💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2080a captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:33:29. 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,**
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