Kesubos - Daf 107
- Machlokes whether a wife gets support from her husband’s property who is overseas
The Gemara brings a machlokes Amoraim regarding a husband who went overseas, and his wife wants to be supported from his estate during his absence. Rav says: פוסקין מזונות לאשת איש – We provide support for the man’s wife out of his property, but Shmuel says: we do not, and that Rav would agree with him that during the first three months of the husband’s absence we do not give her support, לפי שאין אדם מניח ביתו ריקן – because a man would not leave his house empty. The Gemara clarifies that they disagree where it is not known if the husband died. Rav says we provide support from his property because he is obligated to support her, but Shmuel says we do not provide support. Rav Zevid says Shmuel’s reason is אימא צררי אתפסה – that we can say that he deposited bundles of money with her to pay for her support. Rav Pappa says Shmuel’s reason is חיישינן שמא אמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך - we suspect that he might have told her, “Take your earnings in place of your food.” The nafka minah between them is a case where the woman is an adult, and her earnings are not sufficient to support her. The husband could have given her bundles of money but could not have stipulated that she supports herself. Another nafka minah is a wife who is a minor who does have sufficient earnings but would not have been trusted with bundles of money. The Gemara brings numerous challenges to Shmuel’s position.
- Heirs cannot inherit their father’s property based on the testimony of one witness
The Gemara brings a Baraisa to challenge Shmuel, that stated that if a husband went overseas and his wife demands her support, בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין לאשתו אבל לא לבניו ובנותיו ולא דבר אחר – Beis Din goes down to his property and supports and maintains his wife, but not his sons or daughters nor something else. The Baraisa explicitly says that the wife is supported from his property!? Rav Pappa answered that the Baraisa is referring to a case ששמעה בו שמת בעד אחד – where the wife heard that her husband died through the testimony of one witness. She may marry on the strength of one witness, and may also receive support, but the sons and daughters may not take their father’s possessions on the strength of one witness, nor may they get support. For inheritance to take effect, two witnesses are required.
- When someone voluntarily supports another’s wife who has travelled overseas
The next Mishnah states: מי שהלך למדינת הים ועמד אחד ופירנס את אשתו – If someone went overseas and another person arose and supported his wife in his absence, Chanan says: איבד את מעותיו – the person has lost his money. Rashi explains that the husband did not ask to borrow the money. The Rishonim explain that Chanan holds that the person can only be compensated where he provides a tangible benefit to the husband, such as repairing a fence, but not where he only prevented a loss. But the bnei Kohanim Gedolim disagreed with Chanan and said: ישבע כמה הוציא ויטול – He may swear how much he spent and collect the amount from the husband. They hold that even though he acted without permission and only prevented a loss, he is entitled to compensation. Rebbe Dosa ben Harkinas agreed with them, but Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: יפה אמר חנן הניח מעותיו על קרן הצבי – Chanan spoke well; the man placed his money on the horn of a deer¸ meaning he put his money in a place that it would likely be lost.
