The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: Any lost article found by the widow she acquires for herself. Granted, if you say that we learned in the mishna: A widow who is sustained, Shmuel’s principle is well understood. Then, according to the mishna, there are cases where a widow is supported by her husband’s heirs and other cases where she is not. Shmuel is referring to a case where the heirs do not sustain her, and therefore any earnings and articles that she may find belong to her. However, if you say that we learned in the mishna: A widow is sustained by the heirs in place of her husband, then let the heirs be like the husband in every sense. Just as in the case of the husband, any lost article found by the wife belongs to the husband, here too, any lost article found by the widowed wife should belong to the heirs.

The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, I will say to you that we learned in the mishna: A widow is sustained, and this does not contradict Shmuel’s statement. What is the reason that the Sages said that any lost article found by the wife belongs to her husband? It is so that she should not be subject to her husband’s enmity. The Sages were concerned that if the husband saw that his wife had come into possession of money and did not know the source of that money, they would quarrel. However, these heirs, let them have enmity toward the widow.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a widow performs for the husband’s heirs, except for filling his cup; and making his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet, which are expressions of affection that a woman performs specifically for her husband.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All tasks that a Canaanite slave performs for his master, a student performs for his teacher, except for untying his shoe, a demeaning act that was typically performed by slaves and would not be appropriate for a student to do.

Rava said: We said this only if the teacher and the student are in a place where people are not familiar with the student and he could be mistaken for a slave. However, in a place where people are familiar with the student, we have no problem with it as everyone knows that he is not a slave. Rav Ashi said: And in a place where people are not familiar with the student, we said this halakha only if he is not donning phylacteries, but if he is donning phylacteries, we have no problem with it. A slave does not don phylacteries, and since this student is donning phylacteries, even if he unties his teacher’s shoes he will not be mistaken for a slave.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he withheld from him kindness, as it is stated: “To him that is ready to faint [lamas], from his friend kindness is due” (Job 6:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan interprets this to mean that one who prevents [memis] another from performing acts on his behalf, prevents him from performing the mitzva of kindness. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He even removes from the student the fear of Heaven, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “Even to one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty.”

Rabbi Elazar said: In the case of a widow who seized movable property for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized and it remains in her possession. That halakha is also taught in a baraita: A widow who seized movable property to provide for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized.

And likewise, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Shabbtai’s daughter-in-law, who seized a saddlebag [diskayya] full of coins for her sustenance, and the Sages did not have the authority to remove it from her possession.

Ravina said: We said the halakha that we do not remove from her possession that which she seized only in a case where she seized the assets for her sustenance. However, if she seized the assets as payment of her marriage contract, we remove it from her.

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: What is different about seizing assets as payment of her marriage contract, that they are removed from her possession? If it is that a marriage contract is paid only from real estate and not from movable property, there is a rabbinic enactment that sustenance is also paid only from real estate and not from movable property. Rather, just as you say that if she seizes assets for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized, so too, her seizure is effective if she does so as payment of her marriage contract.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Naftali said to Ravina: We say this halakha in the name of Rava, in accordance with your teaching that if she seized movable property as payment of her marriage contract, it is removed from her possession.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: A widow who waited two or three years after her husband’s death and did not demand sustenance from the heirs has forfeited the right to receive sustenance from them. Since she did not demand her sustenance, it is assumed that she must have forgone this right.

The Gemara discusses the language of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra’s statement: Now that it was stated that after two years she forfeited her rights to receive sustenance, is it necessary to state that she also forfeited her rights after three years? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the first statement is referring to a poor woman for which two years is a long time. If she does not demand sustenance for two years, it is clear that she has forgiven the heirs this obligation. There, the second statement is referring to a rich woman who can support herself for two years. It is only clear after three years that she forgave the obligation.

Alternatively, here it is referring to an unabashed woman, who is not ashamed to demand her rights from the heirs. If she does not demand sustenance within two years, it is assumed that she has forgone this right. There, it is referring to a modest woman, who is embarrassed to demand sustenance from the heirs and who waits until the third year to claim this right.

Rava said: We said this halakha only retroactively; the widow cannot demand to be reimbursed for the past years in which she paid for her own sustenance. However, from here onward, once she demands sustenance she has the right to receive it from the heirs.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If the orphans say: We gave her sustenance, and she says: I took none, upon whom is it incumbent to bring proof to support his argument?