Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TOVAS HANA'AH

(a) (Abaye): When a woman sells the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah, the money is entirely hers.

1. If it would belong to her husband - why should the Zomemim witnesses pay her? Even had she sold it, her husband would get the money!

(b) Rejection (Rav Shalman): Really, her husband gets the money - Zomemim witnesses pay her because she prefers that her husband has more money to spend.
(c) (Rava): Th law is, when a woman sells the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah, the money is entirely hers, her husband does not get the produce.(profits made with the money or something bought with the money).
(d) Question: Why doesn't he get the produce?
(e) Answer: Chachamim enacted that a husband get the produce If one wants to know if his wife's property, not the produce of the produce (the Tovas Hana'ah is as produce of her Kesuvah).

(a) (Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We may derive the enactment of Usha from our Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): One loses from encounters with a slave or (married) woman: one who damages either of them is liable, if either of them damaged someone, he or she is exempt.
2. If not for the enactment of Usha, she should sell her Milug property to pay the damage!

(b) Rejection: Even if there was the enactment of Usha - granted, she cannot absolutely sell her Milug property to pay the damage - but she can sell the Tovas Hana'ah (if she is widowed or divorced, the buyer will get the property)!

1. We must say, the case is that she has no Milug property.

(c) Question: She should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the Kesuvah (that her husband must pay her if she is widowed or divorced, at least 100 or 200 Zuz (if she was a widow/virgin when he married her) to pay the damage!
(d) Answer #1: Our Mishnah is as R. Meir, who forbids a man to live with his wife even for a moment if she does not own (this part of) a Kesuvah.
(e) Objection: But the reason is so he will not think he can divorce her freely - even if she sells her Kesuvah, he cannot divorce her freely, he will have to pay the buyer of the Kesuvah!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, Tovas Hana'ah is Mili (intangible), therefore there is no lien on it to (force her to sell it to) pay the damage.
(g) Question: Why is there no lien - people will pay money for such Mili!
(h) Answer #3: She need not sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the Kesuvah because of Shmuel's law.

1. (Shmuel): If Reuven sells a document (and rights to collect the loan it was written for) and then pardons the loan, the loan is void; even Reuven's heir can pardon the loan.

(i) Question: Still, she can sell Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah - if she will pardon the loan, the buyer will lose (even without Shmuel's law, the buyer is taking a chance, and only pays a fraction of the amount written in the Kesuvah)!
(j) Answer: Surely, she will pardon the Kesuvah (to please her husband - no one will pay anything for it)!
(k) Question: Would she really do so, causing the buyer to lose?!
(l) Answer: Yes, since she is not directly making him lose.
(m) Suggestion: She should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to the damagee - even if she will pardon the loan, he does not lose (without this sale, he does not collect anything)!

(n) Answer: Surely, she will pardon the Kesuvah - there is no point in exerting Beis Din to arrange a sale which will not help the damagee.
(o) Question (Beraisa): Similarly, if she hit her husband, she does not forfeit her Kesuvah - she should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to her husband - if she will pardon it, the husband does not lose, he is exempted from paying her!
(p) Answer: Our Mishnah is as R. Meir, who forbids a man to live with his wife even for a moment if she does not own (this part of) a Kesuvah;

1. The reason is so he will not think he can divorce her freely - here, he can divorce her freely, for he owns the Kesuvah as payment for the damage!
2. Question: Even if she does not sell the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to him, he can divorce her freely, for he will collect what he pays her as payment for the damage!
3. Answer: The case is, the damage is worth much less than the Kesuvah - he will not divorce her freely just because he will collect a small part as payment for the damage.
4. Question: If her Kesuvah is more than the minimum demanded by the Torah (200 for a virgin), she can sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the excess to him!
5. Answer: The case is, her Kesuvah is the minimum;

i. He will not divorce her more freely, just because he will collect (for example) 4 or 5 Zuz of the 25 Dinarim (100 Zuz) he pays as the Kesuvah (if he married her as a widow - in truth, this minimum for a widow is only mid'Rabanan).

(q) Question (Beraisa): Just as she cannot sell her Kesuvah and continue to live with her husband, she cannot lose (even part of) her Kesuvah (to pay for damage to her husband) and continue to live with her husband.

1. If her Kesuvah is more than the minimum, she can lose the excess!

(r) Answer (Rava): The end of the Beraisa speaks of the stipulation of the Kesuvah regarding sons (that if she dies before her husband, when her husband dies, her sons (from him) will inherit her dowry);

1. The Beraisa teaches: just as one who sells her Kesuvah does not lose the stipulation regarding sons, also one who sells her Kesuvah to her husband does not lose this stipulation.
2. In both cases, the reason is that she was forced to sell her Kesuvah to get money (she does not intend to make her sons lose).

(a) Suggestion: Tana'im argue regarding the enactment of Usha.

1. (Beraisa #1): Leah brought a slave into her marriage as Milug property. If she destroys a limb, the slave goes free, but not if her husband destroys a limb.
2. (Beraisa #2): A Milug slave does not go free whether she or her husband destroys a limb.

i. We are assuming that both Tana'im agree that owning the produce is not like owning the property (and therefore the husband would not be considered the owner even though he owns the produce).
ii. Suggestion: The Tana of Beraisa #1 holds of the enactment of Usha (so it is not considered her slave, since she cannot sell it), the Tana of Beraisa #2 does not hold of the enactment of Usha (so it is considered her slave).

(b) Rejection #1: No - both Tana'im hold of the enactment of Usha;

1. Beraisa #1 gives the law before the enactment of Usha, Beraisa #2 gives the law after the enactment of Usha.

(c) Rejection #2: Both Tana'im hold of the enactment of Usha, and give the law after the enactment.

1. Question: Why does Beraisa #1 say that if she destroys a limb, the slave goes free?
2. Answer: As Rava taught - liens on animals, grain and slaves are uprooted by Hekdesh (of animals), fermentation (of grain, when Pesach comes, for then it becomes forbidden) and freedom. (The husband only had a lien on the slave; destroying a limb sets the slave free and uproots the lien.)
3. Suggestion: The Tana of Beraisa #1 holds as Rava, the Tana of Beraisa #2 argues on Rava!
4. Rejection: Both Tana'im hold as Rava; the Tana of Beraisa #2 holds that Chachamim strengthened a husband's lien on his wife's property (so freedom does not uproot his lien).

(d) Rejection #3: Neither Tana holds of the enactment of Usha; they argue whether owning the produce is as owning the property, just as the following Tana'im argue.