Parallel
כתובות 80
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
R. Abba: At the school of Rab it was stated, Even the refuse of dates. R. Bibi enquired: What [is the ruling in respect of] a mash of pressed dates? — This stands undecided. What [is the ruling if] he did not eat it in a dignified manner? 'Ulla replied: On this there is a difference of opinion between two Amoraim in the West. One says, The value of an issar; and the other says, The value of a denar. The judges of Pumbeditha stated: Rab Judah gave a practical decision in [a case where the husband used up some] bundles of vine-shoots, Rab Judah acting here in accordance with his own principle; for Rab Judah ruled: If he ate thereof [during one of the three years] only 'uncircumcised' produce, [the produce of] the Sabbatical year, or the produce of mingled seed, this counts [towards the three years of] hazakah. R. Jacob stated in the name of R. Hisda: If a man has incurred expenses on the melog property of his wife who was a minor [he is in the same legal position] as one who incurred expenses on the property of a stranger. What is the reason? — The Rabbis have enacted this measure in order that he should not allow her property to deteriorate. A woman once came into the possession of four hundred zuz at Be-Hozae. Her husband went thither, spent six hundred [on his journey] and brought with him the four hundred. While he was on his way back he required one zuz and took it out of these. When he came before R. Ammi the latter ruled: What he has spent he has spent and what he used he has used. Said the Rabbis to R. Ammi: Does not this apply only where he consumes the produce, whilst here he used up the capital which [constituted a part of] the expenditure? — If so, he replied, he is one who SPENT BUT DID NOT CONSUME, then HE MAY TAKE AN OATH AS TO HOW MUCH HE HAS SPENT AND RECEIVE HIS COMPENSATION. HE MAY TAKE AN OATH AS TO HOW MUCH HE HAS SPENT AND RECEIVE COMPENSATION. Said R. Assi: This applies only where the appreciation corresponds to the expenditure. What exactly is the object of this law? — Abaye replied: That if the appreciation exceeded the expenditure be receives the sum of his outlay without an oath. Said Raba to him: If so, one might be induced to act cunningly! — [The object of the law] however, said Raba, was that if the outlay exceeded the appreciation he is only entitled to receive that amount of his outlay which corresponds to the appreciations and [even this can be obtained only] by an oath. The question was raised: What is the legal position where a husband has sent down arisin in his place? Does [an aris] go down [into melog fields] in his reliance on the rights of the husband, [and, consequently,] when the husband forfeits his claim they also lose theirs, or does an aris possibly go down [into the melog fields] in his reliance on the [yield of] the land, and land, surely is usually entrusted to arisin? To this Raba son of R. Hanan demurred: Wherein does this case essentially differ from that of a man who went down into a neighbour's field and planted it without the owner's authority where an assessment is made and he is at a disadvantage? — In that case there was no other person to take the trouble; but here there is the husband who should have taken the trouble. What then is the decision on the matter? — R. Huna the son of R. Joshua replied: We must observe [the conditions of each case]: If the husband is an aris, the arisin lose all claim to compensation wherever the husband loses his claim; if the husband is not an aris [they are entitled to compensation, since] all land is usually entrusted to arisin. The question was raised: What is the ruling where a husband sold [his wife's melog] land for usufruct? Do we say that whatever he possesses he may transfer to others, or is it possible that the Rabbis have by their enactment granted the usufruct to the husband only
—
