Ketubot 80a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Abba said: They said in the academy of Rav

[They said in the house of Rav] —

even

if he ate only

shigra de-tamrei

[dates gathered together], which is not as significant as dried figs, he can no longer claim his expenses. [See Rashi for a different explanation].

Rav Bibi raised a question:

if he ate

khubtsa

[refuse]

of dates, what?

Is this eating sufficient for him to forfeit his expenses?

The matter remains teyku.

And if

he did not eat in an honorable manner, what?

What is the measure of eating because of which he forfeits his expenses?

Ulla said: Two amoraim in the West disagreed about this

[Two amoraim from the Land of Israel disagreed about this law],

one said —

with an issar

[if he ate the value of an issar], he forfeited his expenses.

And one said —

with a dinar.

The judges of Pumbedita said

[Rav Pappa bar Shmuel]:

Rav Yehuda performed an act of law concerning bundles of branches.

That is: There was an incident involving a husband who fed his animal bundles of branches belonging to his wife, and he divorced his wife, and Rav Yehuda said: “What he ate, he ate” .

And the Gemara explains —

Rav Yehuda follows his reasoning,

for he considers even this eating to be eating,

for

this

is what

Rav Yehuda

said: “If he ate orla, seventh-year produce, or diverse kinds, this is a ḥazaka.”

That is: A person who purchases a field from another, and dwells in it for three years, and during them he used only the branches of the field for feeding an animal, and not its produce , this eating is considered a “three-year ḥazaka,” and he need not produce his deed of sale afterward.

In any event, it is proven that eating branches is considered eating.

Rav Yaakov said that Rav Ḥisda said: One who expends expenses on the property of his minor wife

[whom her mother and brother married to him, and whose betrothal is valid only by rabbinic law, and she can perform mi'un against him] —

is considered like one who expends on the property of another.

And if she performed mi'un against him, the improvement that he improved is assessed for him, and he takes according to the law of the tenant farmers of the country.

And we challenge this:

What is the reason?

Why is he not like the other husbands, who, if they ate, receive nothing, and if they did not eat, receive “the expense up to the amount of the improvement”?

And we answer:

The Sages enacted a remedy for them, so that we would not cause them to be lost.

The Sages enacted that he should receive like a tenant farmer , so that he would invest in the property of his minor wife and not fear lest she perform mi'un against him.

There was a certain woman whose four hundred dinars fell to her in Bei Ḥozai.

[An incident involving a woman who had four hundred dinars in Bei Ḥozai, which was far from her place of residence.]

The husband went, expended six hundred, and brought four hundred.

[Her husband went to that place, expended six hundred dinars on travel expenses, and profited only four hundred.]

As he was coming, he needed one dinar, and took from them

[On his way back, the husband needed one dinar, and took it from the woman’s money.]

He came before Rav Ami

[when the husband came before Rav Ami to claim his expenses from his wife] —

he said to him,

since you benefited from the money through that one dinar, your law is —

“What he expended, he expended, and what he ate, he ate.”

As stated in our Mishna.

The Sages said to Rav Ami —

These words

that he forfeits his expenses apply

where he eats produce,

[if he ate produce from the principal, and began to exercise his right as a husband to benefit from the improvement]. But

this —

he eats the principal!

[He is benefiting from the principal itself, and since he has no rights to the principal itself, such eating is not considered the beginning of the exercise of his rights as a husband; rather, it is considered a loan, which he took from her principal in order to cover his expenses],

and

such benefit

is an expense,

and

therefore it is considered

as

“he expended and did not eat,”

and his law is —

he must swear how much he expended and take .

We learned in the Mishna: He expended and did not eat —

he must swear how much he expended and take.

Rav Asi said: And this is where there is improvement corresponding to the expense.

And the Gemara explains:

For what halakhic purpose?

Does he intend to say that when the improvement exceeds the expense, he takes the expense without an oath, and he is believed through a migo that he could have lied and claimed that his expenses were the amount of the improvement and claimed all the improvement,

or, conversely, that if the expenditure is greater than the improvement, he takes only the amount of the improvement, even with an oath?

Abaye said: That if the improvement exceeded the expense, he takes the expense without an oath.

And he is believed through a migo that he could have claimed all the improvement.

Rava said to him: If so, he will come to manipulate the matter,

and claim slightly less, so that he will take without an oath!

Rather, Rava said:

His intention is to say

that if the expense exceeded the improvement, he has only the expense up to the amount of the improvement. And

even that he will take only

with an oath.

He must swear that this was the amount of his expenses.

They raised a question

[The members of the academy were uncertain]:

A husband who appointed tenant farmers in his place

to tend the land and take a portion of the produce, and after he ate a little he divorced his wife.

What?

Is the woman obligated to give them their portion according to their labor ? And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Does

he descend with the intention of the husband; when the husband withdraws, they withdraw

[Does he descend with regard to the rights that the husband has in the land, and consequently when the husband’s right expires, their right also expires, and we say: “What he expended, he expended, and what he ate, he ate,”]

or perhaps, he descends with the intention of the land,

[the tenant farmers descended according to the needs of the land],

and the land, when it stands, stands for tenant farmers

[the land is intended for tenancy], and if the husband had not appointed them, the woman would have appointed them, and therefore they take according to their improvement?

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan raised an objection to this —

What is different from

that which we learned in Bava Metzia —

“One who enters his fellow’s field and plants it without permission, they assess for him, and his hand is on the lower side ”

? And why here is there a side that they leave with nothing, and in what are they worse than anyone else who enters his fellow’s field? And we answer:

There, there is no person who would trouble himself; here, there is a husband who troubles himself.

In the case of anyone who enters his fellow’s field, had he not entered, there would have been no one to tend the land without payment, and therefore the owner of the land must pay him his expenses. But here, had the tenant farmers not entered, the husband would have tended the land, and she would not have needed to pay him anything; therefore, it is possible to say that she need not pay anything to the tenant farmers either.

In any event,

what became of it

[what is the law concerning a husband who appointed tenant farmers]?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said —

We see: If the husband is a tenant farmer,

who knows how to work the land, and had they not entered the land he himself would have worked it, then when

the husband withdraws, they withdraw.

And the woman need not pay them anything, just as she does not pay the husband .

And

if the husband is not a tenant farmer,

she must pay them like anyone who enters his fellow’s field, since

the land is intended for tenant farmers.

They raised a question: A husband who sold

the

land

that he received as “property designated for usufruct”

to

a purchaser, on condition that he work the land and eat its

produce, what?

Did his sale take effect?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say: Whatever he acquired, he transferred?

That is: Whatever he possesses in the land [the produce], he can transfer to the purchaser,