💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2079b captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:46:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] the **offspring** of **an animal of** a woman’s **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.
‎[2] 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 **Ḥananya.** 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 Ḥananya, son of Yoshiya’s 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?
‎[3] The Gemara answers: **You** can **even say** that **all agree** with Rabbi Yannai’s 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.
‎[4] The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to Ḥananya,** who equates the *halakha* of a maidservant’s child to that of an animal’s 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.
‎[5] **But** according to **the Rabbis, if** they **are concerned about** the **death** of the mother, and this is why a maidservant’s 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?
‎[6] 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.
‎[7] **Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said** that **Shmuel said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Ḥananya** that the child of a maidservant belongs to the husband. **Rava said** that **Rav Naḥman said: Although Shmuel said** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Ḥananya, Ḥananya 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’s slaves to belong to someone else.
‎[8] **Rava said** that **Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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.**
‎[9] 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’s 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 Naḥman’s ruling that the cloak is deemed produce is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the extractions are deemed produce.
‎[10] § 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.
‎[11] **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.**
‎[12] **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.
‎[13] **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.**
‎[14] **MISHNA:** With regard to **one who pays expenditures for his wife’s 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.
‎[15] **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**
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC