💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot_80 captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:18:00. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] 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.
‎[2] 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.**
‎[3] **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.
‎[4] § **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.
‎[5] 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.
‎[6] **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.
‎[7] § 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.**
‎[8] **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.**
‎[9] **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.
‎[10] **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?
‎[11] 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.
‎[12] 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.
‎[13] **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,**
2 ‎[1] 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.**
‎[2] **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.
‎[3] 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.
‎[4] 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.
‎[5] 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.
‎[6] **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.**
‎[7] 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.
‎[8] 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.**
‎[9] 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.**
‎[10] **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.**
‎[11] 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*.
‎[12] 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.**
‎[13] 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.
‎[14] **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,**
Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property
Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC