💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2079a captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:44:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] The mother **came before Rav Naḥman** for judgment. **Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman the farmer, how** he **tears people’s documents.** Rav Anan was upset that Rav Naḥman destroyed a legitimate document. **Mar Ukva said to him: Tell me, please, what was the actual incident?**
‎[2] 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 Ḥanilai 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.
‎[3] After seeing Rav Naḥman tear the document, **Rava said to Rav Naḥman: 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 Naḥman 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.
‎[4] 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.**
‎[5] **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.
‎[6] 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.
‎[7] **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.
‎[8] 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.
‎[9] **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.
‎[10] 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.**
‎[11] **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.
‎[12] **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.
‎[13] 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.**
‎[14] **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**
Mishneh Torah, Ownerless Property and Gifts
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC