Ketubot

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