in order to provide for the comfort of his home but not so that he should sell it? — Judah Mar b. Meremar replied in the name of Raba: Whatever he has done is done. R. Papi in the name of Raba replied: His act has no validity. Said R. Papa: The ruling reported by Judah Mar b. Meremar was not explicitly stated but was arrived at by inference. For a woman once brought to her husband two bondwomen, and the man went and married another wife and assigned to her one of them. [When the first wife] came before Raba and cried, he disregarded her. One who observed [the incident] formed the opinion [that Raba's inaction] was due to his view that whatever the husband did is valid; but in fact, it is not so. [Usufruct has been allowed to a husband] in order to provide for the comfort of his house and here, Surely, comfort was provided. And the law is that if a husband sold [his wife's melog] field for its usufruct his act has no legal validity. What is the reason? Abaye replied: Provision must be made against the possible deterioration of the land. Raba explained: In order [to safeguard] the comfort of his house. What is the practical difference between them? — The practical difference between them is the case of land that was adjoining a town; or else where the husband [himself] was [acting as] aris, or else where [the husband] receives money and trades therewith. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN AWAITING THE DECISION OF THE LEVIR CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY, BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL AGREE THAT SHE MAY SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY, AND THAT HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. IF SHE DIED, WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH HER KETHUBAH AND WITH THE PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER? BETH SHAMMAI RULED: THE HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND ARE TO SHARE IT WITH THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER; AND BETH HILLEL RULED: THE [ZON BARZEL] PROPERTY IS TO REMAIN WITH THOSE IN WHOSE POSSESSION IT IS, THE KETHUBAH IS TO REMAIN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND, AND THE PROPERTY WHICH GOES IN AND COMES OUT WITH HER REMAINS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER. IF HIS BROTHER LEFT MONEY, LAND SHALL BE BOUGHT THEREWITH AND HE SHALL ENJOY ITS USUFRUCT. [IF THE DECEASED LEFT] PRODUCE THAT WAS DETACHED FROM THE GROUND, LAND SHALL BE BOUGHT [OUT OF THE PROCEEDS] AND HE SHALL ENJOY ITS USUFRUCT. [IF IT WAS STILL] ATTACHED TO THE GROUND, THE LAND IS TO BE ASSESSED, SAID R. MEIR, AS TO HOW MUCH IT IS WORTH TOGETHER WITH THE PRODUCE AND HOW MUCH IT IS WORTH WITHOUT THE PRODUCE, AND WITH THE DIFFERENCE LAND SHALL BE BOUGHT, AND HE SHALL ENJOY ITS USUFRUCT. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: PRODUCE WHICH IS [STILL] ATTACHED TO THE GROUND BELONGS TO HIM, BUT THAT WHICH IS DETACHED FROM THE GROUND PASSES INTO THE OWNERSHIP OF HIM WHO SEIZES IT FIRST. IF HE [SEIZED IT] FIRST HE ACQUIRES OWNERSHIP; AND IF SHE [SEIZED IT] FIRST LAND SHALL BE BOUGHT THEREWITH AND HE SHALL ENJOY ITS USUFRUCT. IF [THE LEVIR] MARRIED HER SHE IS REGARDED AS HIS WIFE IN ALL RESPECTS SAVE THAT HER KETHUBAH REMAINS A CHARGE ON HER FIRST HUSBAND'S ESTATE. HE CANNOT SAY TO HER, 'BEHOLD YOUR KETHUBAH LIES ON THE TABLE', BUT ALL HIS PROPERTY IS PLEDGED TO HER KETHUBAH. SO, TOO, A MAN MAY NOT SAY TO HIS WIFE, BEHOLD YOUR KETHUBAH LIES ON THE TABLE, BUT ALL HIS PROPERTY IS PLEDGED TO HER KETHUBAH. IF HE DIVORCED HER SHE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO HER KETHUBAH. IF HE SUBSEQUENTLY REMARRIED HER SHE IS [TO ENJOY THE SAME RIGHTS AS] ALL OTHER WIVES, AND IS ENTITLED ONLY TO HER KETHUBAH. GEMARA. The question was raised: If a woman awaiting the decision of a levir died, who is to bury her? Are her husband's heirs to bury her because they inherit her kethubah or is it possibly the heirs of her father who must bury her because they inherit the property that comes in and goes out with her? — R. Amram replied, Come and hear what was taught: If a woman awaiting the decision of a levir died,
—