
The Gemara further explores the implications of this debate. If the orphans possess the assets, then the almanah must be explicit in her sales to protect herself. If the almanah possesses the assets, then she can sell without specifying, as the burden of proof lies with the orphans.
In summary, the discussion revolves around the obligations of the almanah and the orphans concerning sustenance and burial costs, the implications of their respective rights to the estate, and the necessity for clarity in transactions related to the ketubah and sustenance. The distinctions made in the Mishnah and the ensuing debates in the Gemara highlight the complexities of these halachic issues, emphasizing the importance of clear agreements and the responsibilities of each party involved.