Ketubot 80

רבי אבא אמרי בי רב אפילו שיגרא דתמרי בעי רב ביבי חובצא דתמרי מאי תיקו

by Rabbi Abba that in the school of Rav they say: It is even a cluster of dates stuck together. Rav Beivai asks: If one ate dough made of dates, what is the halakha? Is this considered dignified consumption? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

לא אכלה דרך כבוד מאי אמר עולא פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא חד אמר בכאיסר וחד אמר בכדינר

The Gemara asks: If he did not eat it in a dignified manner, what is the halakha? How much must he eat to be deemed a proper act of consumption? Ulla said: Two amora’im in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, disagree about this matter. One said: He ate the amount of an issar, and one said: He ate the measure of a dinar.

אמרי דייני דפומבדיתא עבד רב יהודה עובדא בחבילי זמורות רב יהודה לטעמיה דאמר רב יהודה אכלה ערלה שביעית וכלאים הרי זו חזקה

The judges of Pumbedita say: Rav Yehuda took action in a case of a bundle of branches. A husband took them from his wife’s property and fed them to his animals, and Rav Yehuda ruled that this was treated as consumption of her property. The Gemara comments: Rav Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Yehuda said: If one took possession of a plot of land and consumed some of the produce of its trees that was forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] or produce of the seventh year, or a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, this is considered taking possession of the land, as he was allowed to benefit from the permitted branches.

אמר רב יעקב אמר רב חסדא המוציא הוצאות על נכסי אשתו קטנה כמוציא על נכסי אחר דמי מאי טעמא עבדו בה רבנן תקנתא כי היכי דלא ניפסדינהו:

§ Rav Yaakov said that Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to one who outlays expenditures for the property of his wife who is a minor girl and was married off by her mother or brothers, he is considered like one who outlays expenditures for the property of someone else. Therefore, if she performed refusal upon reaching maturity, thereby annulling the marriage, he takes the value of the improvement. What is the reason for this? The Sages enacted this ordinance in order that he should not let her property depreciate. If he is not guaranteed reimbursement for his expenses if she refuses him as her husband, he will not attend to the upkeep of her property, causing its value to decline.

ההיא איתתא דנפלו לה ארבע מאה זוזי בי חוזאי אזיל גברא אפיק שית מאה אייתי ארבע מאה בהדי דקאתי איצטריך ליה חד זוזא ושקל מנייהו אתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר ליה מה שהוציא הוציא ומה שאכל אכל

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who had four hundred dinars bequeathed to her in Bei Ḥozai, a remote location in Babylonia. The man, her husband, went and took with him six hundred of his own dinars for travel expenses and brought back with him four hundred. While he was coming back he required one dinar, which he took from the money he had collected. He came before Rabbi Ami for a ruling. Rabbi Ami said to him: That which he spent he has spent, and that which he ate he has eaten. He has benefited from one dinar of her money and spent six hundred of his own, and neither amount can be claimed.

אמרו ליה רבנן לרבי אמי הני מילי היכא דקאכיל פירא הא קרנא קאכיל והוצאה היא אם כן הוה ליה הוציא ולא אכל ישבע כמה הוציא ויטול:

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Ami: This applies only where he consumes the produce of his wife’s property, but this one ate from the principal, and it is merely expenditures. He replied: If so, this is a case of one who pays expenditures and did not eat, and the halakha is that in such a case he takes an oath with regard to how much he paid and then takes that amount.

ישבע כמה הוציא ויטול: אמר רבי אסי והוא שיש שבח כנגד הוצאה למאי הלכתא אמר אביי שאם היה שבח יתר על הוצאה נוטל את ההוצאה בלא שבועה

§ The mishna states: He takes an oath with regard to how much he spent and takes this sum. Rabbi Asi said: And this applies only if there is enhancement to the property corresponding to his expense. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Is this a stringency for the husband that if the value of enhancement is less he may not reclaim all his expenses, or is it a leniency that if the value is greater he need not take an oath? Abaye said: It means that if the value of enhancement was greater than the expense, he takes the expense without an oath.

אמר ליה רבא אם כן אתי לאיערומי אלא אמר רבא שאם היתה הוצאה יתירה על השבח אין לו אלא הוצאה שיעור שבח ובשבועה

Rava said to him: If so, he will come to deceive, as he can always say that he spent slightly less than the value of the enhancement and thereby receive this amount without having to take an oath. Rather, Rava said: It means that if the expense was greater than the enhancement, he has rights to reclaim the expense only up to the amount of the enhancement, but no more, and even this amount he can claim only by an oath.

