Parallel
כתובות 79
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
she came before R. Nahman [to claim the return of her estate]. R. Nahman tore up the deed. R. Anan, thereupon, went to Mar 'Ukba and said to him, 'See, Master, how Nahman the boor tears up people's deeds'. 'Tell me', the other said to him, 'how exactly the incident occurred'. 'It occurred', he replied,' in such and such a manner'. 'Do you speak', the other exclaimed, 'of a deed a woman intended as a means of evasion? Thus said R. Hanilai b. Idi in the name of Samuel: I am an officially recognized judge, and should a deed which a woman intended as a means of evasion come into my hand I would tear it up. Said Raba to R. Nahman: What in fact is the reason? [Obviously] because no man would neglect himself and give his property away to others. But this would apply to strangers only, whilst to a daughter one might well give! — Even in the case of a daughter a woman gives preference to her own person. An objection was raised: If a woman desires to keep her property from her husband, how is she to proceed? She writes out a deed of trust to a stranger; so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. But the Sages said: If he wishes he may laugh at her unless she wrote out for him: '[You shall acquire possession] from this day whenever I shall express my consent', The reason then is because she wrote out for him in the manner prescribed; but had she not done so, the [fictitious] buyer would have acquired [would he not] possession of it? — R. Zera replied: There is no difficulty. One ruling refers to [a woman who has assigned to the stranger] all her property; the other, to [a woman who assigned to a stranger] a part of her property. But if the buyer does not acquire her property the husband should acquire it! — Abaye replied: It was treated as property WHICH IS UNKNOWN TO THE HUSBAND in accordance with the view of R. Simeon. MISHNAH. [IF A MARRIED WOMAN] CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF MONEY, LAND SHOULD BE BOUGHT THEREWITH AND THE HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO THE USUFRUCT. [IF SHE CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF] PRODUCE THAT WAS DETACHED FROM THE GROUND, LAND SHOULD BE BOUGHT THEREWITH AND THE HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO THE USUFRUCT. [IF IT WAS] PRODUCE ATTACHED TO THE GROUND, THE LAND, R. MEIR RULED, IS TO BE VALUED AS TO HOW MUCH IT IS WORTH WITH THE PRODUCE AND HOW MUCH WITHOUT THE PRODUCE, AND WITH THE DIFFERENCE LAND SHOULD BE BOUGHT AND THE HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO ITS USUFRUCT. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: ALL PRODUCE ATTACHED TO THE GROUND BELONGS TO THE HUSBAND AND ONLY THAT WHICH IS DETACHED FROM IT BE LONGS TO THE WIFE; [WITH THE PROCEEDS OF THE LATTER] LAND IS TO BE BOUGHT AND THE HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO THE USUFRUCT. R. SIMEON SAID: IN RESPECT OF THAT WHEREIN THE HUSBAND IS AT AN ADVANTAGE WHEN HE MARRIES HIS WIFE HE IS AT A DISADVANTAGE WHEN HE DIVORCES HER AND IN RESPECT OF THAT WHEREIN HE IS AT A DISADVANTAGE WHEN HE MARRIES HER HE IS AT AN ADVANTAGE WHEN HE DIVORCES HER. HOW SO? PRODUCE WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE GROUND IS THE HUSBAND'S WHEN HE MARRIES HIS WIFE AND HERS WHEN HE DIVORCES HER, WHILST PRODUCE THAT IS DETACHED FROM THE GROUND IS HERS WHEN SHE MARRIES BUT THE HUSBAND'S WHEN SHE IS DIVORCED. GEMARA. It is obvious [that if husband and wife differ on the choice of purchase between] land and houses, land [is to receive preference]. [If they differ on the choice between] houses and date-trees, houses [are to receive preference]. [If they insist respectively on] date-trees and other fruit trees, date-trees [are to receive preference]. [If their dispute is on] fruit trees and vines, fruit trees [are to receive preference]. [What, however, is the ruling if the husband desires to purchase] a thicket of sorb or a fish pond? — Some maintain that it is regarded as produce; and others maintain that it is regarded as capital. This is the general rule: If the stump grows new shoots it is regarded as capital, but if the stump grows no new shoots it is regarded as produce. R. Zera stated in the name of R. Oshaia in the name of R. Jannai (others say, R. Abba stated in the name of R. Oshaia in the name of R. Jannai), If a man steals
—
