Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Rif Ketubot 39a {80a}


מתניתין בנכסי מלוג אבל בנכסי צאן ברזל כל שבח ששבחו נכסים בין מחמת הוצאה בין שלא מחמת הוצאה דבעל הוי כדתנן אם מתו מתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו
ואמרינן נמי בגמ' ביבמות פרק אלמנה לכהן גדול אמר רב יהודה הכניסה לו שני כלים באלף זוז ושבחו ועמדו על שני אלפים זוז אחד נוטלתו בכתובתה ואחד נוטלתו בדמים ונוטלתו משום שבח בית אביה
Our Mishna is about assets which are melog, but assets which are iron sheep, all appreciation which the assets appreciate, whether because of the expenditure {invested in them} or not because of the expenditure, belong to the husband, as we learnt {in a Mishna}: If they died, they died to him and if they increased, they increased to him.

And we also say in the gemara in Yevamot, perek Almana leChohen Gadol: Rav Yehuda said: If she brought in to him {to marriage} two vessels worth 1000 zuz and they appreciated and stood at a value of 2000 zuz, one of them she takes with her ketuba and one of them she takes in exchange for money, and she is entitled to take it {in exchange} because of the pride of her father's house.

מסתברא לן מתניתין דקתני מה שהוציא הוציא ומה שאכל אכל כשהבעל רוצה לגרשה אבל במורדת על בעלה בין אכל בין לא אכל ישבע כמה הוציא ויטול דלא יהא אלא מתנה הוא דיהיב לה הא אמרי' כי אקנה לה אדעתא למיקם קמיה אדעתא למשקל ולמיפק לא אקני לה
הלכך בין אכל בין לא אכל ישבע כמה הוציא ויטול
והוא שהיתה הוצאה כנגד השבח אבל אם ההוצאה יתירה על השבח אין לו אלא הוצאה שיעור שבח ובשבועה (שלא הוציא פחות משיעור שבח) וכדאמר רבא:
It is logical to us that our Mishna which teaches "what he expended, he expended and what he ate, he ate," is where the husband wishes to divorce her, but if a woman rebels against her husband, then whether he ate or did not eat, he swears how much he expended and takes it, for this should only be considered a gift he gave her, and we may say that when he gave it over to her, he did it with the thought to keep it before him; with the thought that she should take it and go, he did not give to it her.
Therefore, whether he ate or did not eat, he swears how much he expended, and he takes.
And this is where the expenditure corresponds to the appreciation, but if the expenditure is greater than the appreciation, he only has the part of the expenditure which corresponds to the appreciation, and with an oath (*that he did not expend less that the measure of the appreciation*), and as Rava said.

{Ketubot 80a}
איבעיא להו בעל שהוריד אריסין תחתיו מהו אדעתא דארעא נחית וארעא לאריסא קיימא או דילמא אדעתא דבעל נחית איסתליק ליה בעל אסתלקו להו אריסין
ואסיקנא אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חזינן אי בעל אריס הוא איסתליק ליה בעל אסתלקו להו אריסין ואי בעל לאו אריס הוא ארעא לאריסא קיימא:
It was a question to them: A husband who send down tenant farmers {who pay a fixes percentage of the crops as rent} in his place, what is the law? Did he {the tenant farmer} go with the thought of the land, and the land remains for the tenant farmer? Or perhaps with the thought of the husband, such that where the husband is removed {by forfeiting his claim, by consuming some}, the tenant farmers are also removed?
And we conclude: Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: We see -- if the husband is a tenant farmer himself, when the husband is removed, the tenant farmers are removed. And if the husband is not a tenant farmer, the land stands for the tenant farmer.

איבעיא להו בעל שמכר קרקע לפירות מהו
מי אמרינן מאי דקני אקני ליה או דילמא כי תקינו רבנן משום רווח ביתא אבל לזבוני לא
יהודה בר מרימר משמיה דרבא אמר מה שעשה עשוי
רב פפי משמיה דרבא אמר לא עשה כלום
א"ר פפא הא דיהודה בר מרימר לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר
דההיא אתתא דעיילא ליה לגברא תרתי אמהתא אזל גברא נסב אתתא אחריתי עייל לה חדא מנייהו אתיא לקמיה דרבא צווחא ולא אשגח בה מאן דחזא סבר מה שעשה עשוי ולא היא משום רווח ביתא הוא והא קרווח דאיכא אחריתי
והלכתא בעל שמכר קרקע לפירות לא עשה כלום
מאי טעמא אביי אמר חיישינן שמא תכסיף
רבא אמר משום רווח ביתא
מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו ארעא דמקרבא למתא אי נמי בעל אריס הוא אי נמי זוזי וקעביד בהו עסקא
והלכתא כרבא
It was a question to them: A husband who sold the land in terms of rights to the fruits, what is the law? Do we say that what was acquired he can transfer ownership of? Or perhaps, the Sages enacted because of {Ketubot 80b} providing for the comfort of his home, but to sell, no?
Yehuda bar Meremar, citing Rava, said: What was done was done.
Rav Papi citing Rava said: He did not do anything {that had an effect}.
Rav Pappa said: This of Yehuda bar Meremar was not stated explicitly, but rather was inferred.
For there was a woman who brought in two her husband {in marriage} with her two maidservants. The husband went and married another woman {in addition}, and he assigned to her one of them {the maidservants}. She came before Rava, crying, and he paid her no heed. One who saw this thought that what was done was done, but it was not so. Rather, it was for the purpose of the comfort of the house, and there is still this comfort for the house, for there is another one. {In our gemara, this statement "for there is another one" is not present, such that one could interpret this as that this assigned maidservant still performs household duties. With these words in place, that interpretation is excluded. These may well have been inserted by Rif.}
And the halacha is that a husband who sold land in terms of fruit rights did not accomplish anything. What is the reason?
Abaye said: We worry lest it {the land} deteriorate {because of over-farming}.
Rava said: Because of comfort of the house.
What is the practical distinction between them?
This is the practical distintion? Land which is close to the town {where one can see how the land is treated}. Alternatively, where the husband is a tenant farmer {for the person to whom the fruit rights were sold}. Alternatively, where the husband receives money and uses it to engage in trade {such that there is comfort for the house, so Rava would permit}.
And the halacha is like Rava.

שומרת יבם שנפלו לה נכסים מודים ב"ש וב"ה שהיא מוכרת ונותנת וקיים
מתה מה יעשו בכתובתה ובנכסים הנכנסין [והיוצאין] עמה בש"א יחלוקו יורשי הבעל עם יורשי האב וב"ה אומרים נכסים בחזקתן כתובה בחזקת יורשי הבעל ונכסים הנכנסין והיוצאין עמה בחזקת יורשי האב
A woman waiting for her levir {to perform yibbum or chalitza} to whom fell assets: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that she can sell and give, and it is valid.
If she died, what should be done with her ketuba and with the assets which entered and left with her {that is, melog}? Bet Shammai say: The heirs of the husband split it with the heirs of the {=her} father. And Bet Hillel say: The {iron sheep} assets stay in their present possession, the ketuba remains in the possession of the heirs of the husband, and the {melog} assets which enter and leave with her in the possession of the heirs or the father.

No comments: