💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2080b captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:27:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[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,**
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC