Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 22, 2015 | 讙壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 79

讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽专注讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇砖讟专讗 讗讝诇 专讘 注谞谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 谞讞诪谉 讞拽诇讗讛 讛讬讻讬 诪拽专注 砖讟专讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

The mother came before Rav Na岣an for judgment. Rav Na岣an tore the document, accepting her claim that she did not intend to transfer ownership of her property. Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva, the Exilarch, and said to him: Let the Master observe Na岣an the farmer, how he tears people鈥檚 documents. Rav Anan was upset that Rav Na岣an destroyed a legitimate document. Mar Ukva said to him: Tell me, please, what was the actual incident?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专 诪讘专讞转 拽讗 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬诇讗讬 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讗谞讬 讗诐 讬讘讗 砖讟专 诪讘专讞转 诇讬讚讬 讗拽专注谞讜

Rav Anan said to Mar Ukva: This and that transpired; i.e., he apprised him of all the details. Mar Ukva said to him: Are you saying it was a document of evasion? This is what Rav 岣nilai bar Idi said that Shmuel said: I am an authority who issues rulings and have issued the following directive: If a document of evasion comes to my hand, I will tear it, as it is clear that it was not intended for the actual transfer of property but merely to distance it from someone else.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讗讘诇 诇讘专转讛 讬讛讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讘专转讛 谞驻砖讛 注讚讬驻讗 诇讛

After seeing Rav Na岣an tear the document, Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason for your actions? Is it that you assume that it was not a wholehearted gift because a person does not abandon his own interests and give a gift to others? That applies only when it is given to others who are strangers, but to her daughter a mother would give property wholeheartedly. Rav Na岣an replied: Even so, where her interests clash with those of her daughter, her own interests are preferable to her, and therefore she did not intend to waive her rights.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讜爪讛 砖转讘专讬讞 谞讻住讬讛 诪讘注诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 讻讜转讘转 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to one who seeks to distance her property from her husband, how does she proceed? She writes in a document of agreement that her property should be given to others, who agree not to acquire the property. This document prevents her husband from gaining access to her property. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专爪讛 诪爪讞拽 讘讛 注讚 砖转讻转讜讘 诇讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讻砖讗专爪讛

And the Rabbis say: This solution is flawed, because if the recipient wishes, he can deceive her and retain the property by virtue of the valid document in his possession. That possibility cannot be avoided until she writes to him in the document that the gift is granted from today and the gift is in effect only while I still wish to give it. In that case, if the one to whom she gave the gift comes to take possession of it, she can say that she no longer wants to give the gift and can thereby invalidate the document.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽谞谞讛讬 诇讜拽讞

The Gemara infers: The reason she can ultimately retain her property is due to the fact that she wrote this to him; but if she did not write this to him, the purchaser has acquired it. This indicates that a document of evasion is legally valid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜诇讛 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转讛

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult, as this, the ruling that the document of evasion is void, is in a case where the document was written about all of the property, as clearly a person does not give away all his property as a gift and leave himself with nothing. Conversely, that ruling that the document is not canceled is in a case where the document was written about only part of the property, and therefore a clause must be added ensuring that the recipient cannot retain possession of the gift.

讜讗讬 诇讗 拽谞谞讛讬 诇讜拽讞 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘注诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜诐 讻谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讚讜注讬谉 诇讘注诇 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in the case where the document is invalid because all of the property was included, if the purchaser does not acquire the property, the husband should acquire it. Abaye said: The Sages rendered this property given as a gift like property that is unknown to the husband, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna that if she sold such property after her marriage, the sale is valid. Therefore, the husband does not have access to the property.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讻住驻讬诐 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 驻讬专讜转 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

MISHNA: If money was bequeathed to a woman as an inheritance while she was married, land is acquired with it, and the husband consumes the produce of the land while the principal remains hers. If she inherited produce that is detached from the ground, it is considered like money; therefore, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce of the land.