איבעיא להו בעל שהוריד אריסין תחתיו מהו אדעתא דבעל נחית איסתליק ליה בעל איסתליקו להו או דלמא אדעתא דארעא נחית וארעא כי קיימא לאריסי קיימא

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who engaged sharecroppers to work his wife’s property in his stead, what is the halakha? Does a sharecropper begin work on the land with the intention to work for the husband, so that if the husband departs the property, e.g., if he divorces his wife, they too depart as sharecroppers and do not receive their share of the profits from the land? Or perhaps a sharecropper begins work with the intention to work the land, and the land, as it stands, stands to be worked by sharecroppers? Since their involvement is directly with the land, it makes no difference who hired them, and they would stay on the land.

מתקיף לה רבא בר רב חנן מאי שנא מהיורד לתוך שדה חבירו ונטעה שלא ברשות שמין לו וידו על התחתונה

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan objects to this line of inquiry: In what way is this case different from that of one who entered the field of another and planted it without permission? In such a situation one evaluates his expenses for him and the value of his enhancement of the field, and he is at a disadvantage. Therefore, he always receives the smaller sum, whether it is equal to his expenses or the enhancement of the property. In this case too, even if the sharecroppers are viewed as unauthorized occupiers of the land, why shouldn’t they be treated like one who entered another’s field without permission and receive at least the smaller sum?

התם ליכא איניש דטרח הכא איכא בעל דטרח

The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable: There, when one enters another’s land, there is no one else that will exert himself for it, and therefore it is reasonable that the one who invested in this property should at least be compensated for the lesser value. However, here, there is a husband who exerts himself for the land. Since the sharecroppers act in his stead, they are entitled to remain on the land only as long as he is present.

מאי הוי עלה אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חזינן אי בעל אריס הוא איסתלק ליה בעל אסתלקו להו אי בעל לאו אריס הוא ארעא לאריסי קיימא

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it, i.e., the original question? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We examine the matter: If this husband is a sharecropper himself and possesses sufficient knowledge of working the land to perform the task himself, then when the husband departs from the property they too depart, as they are taking his place. If the husband is not a sharecropper, the land is ready for sharecroppers, as the husband would not have performed the work himself. Since the wife was in need of sharecroppers, they are not considered to have acted on behalf of the husband and do not forfeit their share.

איבעיא להו בעל שמכר קרקע לפירות מהו מי אמרינן מאי דקני (לה) אקני או דלמא כי תקינו ליה רבנן פירות לבעל

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who sold his wife’s land for produce, i.e., rights to the produce were sold to one who agrees to work the land in exchange, what is the halakha? Do we say: That which belongs to the husband he has transferred to others, and therefore the sale of the produce is valid, or perhaps the principle is that when the Sages instituted that the produce goes to the husband,

משום רווח ביתא אבל לזבוני לא יהודה מר בר מרימר משמיה דרבא אמר מה שעשה עשוי רב פפא אמר משמיה דרבא לא עשה ולא כלום

they did so for the gain of the house, as more food is available when he brings produce home, but in order for him to sell it they did not institute their decree? Two opinions were stated with regard to this issue: Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar said in the name of Rava: What he did is done, i.e., takes effect. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: He did not do anything.

אמר רב פפא הא דיהודה מר בר מרימר לאו בפירוש אתמר אלא מכללא אתמר דההיא איתתא דעיילה ליה לגברא תרתי אמהתא אזל גברא נסיב איתתא אחריתי עייל לה חדא מנייהו

Rav Pappa said: This statement of Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar was not stated explicitly in Rava’s name. Rather, it was stated from an inference based on an incident that occurred in which a certain woman brought in for her husband two maidservants as part of her dowry. The man went and married another woman in addition to the first. He subsequently brought in to the second wife one of the maidservants to attend to her needs.

אתאי לקמיה דרבא צווחה לא אשגח בה מאן דחזא סבר משום דסבר מה שעשה עשוי ולא היא משום רווח ביתא והא קא רווח

The first wife came before Rava and cried about the injustice done to her, but Rava took no notice of her, claiming she had no right to complain. He who observed this incident thought that Rava ruled this way because he holds that what he did is done, i.e., takes effect, and a husband may sell his wife’s usufruct property and use its produce as he sees fit. But that is not so, as the Sages instituted the ordinance that a husband owns the rights to the produce of his wife’s property for the gain of the house, and here the house does gain from his action, as the maidservant also performs work for the house.