the young of a melog beast he must pay double its value to the woman. In accordance with whose [view has this ruling been laid down]? Is it in agreement with neither that of the Rabbis nor with that of Hananiah? For it was taught: The young of a melog beast belongs to the husband; the child of a melog bondwoman belongs to the wife; but Hananiah the son of Josiah's brother ruled, The child of a melog bondwoman has been given the same legal status as the young of a melog beast! — It may be said to agree even with the opinion of all, for it is the produce alone that the Rabbis in their enactment have assigned to the husband but not the produce that accrues from this produce. [The view] of Hananiah is quite logical on the assumption that death is not to be taken into consideration, but [what principle is followed by] the Rabbis? If they do take into consideration the possibility of death, even the young of a melog beast also should not [belong to the husband], and if they do not take the possibility of death into consideration, then even the child of a bondwoman also [should belong to the husband]! — They do in fact take the possibility of death into consideration, but the case of the beast is different [from that of a bondwoman] since its skin remains. R. Huna b. Hiyya stated in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with Hananiah. Said Raba in the name of R. Nahman: Although Samuel said, 'The halachah is in agreement with Hananiah', Hananiah admits that if the woman is divorced she may pay the price [of the bondwoman's children] and take them because [they constitute] the pride of her paternal house [which she is entitled to retain]. Raba stated in the name of R. Nahman: If a woman brought to her husband a goat for milking, a ewe for shearing, a hen for laying eggs, or a date-tree for producing fruit, he may go on eating [the yield of any of these] until the capital is consumed. R. Nahman stated: If a woman brought to her husband a cloak [its use] is [to be regarded as] produce and he may continue to use it as a covering until it is worn out. In accordance with whose view [has this statement been made]? — In agreement with the following Tanna, for it has been taught: Salt or sand is regarded as produce; a sulphur quarry or an alum-mine is regarded, R. Meir said, as capital, but the Rabbis said, As produce. R. SIMEON SAID: IN RESPECT OF THAT WHEREIN THE HUSBAND IS AT AN ADVANTAGE. [Is not this view of] R. Simeon identical [with that of] the first Tanna? — Raba replied: The difference between them is [the case of produce that was] attached at the time of the divorce. MISHNAH. IF AGED BONDMEN OR BONDWOMEN FELL TO HER [AS AN INHERITANCE] THEY MUST BE SOLD, AND LAND PURCHASED WITH THE PROCEEDS, AND THE HUSBAND CAN ENJOY THE USUFRUCT THEREOF. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID; SHE NEED NOT SELL THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PRIDE OF HER PATERNAL HOUSE. IF SHE CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF OLD OLIVE-TREES OR VINES THEY MUST BE SOLD, AND LAND PURCHASED WITH THE PROCEEDS, AND THE HUSBAND CAN ENJOY THE USUFRUCT THEREOF. R. JUDAH SAID: SHE NEED NOT SELL THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PRIDE OF HER PATERNAL HOUSE. GEMARA. R. Kahana stated in the name of Rab: They differ only where [the olive-trees or vines] fell [to the woman] in her own field, but [if they were] in a field that did not belong to her she must, according to the opinion of all, sell them; because [otherwise] the capital would be destroyed. To this R. Joseph demurred: Are not BONDMEN OR BONDWOMEN the same as [trees in] a field that does not belong to her and there is nevertheless a dispute? — The fact is, if the statement has at all been made it must have been made in the following terms: R. Kahana stated in the name of Rab, They differ only where [the olive-trees and vines] fell [to the woman] in a field that did not belong to her but [if they were] in her own field it is the opinion of all that she need not sell them because [she is entitled to retain] the pride of her paternal house. MISHNAH. HE WHO INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS WIFE'S [MELOG] PROPERTY, WHETHER HE SPENT MUCH AND CONSUMED LITTLE, [OR SPENT] LITTLE AND CONSUMED MUCH, WHAT HE HAS SPENT HE HAS SPENT, AND WHAT HE HAS CONSUMED HE HAS CONSUMED. IF HE SPENT BUT DID NOT CONSUME HE MAY TAKE AN OATH AS TO HOW MUCH HE HAS SPENT AND RECEIVE COMPENSATION. GEMARA. How much is considered LITTLE? — R. Assi replied: Even one dried fig; but this applies only where he ate it in a dignified manner. Said
—