Bava Batra 51b — the Talmud in English

And the husband eats the produce

as with the other property of the woman, whose produce he eats -

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

he does not eat the produce; for

he sought to give it to her as a gift,

and the husband does not eat the produce of a gift that he gave to his wife,

and why did he write for her “in the manner of a sale”? In order to improve her power,

so that if a claimant should come and say that the field is not his, he would appease him!

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

to the statement of Rav Huna bar Avin, who said: She acquired it, and we do not say that he intended only to reveal money that she had concealed, from the following baraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

One who 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:

It is different there, for a person does not make himself “

a slave to the lender,”

as all this was explained above.

Rav said:

One who sells a field to his wife, she acquires it,

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

and the husband eats the produce

like the other nichsei melog.

But one who gives a field to his wife

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

because one who gives gives generously, and on the condition that he not eat the produce.

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

because he sought to give it to her as a gift, and why did he write for her “in the manner of a sale”? In order to improve her power; as explained above in the name of Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Abbahu, and all the great men of the generation.

Rav Ḥisda performed an act

[Rav Ḥisda put this into practice]

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar

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

Rabban Ukva and Rabban Neḥemya, the sons of his daughters

[his grandsons]

of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ḥisda:

But

are you leaving the great one and acting like the small one

[are you leaving the great one, who is Rav, and acting like the small one, who is Rabbi Elazar]!?

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

Rav Ḥisda said to his grandsons:

And I too acted in accordance with the great ones

[I too act like the great ones]

! For when Ravin came

[when Ravin came from the Land of Israel 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 eat the produce.

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

because he sought only to reveal the money,

and the husband eats the produce.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

Two things

[for these two laws contradict one another], for “she does not acquire it” implies that she has nothing at all in the field, whereas “the husband eats the produce” implies that she has ownership of the body of the land and he eats only the produce!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here -

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

with concealed money,

which was not known to the husband, and in this it may indeed be said that he sought only to reveal the money.

Here -

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

with money that was not concealed,

for 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.

For Rav Yehuda said:

A woman who acquired from her husband with

concealed money: she did not acquire it;

but if she acquired from him with

money that was not concealed: she acquired it.

The Sages taught:

Deposits may not be accepted:

Not from women,

lest they stole them from their husbands, and he will be found assisting transgressors, for if he does not accept them from them, presumably they will return them to the ones from whom they stole them.

Nor from slaves,

lest they stole them from their masters.

Nor from minors,

lest they stole them from the householder’s house where they reside! Nevertheless, if he transgressed and

accepted from the woman, he must return it to the woman,

and not to the husband, for we do not have grounds to presume her 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 must return it to her husband,

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

And if he transgressed and

accepted from the slave, he must return it to the slave; and if he died,

the slave,

he must return it to his master,

for presumably everything that a slave acquires, his master acquires.