Yevamot

Judgment is to be given in her favour;  and R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour. 'Rab Judah said: Judgment is to be given in her favour because [they represent] assets of her paternal property [which] belong to her. R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour' for, as the Master said, [THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES:] IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES — ARE A PROFIT TO HIM; [AND] SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH [they are therefore obviously regarded as his own].  R. Safra said: Was it stated, 'and they belong to him? The statements surely. only reads, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! In fact, then, they may not belong to him at all. But [is it a fact that] those for whom he  is responsible invariably eat terumah? Surely we learned: An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest may feed her on vetches of terumah. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, though it is his duty to supply her with food,  must not feed her on vetches of terumah!  — How could you understand it thus! Granted that he is liable for theft or loss, is he also liable for accidents, emaciation or reduction In value!  [The case  in our Mishnah], surely, can only be compared to that in the final clause:  An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest, guaranteeing him its appraised value,  may not feed it on vetches of terumah. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, guaranteeing him its appraised value,  may feed it on vetches of terumah. Rabbah and R. Joseph were sitting at their studies at the conclusion of R. Nahman's school session, and in the course of their sitting they made the following statement: [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah; and [another Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi. ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Ammi': Zon barzel slaves procure their freedom when the man,  but not when the woman [struck out] a tooth or an eye.  ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah': If a wife brought in to her husband appraised goods,  the husband may not sell them even if it is his desire to do so.  Furthermore, even if he brought in to her appraised goods of his own,  he may not sell them even if he desired to do so. If either  of them sold [any of the appraised goods] for their maintenance. Such an incident was once dealt with by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled that the husband  may seize them from the buyers. Raba  stated in the name of R. Nahman: The law is in agreement with Rab Judah. Said Raba to R. Nahman: But surely [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi! Although [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi, Rab Judah's view is more logical, since any asset of a woman's paternal property [should rightly belong to her]. A woman once brought  in to her husband a robe of fine wool [which was appraised and included] in her kethubah. When the man died it was taken by the orphans and spread over the corpse. Raba ruled that the corpse had acquired it. Said Nanai son of R. Joseph son of Raba to R. Kahana: But, surely, Raba  stated in the name of R. Nahman that the law is in agreement with Rab Judah!  The other replied: Does not Rab Judah admit that the robe had still to be collected [by the wife]?  Since it had still to be collected it remained in the husband's possession.  [In this ruling] Raba acted in accordance with his view [elsewhere expressed]. For Raba stated:  Consecration,  leavened food,  and