Study Ketubot folio 96B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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
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 p
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' Yehu
What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this question? According to R' Yehuda, who said that she is required to specify the purpose for which it was sold, it is implied that he holds that the property is in the possession of the orphans, and it is incumbent upon the widow to provide proof.
The Talmud rejects this proof: From where do you arrive at this conclusion? Perhaps everyone agrees that the property is in the widow’s possession and it is incumbent upon the orphans to provide proof. And R' Yehuda simply teaches us a measure of good advice, so that they will not call her a glutton