Ketubot 96A

תא שמע, אמר רבי זירא אמר שמואל: מציאת אלמנה לעצמה. אי אמרת בשלמא ״הניזונת״ תנן ⁠— שפיר. אלא אי אמרת ״ניזונת״ תנן, ניהוו כבעל: מה בעל מציאת אשה לבעלה, הכא נמי מציאת אשה ליורשים!

The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which R' 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 Mishnah: A widow who is sustained, Shmuel’s principle is well understood. Then, according to the Mishnah, 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 Mishnah: 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.

לעולם אימא לך: ״ניזונת״ תנן: טעמא מאי אמור רבנן מציאת אשה לבעלה ⁠— דלא תיהוי לה איבה. הני ⁠— תיהוי להו איבה.

The Talmud rejects this proof: Actually, I will say to you that we learned in the Mishnah: A widow is sustained, and this does not contradict Shmuel’s statement. What is the reason that the rabbis 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 rabbis 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.