והלכתא בעל שמכר קרקע לפירות לא עשה ולא כלום מאי טעמא אביי אמר חיישינן שמא תכסיף רבא אמר משום רווח ביתא

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a husband who sold land for produce did not do anything. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for this ruling? Abaye said: We are concerned that perhaps the land itself will deteriorate over time, as the purchaser has acquired only its produce and has no incentive to take proper care of the land. Rava said: This is because there is no gain of the house here.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו ארעא דמקרב למתא אי נמי בעל אריס הוא אי נמי זוזי וקא עביד בהו עיסקא:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara explains: The practical difference between them is, e.g., land that is close to the town, as one can check at any time whether the land is being cared for properly. Alternatively, the difference involves a husband who is a sharecropper and works the land himself but sold the rights of the produce to someone else. As a sharecropper, the husband retains part of the produce and will also ensure that the land does not deteriorate. Alternatively, the difference concerns a husband who receives money for the produce and does business with it, which provides gain for the house.

מתני׳ שומרת יבם שנפלו לה נכסים מודים בית שמאי ובית הלל שמוכרת ונותנת וקיים

MISHNA: When a married man dies childless, his brother, the yavam, is obligated to perform levirate marriage or release the widow, the yevama, through a ceremony known as ḥalitza. With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam who had property bequeathed to her, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give this property away, and the transaction is valid.

מתה מה יעשו בכתובתה ובנכסים הנכנסין והיוצאין עמה בית שמאי אומרים יחלקו יורשי הבעל עם יורשי האב ובית הלל אומרים נכסים בחזקתן וכתובה בחזקת יורשי הבעל נכסים הנכנסים והיוצאים עמה בחזקת יורשי האב

If this woman died, what should they do with her marriage contract and with the property that comes and goes with her, i.e., her usufruct property? Beit Shammai say: Since she was not yet remarried, the husband’s heirs, such as his brothers or father, divide the property with her father’s heirs. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status, and therefore the marriage contract is in the possession of the husband’s heirs, as they are responsible for its payment. As for the property that comes and goes with her, it is in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father, as it belongs to the woman.

הניח אחיו מעות ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות פירות התלושין מן הקרקע ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות

If his deceased brother left money as part of his estate, land to be used as a lien on her marriage contract is acquired with it, and the yavam consumes the produce. Similarly, if the deceased brother left produce that is detached from the ground, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

המחוברין בקרקע אמר רבי מאיר שמין אותן כמה הן יפין בפירות וכמה הן יפין בלא פירות והמותר ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות

If he left behind produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates the properties to determine how much they are worth with the produce, and how much they are worth without the produce. And as for the surplus, which is the value of the produce, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

וחכמים אומרים פירות המחוברין בקרקע שלו התלושין מן הקרקע כל הקודם זכה בהן קדם הוא זכה קדמה היא ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות

And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. Therefore, it is not used in the purchase of land, but the yavam may eat it. As for the produce that is detached from the ground, which is not mortgaged to her marriage contract, whoever takes possession first has acquired it. If the yavam takes possession of the property first, he has acquired it and may use it as he wishes, but if she is first, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.

כנסה הרי היא כאשתו לכל דבר בלבד שתהא כתובתה על נכסי בעלה הראשון

After the yavam has married her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense, except that the responsibility for payment of her marriage contract is carried out through mortgaging the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam.

לא יאמר לה הרי כתובתיך מונחת על השלחן אלא כל נכסיו אחראין לכתובתה וכן לא יאמר אדם לאשתו הרי כתובתיך מונחת על השלחן אלא כל נכסיו אחראין לכתובתה

Therefore, the yavam may not say to her: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. He may not set aside a designated sum of money for this payment. Rather, all of the first husband’s property is mortgaged for her marriage contract as long as he has not divorced her. And similarly, in general a man may not say to his wife: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. Rather, all his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract.

גירשה אין לה אלא כתובה החזירה הרי היא ככל הנשים ואין לה אלא כתובה בלבד:

If the yavam divorced her after performing levirate marriage, she has only her marriage contract, as she does not retain any rights to the rest of her first husband’s property. If he subsequently remarried her, she is like all women, and she has nothing but her marriage contract. In this case, the property of her first husband is no longer pledged for the payment of her marriage contract.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו שומרת יבם שמתה מי קוברה יורשי הבעל קברי לה דקא ירתי כתובה או דלמא יורשי האב קברי לה דקא ירתי נכסים הנכנסין והיוצאין עמה אמר רב עמרם תא שמע דתניא שומרת יבם שמתה

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a widow awaiting her yavam who dies, who buries her? Who is obligated to bear the expenses of her burial? Must the husband’s heirs bury her, as they inherit the marriage contract, or perhaps her father’s heirs are obligated to bury her, as they inherit the property that comes and goes with her? Rav Amram said: Come and hear a solution. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who dies,