Ketubot

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