Ketubot

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,