Study Ketubot folio 107A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 wom
The Talmud 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 le
The Talmud 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 h
The Talmud asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Talmud 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. Accord
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