Yerushalmi Ketubot 11:1 ירושלמי כתובות י״א:א׳

MISHNAH: If a widow is supported by the orphans’ property¹The widow who chose to be supported by the estate (as explained in Mishnah 4:12) rather than taking her ketubah., she has to work for them but they are not obligated to bury her²If they are not her heirs, she has to keep house for them anyway. The husband whose wife dies before him must bury her since he is the heir of her property. If she died childless after her husband, the heirs of her side of the family have to bury her. Similarly, if she sold her future rights to a ketubah and died after her husband, the speculator who bought her ketubah has to bury her (cf. Note 57 and S. Lieberman, תוספתא כפשוטה כתובות p. 329).. Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.

HALAKHAH: “If a widow is supported by the orphans’ property,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel³He is the author of the same statement in the Babli, 96a., Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: What she finds belongs to herself. If she had sustenance left over? Since her finds belong to her husband, the married woman’s leftover sustenance belongs to her husband⁴A baraita in the Babli, 65b. (In Nazir 24b it is explained that the husband’s property is the household money which she did not spend on food, rather than actual food she saved when being on a diet. The editing of Nazir seemingly is different from that of most Babli Tractates.). Since a widow’s finds belong to herself, her leftover sustenance belongs to herself. Her worn-out clothing belongs to her⁵A baraita in the Babli, 65b, rejected there.. Since even a married woman, whose leftover sustenance belongs to her husband, keeps her worn-out clothing to herself, the widow, whose leftover food belongs to herself, her worn-out clothing so much more! There, she needs them for the time of her period. Here also, she needs them for the time of her period⁶A woman never has worn-out clothes since she always has occasion to wear rags. The Babli rejects this argument since in the absence of her husband she does not need a wardrobe of second rate dresses; she can wear real rags..

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Also she does not perform for them services of intimacy. What are services of intimacy? She rubs their bodies, washes their faces, or mixes their cup⁷A slightly different list is in the Babli, 96a, also in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. It is understood that the heirs have the right to expect from her all services a wife does for her husband, except those that are preliminaries to sexual relations..

One adds to her sustenance: A married woman has no wine⁸Cf. Chapter 5, Note 251., a widow has wine. If a married woman said, my earnings should be counted against my sustenance, one does not listen to her⁹She keeps all of her earnings and the husband does not have to pay for her (he still has to provide for her lodging.) The Babli emphatically permits such an arrangement by the wife’s initiative (58b, 70a, 82b, 107b; Baba qama 40b; Baba meṣi‘a 49b), i. e., against the husband’s will. Since this is a money matter, the Yerushalmi will accept it in case of mutual agreement.; if a widow said, my earnings should be counted against my sustenance, one listens to her¹⁰Even against the heirs’ opposition..

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity¹¹This is the unanimous opinion of the Babli.? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.¹²This is an obligation independent of the wishes of the deceased.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate¹³Since usually a ketubah is payable in real estate.. As it was stated¹⁴A similar text in Tosephta 9:3.: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody¹⁵Anybody with a claim sustainable in court, the widow for her ketubah or a creditor. who takes them first acquires them and¹⁶If nothing is left of his estate. he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first¹⁷If the estate already had disappeared before the burial.. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me¹⁸If the deceased had requested a burial before he died, the burial expenses are privileged.. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses¹⁹In this case, time is of the essence since any one of the witnesses could die anytime. But real estate can be foreclosed only by a regular court procedure.. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not²⁰It seems that this is a scribal error and one should read: מוציאין “one does remove”. Since the claim is documented, there is no need for the creditor to resort to self-help. remove from their hands. For²¹This is an unnecessary word; R. Abba explains general principles about the legal standing of death-bed requests. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said²²In the Babli (Baba batra 152a, 175a; Giṭṭin 13a, 15a) this is an undisputed statement of Rav Naḥman.: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered²³The legal forms of a valid gift.. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y²⁴It seems that one has to read: Give field X to Y and Z. It is understood that each one gets half a field but the method of subdivision of the field was not indicated.? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half?²⁵No answer is given since it is clear that the bequest cannot be enforced against the legal heirs; the burden of proof being on the claimants, who would have to prove in court that the method of division is that intended by the donor; this is impossible after the latter’s death. Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give?²⁶Since the first half of the request is clearly illegal, can the second half be legal? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway²⁷Since daughters’ right to sustenance is a standard condition of the ketubah (Mishnah 4:11), what did the mention of the daughters add to their rights?? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables²⁸At places where the ketubah could be taken only in real estate, the daughters could be supported only by real estate.? Rebbi Yudan [ ]²⁹The words בָּרַח לְנוֹי “he fled to beauty” do not make sense here. there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold³⁰By bodily possession.. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated³¹Tosephta Qiddušin 1:7.: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. ³²This last sentence is not in the Tosephta or in the Babli (Baba batra76a); R. Yose’s ruling is rejected by Rav Naḥman (Note 22) who validates the transfer of documents by death-bed declaration. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”