[驻讬专讜转] 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 讘拽专拽注 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讘诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诪讜转专 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 诇拽专拽注 砖诇讜 讜讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 砖诇讛 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates how much the land is worth with the produce, and how much it is worth without the produce, and the difference between these sums is the surplus value that belongs to the woman. Land is then acquired with the surplus and he consumes the produce. And the Rabbis say: That which is attached to the ground is his, as he is entitled to the produce from her property and he may therefore eat from it. And that which is detached from the ground is hers, like all other money she brings to the marriage, and land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘讻谞讬住转讛 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讻谞讬住转讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讛 讻讬爪讚 驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 诇拽专拽注 讘讻谞讬住转讛 砖诇讜 讜讘讬爪讬讗转讛 砖诇讛 讜讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讘讻谞讬住转讛 砖诇讛 讜讘讬爪讬讗转讛 砖诇讜

Rabbi Shimon says: In a case where his right is superior upon her entrance to the marriage, his right is inferior upon her exit if he divorces her. Conversely, in a case where his right is inferior upon her entrance, his right is superior upon her exit. How so? With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, if she married while owning such produce, upon her entrance it is his, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and upon her exit, when he divorces her, it is hers, as it is considered part of her property. But in the case of produce that is detached from the ground, upon her entrance it is hers, and if such produce is detached before their divorce, upon her exit it is his, as he was already entitled to all the produce of her property.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讗专注讗 讜讘转讬 讗专注讗 讘转讬 讜讚讬拽诇讬 讘转讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讜讗讬诇谞讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讜讙讜驻谞讬 讗讬诇谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara observes that in the cases in the mishna where land is bought with the money, it is obvious that if one spouse proposes acquiring land and the other proposes buying houses, they must buy land, because it is a more secure purchase. If the decision is between houses and palm trees, they should acquire houses. If the decision is between palm trees or other types of trees, they should buy palm trees. If the decision is between regular trees or grapevines, they should purchase trees. The principle is that they acquire that which lasts longer and will not deteriorate over time.

讗讘讗 讝专讚转讗 讜驻讬专讗 讚讻讜讜专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽专谞讗 讻诇诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 驻讬专讗 讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 拽专谞讗

If the wife inherited a forest [abba] of hawthorn [zeradeta] trees, whose produce is inferior, or a fishpond, their status is a matter of dispute: Some say they are considered like produce, and some say they are like the principal, as they do not replenish themselves but eventually wear out. The principle of the matter is as follows: Any tree or plant whose trunk renews itself and grows again after it is cut is considered produce, whereas any tree or plant whose trunk does not renew itself is considered part of the principal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讙讜谞讘

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Yannai said, and some say Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Yannai said: One who steals

讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇讗砖讛

the offspring of an animal of a woman鈥檚 usufruct property must pay payment of double the principal to the woman. Apparently this ruling is based on the assumption that the offspring is not treated as the produce of her property but as the principal, which belongs to the woman.

讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙 诇讘注诇 讜诇讚 砖驻讞转 诪诇讜讙 诇讗砖讛 讜讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 注砖讜 讜诇讚 砖驻讞转 诪诇讜讙 讻讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of 岣nanya. The Gemara explains the dispute alluded to here: As it is taught in a baraita: The offspring of a usufruct animal belongs to the husband, whereas the child of a usufruct maidservant belongs to the wife. And 岣nanya, son of Yoshiya鈥檚 brother, said: They made the status of the child of a usufruct maidservant like that of the offspring of a usufruct animal, which belongs to the husband. Both opinions in the baraita agree that the offspring of a usufruct animal belongs to the husband. Why, then, must the thief pay the double payment to the woman?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讬专讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬专讗 讚驻讬专讗 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: You can even say that all agree with Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 ruling, as there is a difference between the general use of property and the double payment. This is because the Sages instituted for the husband to consume the produce, but the Sages did not institute for him to consume the produce of the produce. The double payment does not have the status of the offspring itself but of produce resulting from its theft, which is considered the produce of the produce and therefore is given to the woman.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to 岣nanya, who equates the halakha of a maidservant鈥檚 child to that of an animal鈥檚 offspring, this is because we are not concerned about the death of the mother. Therefore, the mother is the principal while its offspring is considered the produce.

讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬 诇诪讬转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇诪讬转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讜诇讚 砖驻讞转 诪诇讜讙 谞诪讬

But according to the Rabbis, if they are concerned about the death of the mother, and this is why a maidservant鈥檚 child belongs to the wife, even the offspring of a usufruct animal should not have the status of produce either. Rather, it should have the status of principal, because if the usufruct animal dies the woman will be left with nothing. Therefore, the offspring should be viewed as a replacement for its mother. And if they are not concerned about the death of the mother, even the child of a usufruct maidservant should also belong to the husband as the produce of her property. Why, then, do they distinguish between these two cases?

诇注讜诇诐 讞讬讬砖讬 诇诪讬转讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜专讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, the Rabbis are concerned about death, but the halakha of an animal is different, as there is still its hide, which remains after death. Therefore, the principal is not entirely lost even if the animal dies.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讛 诪讜讚讛 讞谞谞讬讛 砖讗诐 谞转讙专砖讛 谞讜转谞转 讚诪讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rav Huna bar 岣yya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya that the child of a maidservant belongs to the husband. Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: Although Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya, 岣nanya concedes that if the woman was divorced, she pays money and takes the children of her maidservants, because they are assets of her paternal family, and it is unfitting for the children of her family鈥檚 slaves to belong to someone else.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讝 诇讞诇讘讛 讜专讞诇 诇讙讬讝转讛 讜转专谞讙讜诇转 诇讘讬爪转讛 讜讚拽诇 诇驻讬专讜转讬讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖转讻诇讛 讛拽专谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讬讬诇讗 诇讬讛 讙诇讬诪讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诪讻住讬 讘讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 注讚 讚讻诇讬讗

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: If she brought in to the marriage for him a goat for its milk, or a sheep for its shearings, or a hen for its eggs, or a palm tree for its produce, the husband continues to consume the produce until the principal is consumed, and there is no concern that the woman will remain with nothing of value. Similarly, Rav Na岣an said: If she brought in for him a cloak as her usufruct property, it is produce, and he may cover himself with it until it is consumed.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪诇讞 讜讛讞讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 驻讬专讜转 驻讬专 砖诇 讙驻专讬转 诪讞驻讜专转 砖诇 爪专讬祝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: If a wife鈥檚 usufruct property includes a location on the shore from which salt and sand are extracted, this extract is deemed produce. As for a quarry of sulfur or a mine of alum, Rabbi Meir says: These are deemed principal, as the mine contains a finite amount of substance, and the Rabbis say: Extractions from such locations are produce, while the location of the mine is the principal. Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling that the cloak is deemed produce is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the extractions are deemed produce.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 The mishna stated that Rabbi Shimon says: In a case where his right is superior upon her entrance, his right is inferior upon her exit if he divorces her. Conversely, in the case where his right is inferior upon her entrance, his right is superior upon her exit. The Gemara asks: The statement of Rabbi Shimon is identical to that of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis. Why, then, are both necessary? Rava said: The practical difference between them is the status of produce that was attached at the time of her departure from the marriage. The Rabbis, who did not directly address this issue, maintain that it belongs to him, whereas Rabbi Shimon says it belongs to her.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讝拽谞讬诐 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬诇拽讞 诪讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜讙驻谞讬诐 讝拽谞讬诐 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

MISHNA: If elderly slaves or maidservants were bequeathed to her, they are sold and land is acquired with them, and the husband consumes the produce of the land. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She need not sell these slaves and maidservants, because they are assets of her paternal family, and it would be shameful to the family if they were sold to others. Likewise, if old olive trees or grapevines were bequeathed to her, they are sold and land is acquired with them, and he consumes the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: She need not sell them, because they are assets of her paternal family.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞驻诇讜 讘砖讚讛 砖诇讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 转诪讻讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

