Rif Yevamot 21b {Yevamot 65b continues} Rebuke; Iron Sheep

21b

{Yevamot 65b continues}

ואמר רבי אלעא משום ר' יהודה ברבי שמעון כשם שמצוה על אדם לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה על האדם שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע
רבי אבא אומר חובה שנאמר אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך:

And Rabbi Illa'a cited Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a precept {mitzvah} upon someone to say something {rebuke} which will be listened to, so too it is a precept on a person not to say something which will not be listened to.
Rabbi Abba said: It is an obligation {chovah rather than mitzvah}. For it is stated {Mishlei 9:8}:

ח אַל-תּוֹכַח לֵץ, פֶּן-יִשְׂנָאֶךָּ; הוֹכַח לְחָכָם, וְיֶאֱהָבֶךָּ.

8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee; reprove a wise man, and he will love thee.

END PEREK
BEGIN PEREK SEVEN
{Yevamot 66a}
Mishna:

אלמנה לכ"ג גרושה [וחלוצה] לכהן הדיוט הכניסה לו עבדי מלוג ועבדי צאן ברזל עבדי מלוג לא יאכלו בתרומה עבדי צאן ברזל יאכלו
ואלו הן עבדי מלוג אם מתו מתו לה ואם הותירו הותירו לה אע"פ שהוא חייב במזונותן לא יאכלו בתרומה ואלו הן עבדי צאן ברזל אם מתו מתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו הואיל וחייב באחריותן הרי אלו יאכלו בתרומה:

A widow to a kohen gadol, a divorcee [and a woman who underwent chalitza] to a normal kohen, and she brings in {to the marriage} servants of melog {plucking or milking -- the husband has no rights to the principle but does have rights to any produce of it} and servants of iron sheep {of which he has the principle, but on leaving the marriage he gives her back their full initial value}, the servants of melog may not eat of teruma while the servants of iron sheep may eat.

And these are servants of melog -- if they die, they die to her, and if they increase, they increase for her, so even though he is obligated in feeding them, they do not eat teruma.

And these are servants which are iron sheep -- if they die, they die to him, and if they increase, they increase to him. Therefore, since he is obligated in their responsibility {such that he needs to give their initial value back upon termination of the marriage, they are his and}, they eat of teruma.

Gemara:

איתמר המכנסת שום לבעלה היא אומרת כליי אני נוטלת והוא אומר דמים אני נותן הדין עם מי
רב יהודה אמר הדין עמה
רבי אמי אמר הדין עמו
רב יהודה אמר הדין עמה משום שבח בית אביה דידה הוו
רבי אמי אמר הדין עמו דאמר מר אם מתו מתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו ברשותיה קיימי וכדידיה דאמו

It was stated {by Amoraim}: If a woman brought in appraised goods to her uhsband {in marriage}, she says {upon termination of the marriage} "I wish to take my own vessels," and he says "I will give their value," with whom is the law?
{Yevamot 66b}
Rav Yehuda said: The law is with her.
Rabbi Ami said: The law is with him.
Rav Yehuda said that the law is with her, for the assets {/benefit} to her father's house is hers.
Rabbi Ami said that the law is with him, for Master said {above}, "if they {the servants which are iron sheep} died, they died to him and if they increased, they increased to him," so they are in his domain, and they are like his.

תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה ותניא כוותיה דרבי אמי
תניא כוותיה דרבי אמי עבדי צאן ברזל יוצאין בשן ועין לאיש אבל לא לאשה
תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה המכנסת שום לבעלה אם רצה הבעל למכור לא ימכור ולא עוד אלא אפילו הכניס לה שום משלו אם רצה הבעל למכור לא ימכור מכרו שניהן לפרנסה זה היה מעשה לפני רבן גמליאל ואמר הבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות

There is a brayta in accordance with Rav Yehuda and there is a brayta in accordance with Rabbi Ami.
There is a brayta in accordance with Rabbi Ami: servants who are of iron sheep go out with {loss of} a tooth or an eye, with the man {husband who struck them} but not with the woman {if the wife struck them}.
There is a brayta in accordance with Rav Yehuda: If she brings in to her marriage appraised goods to her husband -- if the husband wishes to sell them, he may not sell them, and not only that, but even if he brings in appraised goods of his own, if the husband wishes to sell them, he may not sell them. If both {note: understand this as either} of them sold them for their maintenance -- this was in incident before Rabban Gamliel and he said that the husband may seize them {upon the woman's death} from the hands of the buyers {and the same is obviously true for the woman upon the husband's death}.

אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרב יהודה

Rava cited Rav Nachman: The halacha is like Rav Yehuda.

ודייקי רבוואתא מדקתני במתניתין בעבדי צאן ברזל אם מתו מתו לו ולא קתני אם פחתו פחתו לו דוקא כעין מתו ממש דלא משמשי מעין מלאכתן כלל דכמאן דליתנהו דאמי הוא דחייב באחריותן ומשלם דמים אבל אי איתנהו אף על גב דבלו טובא ופחתו אי משמשי מעין מלאכתן נוטלתן האשה ואינו משלם דמים שדין עבדי צאן ברזל ודין נכסי צאן ברזל אחד הוא כדין אלו כך דין אלו

And the {post-Talmudic} Rabbis deduced from the fact that it said in our Mishna regarding servants who are iron sheep, "if they died, they died to him," and it does not teach "if they reduced in value, they reduced in value to him," that specifically cases similar to their actual death, such that they cannot do anything like their work at all, and so they are like they are not there at all -- in such a case he is liable in their responsibility and pays money, but if they are there, even though they greatly degraded and reduced in value, if they can serve in a way similar to their work, the woman takes them and he {the husband} does not pay money. For the law of servants who are iron sheep, and the law of assets which are iron sheep is one and the same. As the law of these, so is the law of these.