Bava Batra 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

And the husband enjoys the produce

like the other properties of the woman whose produce he enjoys. -

However, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Abbahu, and all the great sages of the generation said that

he does not enjoy the produce, because

he intended to give it to her as a gift

and a husband does not enjoy the produce of a gift that he gave his wife.

And why did he write it for her as a sale? In order to enhance her rights,

so that if a claimant should come and say that the field does not belong to her, he would appease her!

Meytivi

to Rav Huna bar Avin, who said: She acquired it, and we do not say that he sought only to reveal the money, from what was taught in a beraita:

If one borrowed from a slave and then emancipated him, or from a woman and then divorced her, they have no claim against him -

and

what is the reason!?

Is it

not because they say: He sought only to reveal the money!?

And we answer:

There it is different, because a person does not make himself “

a slave to a creditor,”

as all this was explained above.

Rav said:

If a man sells a field to his wife, she acquires it,

and we do not say, “He sought only to reveal the money,”

and the husband enjoys the produce

as with other nikhsei melog.

But if a man gives a field to his wife

as a gift, she acquires it, and the husband does not enjoy the produce,

because one who gives a gift gives generously, intending that he not enjoy its produce.

And Rabbi Elazar said: In both this case and that case, she acquires it, and the husband does not enjoy the produce,

because he intended to give it to her as a gift, and why did he write it for her as a sale? In order to enhance her rights; as explained above in the name of Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Abbahu, and all the great sages of the generation.

Rav Ḥisda carried out a practical ruling

in which Rav Ḥisda acted in practice

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar

in the case of a man who sold a field to his wife, ruling that the husband does not enjoy the produce.

Rav Ukva and Rav Neḥemya, the sons of the daughters

of his daughters

of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ḥisda:

Is it possible that

my master abandons the great one and acts in accordance with the lesser one

you are abandoning the great one, Rav, and acting like the lesser one, Rabbi Elazar!?

For Rav was greater than Rabbi Elazar, as he preceded Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was Rabbi Elazar’s teacher.

Rav Ḥisda said to his grandsons:

I too acted in accordance with the great ones

I too act like the great ones

For when Ravin came

when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan

his colleague of Rav:

In both this case and that case, she acquires it, and the husband does not enjoy the produce.

Rava said: The halakha is: If a man sells a field to his wife, she does not acquire it

because he sought only to reveal the money,

and the husband enjoys the produce.

And we raise an objection to this:

Are these not two contradictory rulings

these two laws contradict one another: “She did not acquire it” implies that she has no rights whatsoever in the field, whereas “the husband enjoys the produce” implies that she has acquired the body of the land and he enjoys only its produce!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here -

that is, what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a man sells a field to his wife, she does not acquire it - applies in a case where she acquired it with

hidden money

that was unknown to her husband, and in this case it can indeed be said that he sought only to reveal the money.

Here -

what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She acquires it, but the husband enjoys the produce - applies in a case where she acquired it with

money that was not hidden,

as this money was known and publicized to the husband, and it is not applicable to say in this case: He sought only to reveal the money.

As Rav Yehuda said:

A woman who acquired property from her husband with

hidden money does not acquire it;

but if she acquired it from him with

money that was not hidden, she acquires it.

The Sages taught:

One may not accept deposits:

Neither from women,

as perhaps they stole them from their husbands, and the one who accepts them is found to assist transgressors; for if he does not accept them, presumably they will return them to the ones from whom they stole them.

Nor from slaves,

as perhaps they stole them from their masters.

Nor from minors,

as perhaps they stole them from the householder in whose home they reside! Nevertheless, if he transgressed and

accepted a deposit from a woman, he should return it to the woman

and not to her husband, for we do not presume her to be a thief; rather, we attribute it to her having received money on the condition that her husband have no authority over it, or something similar.

And if she died,

the woman,

he should return it to her husband,

for in either event it belongs to the husband, since he inherits from her.

And if he transgressed and

accepted a deposit from a slave, he should return it to the slave; and if he died,

the slave,

he should return it to his master,

as presumably whatever a slave acquires is acquired by his master.