GEMARA: Rav Kahana said that Rav said: This dispute concerning olive trees and grapevines is referring to a case when they were bequeathed to her in her field, as they are assets of her paternal family, and therefore Rabbi Yehuda rules that she need not sell them. But if she received them in a field that is not hers, everyone agrees that she must sell them because the principal will be consumed. Since these trees will not yield much produce, they will eventually be uprooted, and transitory property is not included in the category of assets of her paternal family.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讚讻讬 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讛 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讚讛 砖诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rav Yosef objects to this: But elderly slaves and maidservants are considered like a field that is not hers, as nothing will remain of the principal, and yet Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the first tanna disagree over this case. The Gemara retracts: Rather, if the above statement of Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Kahana said that Rav said: This dispute with regard to olive trees and vines is referring to when they are located in a field that is not hers, but if they are located in her field, everyone agrees that she need not sell them, because they are assets of her paternal family.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛专讘讛 讜讗讻诇 拽讬诪注讗 拽讬诪注讗 讜讗讻诇 讛专讘讛 诪讛 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讗讻诇 讗讻诇 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇

MISHNA: With regard to one who pays expenditures for his wife鈥檚 property in an effort to improve it, if he paid a large amount in expenditures and ate only a small amount of produce before he divorced her, or if he paid a small amount in expenditures and ate a large quantity of produce, that which he spent he has spent, and that which he ate he has eaten. Therefore, none of it need be returned. However, if he paid expenditures for the property and did not eat any part of it, he takes an oath with regard to how much he paid and then takes his expenditures.

讙诪壮 讜讻诪讛 拽讬诪注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讻诇讛 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 讗诪专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And how much is a small amount? Rabbi Asi said: It is even one dried fig, provided he ate it in a dignified manner befitting the owner of the produce and did not eat it by snatching the produce. It was said

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 79

讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽专注讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇砖讟专讗 讗讝诇 专讘 注谞谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 谞讞诪谉 讞拽诇讗讛 讛讬讻讬 诪拽专注 砖讟专讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

The mother came before Rav Na岣an for judgment. Rav Na岣an tore the document, accepting her claim that she did not intend to transfer ownership of her property. Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva, the Exilarch, and said to him: Let the Master observe Na岣an the farmer, how he tears people鈥檚 documents. Rav Anan was upset that Rav Na岣an destroyed a legitimate document. Mar Ukva said to him: Tell me, please, what was the actual incident?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专 诪讘专讞转 拽讗 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬诇讗讬 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讗谞讬 讗诐 讬讘讗 砖讟专 诪讘专讞转 诇讬讚讬 讗拽专注谞讜

Rav Anan said to Mar Ukva: This and that transpired; i.e., he apprised him of all the details. Mar Ukva said to him: Are you saying it was a document of evasion? This is what Rav 岣nilai bar Idi said that Shmuel said: I am an authority who issues rulings and have issued the following directive: If a document of evasion comes to my hand, I will tear it, as it is clear that it was not intended for the actual transfer of property but merely to distance it from someone else.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讗讘诇 诇讘专转讛 讬讛讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讘专转讛 谞驻砖讛 注讚讬驻讗 诇讛

After seeing Rav Na岣an tear the document, Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason for your actions? Is it that you assume that it was not a wholehearted gift because a person does not abandon his own interests and give a gift to others? That applies only when it is given to others who are strangers, but to her daughter a mother would give property wholeheartedly. Rav Na岣an replied: Even so, where her interests clash with those of her daughter, her own interests are preferable to her, and therefore she did not intend to waive her rights.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讜爪讛 砖转讘专讬讞 谞讻住讬讛 诪讘注诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 讻讜转讘转 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to one who seeks to distance her property from her husband, how does she proceed? She writes in a document of agreement that her property should be given to others, who agree not to acquire the property. This document prevents her husband from gaining access to her property. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 专爪讛 诪爪讞拽 讘讛 注讚 砖转讻转讜讘 诇讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讻砖讗专爪讛

