Study Ketubot folio 96B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
נכסי בחזקת יתמי קיימי ועל אלמנה להביא ראיה, או דלמא נכסי בחזקת אלמנה קיימי, ועל היתומים להביא ראיה.
The Talmud presents the different options: Does one say that the property is in the possession of the orphans and it is incumbent upon the widow to bring proof of her claim, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests on the claimant? Or, perhaps one says that the property is in the widow’s possession given that it has a lien attached to it by virtue of her marriage contract, and it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof of their claim.
תא שמע, דתני לוי: אלמנה, כל זמן שלא ניסת — על היתומים להביא ראיה. ניסת — עליה להביא ראיה.
Come and hear proof from a baraita that Levi taught: In the case of a widow, as long as she has not married again, it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof that they provided sustenance for her. Once she has married and comes to demand the sustenance that she was supposed to receive in the past, it is incumbent upon her to bring proof that she never received anything.
אמר רב שימי בר אשי, כתנאי: מוכרת, וכותבת: ״אלו למזונות מכרתי״ ו״אלו לכתובה מכרתי״, דברי רבי יהודה. רבי יוסי אומר: מוכרת וכותבת סתם, וכן כחה יפה.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: R' Yoḥanan’s question is subject to a dispute between tanna’im in the following baraita: A widow sells parts of her deceased husband’s property and writes: These I sold for my sustenance and these I sold as payment for my marriage contract; this is the statement of R' Yehuda. R' Yosei says: She sells and writes how much she sold without specification of the purpose for which it was sold. And so her power to support herself is enhanced, as she will be able to decide if what she took was payment for her marriage contract or if it was for her sustenance, based on the status of other claims to her husband’s property.