Yevamot 66b — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise page-location")

the law is with her,

and she takes her utensils.

And Rabbi Ami said: “The law is with him”,

and he gives her money, and she does not take the utensils.

And the Gemara explains their reasons:

Rav Yehuda said: “The law is with her,”

because

because of “the enhancement of her father’s house”—

it belongs to her!

[Some hold that it is actually hers, and some say that her right is to collect them.

Rabbi Ami,

who

said, “The law is with him,”

held:

since the Master said,

in our Mishna, concerning the slaves that she brought to him as iron-flock assets:

If they died,

the slaves that she brought to him as iron-flock assets—

they died to him, and if they increased,

the slaves after they increased in value or became more expensive—

they increased to him.

And

since he is liable

the husband

for their responsibility—

they shall eat

teruma from the teruma of their priestly master [see the additional explanation in the notes ].

Rav Safra said: “Does it teach, ‘and they are his

?”

For behold,

“since he is liable for their responsibility” is what

it teaches! And in any event—

they are not his

[see the additional explanation in the notes ].

And we raise an objection:

And

for

everywhere that he is liable

the master

for their responsibility,

of the slaves,

they eat

the slaves

teruma?

Is it because the husband has liability for their responsibility that the slaves will eat teruma, when they are not his? And since we learned, “iron-flock slaves shall eat,” you have learned that they belong to him.

And we learned

in a Mishna in tractate Terumot that a priest’s liability for an animal or slave is not considered “an acquisition of his money” to feed them teruma:

For we learned:

An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest may feed it vetches of teruma.

But

a priest who hired a cow from an Israelite, even though its sustenance is upon him

[upon the priest]—behold, he

may not feed it vetches of teruma!

Since concerning teruma it is necessary that the animal be “an acquisition of his money,” and this animal is not the acquisition of the priestly renter’s money, but belongs to its non-priestly owner [see the additional explanation in the notes ].

And we consider the matter:

Can you really say so?

Do you think that this proof which you brought is a proof?! For

although,

despite the fact that

the renter is liable

the renter

for theft and loss —

for accidents, depreciation, and diminution

[Rashba]

of its value—

is he liable!?

Is the renter liable for the animal’s responsibility if it suffers an accident, becomes emaciated, or its value decreases, just as the husband is liable concerning iron-flock assets?!

And if so, you cannot prove from this Mishna that liability like that of the husband concerning iron-flock assets causes [the animal] to feed on teruma; and we can say that because of the husband’s liability the slaves eat teruma, but in any event the iron-flock assets are not his.

This—

a husband who is liable for the responsibility of his iron-flock assets—

is comparable only to the latter clause

of that Mishna in Terumot:

An Israelite who valued

[with a right-sided shin]

a cow from a priest

[he accepted upon himself responsibility for the cow, even in the event of an accident, emaciation, or diminution of value ]

may not feed it vetches of teruma,

for once they are his, they are considered not the priest’s.

But a priest who valued a cow from an Israelite may feed it vetches of teruma,

for once they are his, they are considered his.

You have therefore learned: whoever became liable for complete responsibility feeds them teruma, and likewise this can be explained in our Mishna; nevertheless, they are not his.

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat

[the latter authorities, they sat]

at the conclusion of Rav Naḥman’s discourse

[after Rav Naḥman’s lecture],

and they sat and said

[they sat and said]:

A beraita was taught in support of Rav Yehuda, and a beraita was taught in support of Rabbi Ami.

A beraita was taught in support of Rabbi Ami,

that iron-flock assets are considered his, and necessarily, if she comes to take her utensils, the law is not with her:

The Torah said: “And when a man strikes the eye of his slave or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall send him free in place of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall send him free in place of his tooth.”

Iron-flock slaves—

go free through tooth and eye in relation to the man.

For if the husband is the one who injured and knocked out the slave’s tooth or eye, he goes free.