And the Rabbis say: This solution is flawed, because if the recipient wishes, he can deceive her and retain the property by virtue of the valid document in his possession. That possibility cannot be avoided until she writes to him in the document that the gift is granted from today and the gift is in effect only while I still wish to give it. In that case, if the one to whom she gave the gift comes to take possession of it, she can say that she no longer wants to give the gift and can thereby invalidate the document.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽谞谞讛讬 诇讜拽讞

The Gemara infers: The reason she can ultimately retain her property is due to the fact that she wrote this to him; but if she did not write this to him, the purchaser has acquired it. This indicates that a document of evasion is legally valid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜诇讛 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转讛

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult, as this, the ruling that the document of evasion is void, is in a case where the document was written about all of the property, as clearly a person does not give away all his property as a gift and leave himself with nothing. Conversely, that ruling that the document is not canceled is in a case where the document was written about only part of the property, and therefore a clause must be added ensuring that the recipient cannot retain possession of the gift.

讜讗讬 诇讗 拽谞谞讛讬 诇讜拽讞 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘注诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜诐 讻谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讚讜注讬谉 诇讘注诇 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in the case where the document is invalid because all of the property was included, if the purchaser does not acquire the property, the husband should acquire it. Abaye said: The Sages rendered this property given as a gift like property that is unknown to the husband, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna that if she sold such property after her marriage, the sale is valid. Therefore, the husband does not have access to the property.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讻住驻讬诐 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 驻讬专讜转 讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

MISHNA: If money was bequeathed to a woman as an inheritance while she was married, land is acquired with it, and the husband consumes the produce of the land while the principal remains hers. If she inherited produce that is detached from the ground, it is considered like money; therefore, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce of the land.

[驻讬专讜转] 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 讘拽专拽注 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 讘诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诪讜转专 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 诇拽专拽注 砖诇讜 讜讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 砖诇讛 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates how much the land is worth with the produce, and how much it is worth without the produce, and the difference between these sums is the surplus value that belongs to the woman. Land is then acquired with the surplus and he consumes the produce. And the Rabbis say: That which is attached to the ground is his, as he is entitled to the produce from her property and he may therefore eat from it. And that which is detached from the ground is hers, like all other money she brings to the marriage, and land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘讻谞讬住转讛 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讻谞讬住转讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讛 讻讬爪讚 驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐 诇拽专拽注 讘讻谞讬住转讛 砖诇讜 讜讘讬爪讬讗转讛 砖诇讛 讜讛转诇讜砖讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讘讻谞讬住转讛 砖诇讛 讜讘讬爪讬讗转讛 砖诇讜

Rabbi Shimon says: In a case where his right is superior upon her entrance to the marriage, his right is inferior upon her exit if he divorces her. Conversely, in a case where his right is inferior upon her entrance, his right is superior upon her exit. How so? With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, if she married while owning such produce, upon her entrance it is his, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and upon her exit, when he divorces her, it is hers, as it is considered part of her property. But in the case of produce that is detached from the ground, upon her entrance it is hers, and if such produce is detached before their divorce, upon her exit it is his, as he was already entitled to all the produce of her property.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讗专注讗 讜讘转讬 讗专注讗 讘转讬 讜讚讬拽诇讬 讘转讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讜讗讬诇谞讬 讚讬拽诇讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讜讙讜驻谞讬 讗讬诇谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara observes that in the cases in the mishna where land is bought with the money, it is obvious that if one spouse proposes acquiring land and the other proposes buying houses, they must buy land, because it is a more secure purchase. If the decision is between houses and palm trees, they should acquire houses. If the decision is between palm trees or other types of trees, they should buy palm trees. If the decision is between regular trees or grapevines, they should purchase trees. The principle is that they acquire that which lasts longer and will not deteriorate over time.

讗讘讗 讝专讚转讗 讜驻讬专讗 讚讻讜讜专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽专谞讗 讻诇诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 驻讬专讗 讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 拽专谞讗

If the wife inherited a forest [abba] of hawthorn [zeradeta] trees, whose produce is inferior, or a fishpond, their status is a matter of dispute: Some say they are considered like produce, and some say they are like the principal, as they do not replenish themselves but eventually wear out. The principle of the matter is as follows: Any tree or plant whose trunk renews itself and grows again after it is cut is considered produce, whereas any tree or plant whose trunk does not renew itself is considered part of the principal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讙讜谞讘

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Yannai said, and some say Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Yannai said: One who steals

讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诇讗砖讛

the offspring of an animal of a woman鈥檚 usufruct property must pay payment of double the principal to the woman. Apparently this ruling is based on the assumption that the offspring is not treated as the produce of her property but as the principal, which belongs to the woman.

讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙 诇讘注诇 讜诇讚 砖驻讞转 诪诇讜讙 诇讗砖讛 讜讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 注砖讜 讜诇讚 砖驻讞转 诪诇讜讙 讻讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of 岣nanya. The Gemara explains the dispute alluded to here: As it is taught in a baraita: The offspring of a usufruct animal belongs to the husband, whereas the child of a usufruct maidservant belongs to the wife. And 岣nanya, son of Yoshiya鈥檚 brother, said: They made the status of the child of a usufruct maidservant like that of the offspring of a usufruct animal, which belongs to the husband. Both opinions in the baraita agree that the offspring of a usufruct animal belongs to the husband. Why, then, must the thief pay the double payment to the woman?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讬专讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬专讗 讚驻讬专讗 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: You can even say that all agree with Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 ruling, as there is a difference between the general use of property and the double payment. This is because the Sages instituted for the husband to consume the produce, but the Sages did not institute for him to consume the produce of the produce. The double payment does not have the status of the offspring itself but of produce resulting from its theft, which is considered the produce of the produce and therefore is given to the woman.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to 岣nanya, who equates the halakha of a maidservant鈥檚 child to that of an animal鈥檚 offspring, this is because we are not concerned about the death of the mother. Therefore, the mother is the principal while its offspring is considered the produce.

讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬 诇诪讬转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讜诇讚 讘讛诪转 诪诇讜讙 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇诪讬转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讜诇讚 砖驻讞转 诪诇讜讙 谞诪讬

But according to the Rabbis, if they are concerned about the death of the mother, and this is why a maidservant鈥檚 child belongs to the wife, even the offspring of a usufruct animal should not have the status of produce either. Rather, it should have the status of principal, because if the usufruct animal dies the woman will be left with nothing. Therefore, the offspring should be viewed as a replacement for its mother. And if they are not concerned about the death of the mother, even the child of a usufruct maidservant should also belong to the husband as the produce of her property. Why, then, do they distinguish between these two cases?

诇注讜诇诐 讞讬讬砖讬 诇诪讬转讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜专讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, the Rabbis are concerned about death, but the halakha of an animal is different, as there is still its hide, which remains after death. Therefore, the principal is not entirely lost even if the animal dies.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讛 诪讜讚讛 讞谞谞讬讛 砖讗诐 谞转讙专砖讛 谞讜转谞转 讚诪讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rav Huna bar 岣yya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya that the child of a maidservant belongs to the husband. Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: Although Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya, 岣nanya concedes that if the woman was divorced, she pays money and takes the children of her maidservants, because they are assets of her paternal family, and it is unfitting for the children of her family鈥檚 slaves to belong to someone else.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讝 诇讞诇讘讛 讜专讞诇 诇讙讬讝转讛 讜转专谞讙讜诇转 诇讘讬爪转讛 讜讚拽诇 诇驻讬专讜转讬讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖转讻诇讛 讛拽专谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讬讬诇讗 诇讬讛 讙诇讬诪讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诪讻住讬 讘讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 注讚 讚讻诇讬讗