But not in relation to the woman,

for if the woman is the one who injured them, they do not go free.

And it is proven that iron-flock slaves belong to the husband, in accordance with Rabbi Ami [see the additional explanation in the notes ].

A beraita was taught in support of Rav Yehuda,

that the law is with her:

For it was taught: a woman

who brought an assessed asset to her husband

[iron-flock assets, assessed in her ketuba]—

If the husband wishes to sell

the assets—

he may not sell,

so that if he divorces her she will be able to take her utensils, in accordance with Rav Yehuda.

And moreover, even if he brought her

the husband

an assessed asset from his own property,

he being the one who brought them and accepted them upon himself like iron-flock assets—even concerning these assets,

if the husband wishes to sell

the assets—

he may not sell!

And because even with regard to these assets the woman's right is to take those vessels that he brought in, although with regard to them she does not have the claim of the right to receive "the enhancement of her father's house".

Both of them sold,

the husband or the wife, the nechasim tzon barzel

for sustenance [

sustenance ] -

This incident occurred before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he said: The husband takes them from the purchasers.

That is to say: It is not necessary to say that when he sold them without her knowledge and died or divorced her, she takes her vessels from the purchasers; rather, even he takes them from the purchasers immediately, for at the time of the sale it is not a definite sale, since perhaps he will die during her lifetime and his sale will be found to be void [the Rashba in his understanding of Rashi]; and when she sold them, certainly the husband takes them, since they are his.

Rava said in the name of Rav Nahman: The halakha is in accordance with Rav Judah.

He said

he wondered

to him, Rava to Rav Nahman: But was it not taught in accordance with Rabbi Ammi,

as the Gemara brought above?!

And Rav Nahman answered him:

Even though it was taught in accordance with Rabbi Ammi, the reasoning of Rav Judah is more plausible, because of "the enhancement of her father's house".

There was a certain woman who brought in for her husband a silk cloak with her ketuba [

a woman brought in a silk garment as nechasim tzon barzel in her ketuba].

He died [

her husband died].

The orphans took it and spread it over the dead man [

the orphans took the cloak and spread it over the dead man]. And the shrouds of the dead are forbidden for benefit.

Rava said: The dead man acquired it,

the dead man "acquired" the cloak, because of the orphans spreading it over him, and it was as though it were his!

That is to say, since the orphans spread the cloak over the dead man, it became forbidden for benefit.

And this is not considered a person prohibiting something belonging to another against him, for he does not have the power to prohibit it.

He said

he wondered

to him, Nanai, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, to Rav Kahana:

But Rava said in the name of Rav Nahman: The halakha is in accordance with Rav Judah,

who said that the cloak belongs to the woman and not to the orphans; so how could the orphans prohibit for benefit a garment that does not belong to them?!

He said to him

Rav Kahana to Nanai:

Does Rav Judah not concede that

even though the law is with her, nevertheless this garment is still

lacking collection

! And as long as she has not collected the cloak from the orphans, the cloak is not hers [or she is not considered to have it in her possession], but she has only "a mere lien" upon the cloak!

And the proof that the cloak is still not hers [or that it is not yet in her possession, for

if it were stolen [

if the cloak were stolen from the orphans] and

would the heirs not be obligated to pay for it [

would the orphans not be obligated to pay her for the cloak]?!

For if you should say that it is already in her possession, even without collection, then why did the husband's liability of responsibility not cease immediately at the time of the death?

And

since if it were stolen -

the heirs are obligated to pay for it,

then it

is in their possession

of the heirs

it lies,

until she collects it from them.

And since the cloak is in the possession of the orphans, the "consecration" by which the orphans consecrated it [that is, the prohibition of benefit that the orphans imposed upon the object] comes and removes the woman's lien from the cloak, and the heirs give the value of the cloak .

And the Gemara explains:

Rava,

who said that since it is lacking collection, the consecration takes effect and the woman's lien is removed -

according to his reasoning

it is!