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: If she brought in to the marriage for him a goat for its milk, or a sheep for its shearings, or a hen for its eggs, or a palm tree for its produce, the husband continues to consume the produce until the principal is consumed, and there is no concern that the woman will remain with nothing of value. Similarly, Rav Na岣an said: If she brought in for him a cloak as her usufruct property, it is produce, and he may cover himself with it until it is consumed.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪诇讞 讜讛讞讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 驻讬专讜转 驻讬专 砖诇 讙驻专讬转 诪讞驻讜专转 砖诇 爪专讬祝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: If a wife鈥檚 usufruct property includes a location on the shore from which salt and sand are extracted, this extract is deemed produce. As for a quarry of sulfur or a mine of alum, Rabbi Meir says: These are deemed principal, as the mine contains a finite amount of substance, and the Rabbis say: Extractions from such locations are produce, while the location of the mine is the principal. Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling that the cloak is deemed produce is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the extractions are deemed produce.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 The mishna stated that Rabbi Shimon says: In a case where his right is superior upon her entrance, his right is inferior upon her exit if he divorces her. Conversely, in the case where his right is inferior upon her entrance, his right is superior upon her exit. The Gemara asks: The statement of Rabbi Shimon is identical to that of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis. Why, then, are both necessary? Rava said: The practical difference between them is the status of produce that was attached at the time of her departure from the marriage. The Rabbis, who did not directly address this issue, maintain that it belongs to him, whereas Rabbi Shimon says it belongs to her.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讝拽谞讬诐 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬诇拽讞 诪讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜讙驻谞讬诐 讝拽谞讬诐 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

MISHNA: If elderly slaves or maidservants were bequeathed to her, they are sold and land is acquired with them, and the husband consumes the produce of the land. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She need not sell these slaves and maidservants, because they are assets of her paternal family, and it would be shameful to the family if they were sold to others. Likewise, if old olive trees or grapevines were bequeathed to her, they are sold and land is acquired with them, and he consumes the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: She need not sell them, because they are assets of her paternal family.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞驻诇讜 讘砖讚讛 砖诇讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 转诪讻讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

GEMARA: Rav Kahana said that Rav said: This dispute concerning olive trees and grapevines is referring to a case when they were bequeathed to her in her field, as they are assets of her paternal family, and therefore Rabbi Yehuda rules that she need not sell them. But if she received them in a field that is not hers, everyone agrees that she must sell them because the principal will be consumed. Since these trees will not yield much produce, they will eventually be uprooted, and transitory property is not included in the category of assets of her paternal family.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讚讻讬 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讛 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讚讛 砖诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 转诪讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rav Yosef objects to this: But elderly slaves and maidservants are considered like a field that is not hers, as nothing will remain of the principal, and yet Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the first tanna disagree over this case. The Gemara retracts: Rather, if the above statement of Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Kahana said that Rav said: This dispute with regard to olive trees and vines is referring to when they are located in a field that is not hers, but if they are located in her field, everyone agrees that she need not sell them, because they are assets of her paternal family.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛专讘讛 讜讗讻诇 拽讬诪注讗 拽讬诪注讗 讜讗讻诇 讛专讘讛 诪讛 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讗讻诇 讗讻诇 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇

MISHNA: With regard to one who pays expenditures for his wife鈥檚 property in an effort to improve it, if he paid a large amount in expenditures and ate only a small amount of produce before he divorced her, or if he paid a small amount in expenditures and ate a large quantity of produce, that which he spent he has spent, and that which he ate he has eaten. Therefore, none of it need be returned. However, if he paid expenditures for the property and did not eat any part of it, he takes an oath with regard to how much he paid and then takes his expenditures.

讙诪壮 讜讻诪讛 拽讬诪注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讻诇讛 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 讗诪专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And how much is a small amount? Rabbi Asi said: It is even one dried fig, provided he ate it in a dignified manner befitting the owner of the produce and did not eat it by snatching the produce. It was said

Scroll To Top