מִשּׁוּם רֶוַוח בֵּיתָא, אֲבָל לְזַבּוּנֵי – לָא! יְהוּדָה מָר בַּר מָרֵימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה – עָשׂוּי. רַב פַּפָּא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

they did so for the gain of the house, as more food is available when he brings produce home, but in order for him to sell it they did not institute their decree? Two opinions were stated with regard to this issue: Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar said in the name of Rava: What he did is done, i.e., takes effect. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: He did not do anything.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: הָא דִּיהוּדָה מָר בַּר מָרֵימָר – לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִתְּמַר; דְּהַהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּעַיְּילָהּ לֵיהּ לְגַבְרָא תַּרְתֵּי אַמְהָתָא, אֲזַל גַּבְרָא נָסֵיב אִיתְּתָא אַחֲרִיתֵי, עָיֵיל לָהּ חֲדָא מִנַּיְיהוּ.

Rav Pappa said: This statement of Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar was not stated explicitly in Rava’s name. Rather, it was stated from an inference based on an incident that occurred in which a certain woman brought in for her husband two maidservants as part of her dowry. The man went and married another woman in addition to the first. He subsequently brought in to the second wife one of the maidservants to attend to her needs.

אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, צָוְוחָה, לָא אַשְׁגַּח בָּהּ. מַאן דַּחֲזָא סָבַר מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. וְלָא הִיא; מִשּׁוּם רֶוַוח בֵּיתָא, וְהָא קָא רָוַוח.

The first wife came before Rava and cried about the injustice done to her, but Rava took no notice of her, claiming she had no right to complain. He who observed this incident thought that Rava ruled this way because he holds that what he did is done, i.e., takes effect, and a husband may sell his wife’s usufruct property and use its produce as he sees fit. But that is not so, as the Sages instituted the ordinance that a husband owns the rights to the produce of his wife’s property for the gain of the house, and here the house does gain from his action, as the maidservant also performs work for the house.

וְהִלְכְתָא: בַּעַל שֶׁמָּכַר קַרְקַע לְפֵירוֹת – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. מַאי טַעֲמָא? אַבַּיֵי אֲמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תַּכְסִיף, רָבָא אֲמַר: מִשּׁוּם רֶוַוח בֵּיתָא.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a husband who sold land for produce did not do anything. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for this ruling? Abaye said: We are concerned that perhaps the land itself will deteriorate over time, as the purchaser has acquired only its produce and has no incentive to take proper care of the land. Rava said: This is because there is no gain of the house here.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ אַרְעָא דְּמִקָּרַב לְמָתָא. אִי נַמִי בַּעַל אָרִיס הוּא. אִי נַמִי זוּזֵי וְקָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ עִיסְקָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara explains: The practical difference between them is, e.g., land that is close to the town, as one can check at any time whether the land is being cared for properly. Alternatively, the difference involves a husband who is a sharecropper and works the land himself but sold the rights of the produce to someone else. As a sharecropper, the husband retains part of the produce and will also ensure that the land does not deteriorate. Alternatively, the difference concerns a husband who receives money for the produce and does business with it, which provides gain for the house.

מתני׳ שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים – מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמּוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָּים.

When a married man dies childless, his brother, the yavam , is obligated to perform levirate marriage or release the widow, the yevama , through a ceremony known as ḥalitza . With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam who had property bequeathed to her, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give this property away, and the transaction is valid.

מֵתָה, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ וּבַנְּכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלְקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נְכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן; וּכְתוּבָּה בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל. נְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִים וְהַיּוֹצְאִים עִמָּה – בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב.

If this woman died, what should they do with her marriage contract and with the property that comes and goes with her, i.e., her usufruct property? Beit Shammai say: Since she was not yet remarried, the husband’s heirs, such as his brothers or father, divide the property with her father’s heirs. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status, and therefore the marriage contract is in the possession of the husband’s heirs, as they are responsible for its payment. As for the property that comes and goes with her, it is in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father, as it belongs to the woman.

הִנִּיחַ אָחִיו מָעוֹת – יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. פֵּירוֹת הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע – יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת.

If his deceased brother left money as part of his estate, land to be used as a lien on her marriage contract is acquired with it, and the yavam consumes the produce. Similarly, if the deceased brother left produce that is detached from the ground, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

הַמְחוּבָּרִין בַּקַּרְקַע, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שָׁמִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּפֵירוֹת, וְכַמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּלֹא פֵּירוֹת, וְהַמּוֹתָר – יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת.

If he left behind produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates the properties to determine how much they are worth with the produce, and how much they are worth without the produce. And as for the surplus, which is the value of the produce, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פֵּירוֹת הַמְחוּבָּרִין בַּקַּרְקַע – שֶׁלּוֹ, הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע – כֹּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה בָּהֶן. קָדַם הוּא – זָכָה, קָדְמָה הִיא, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת.

And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. Therefore, it is not used in the purchase of land, but the yavam may eat it. As for the produce that is detached from the ground, which is not mortgaged to her marriage contract, whoever takes possession first has acquired it. If the yavam takes possession of the property first, he has acquired it and may use it as he wishes, but if she is first, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.

כְּנָסָהּ – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר, בִּלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

After the yavam has married her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense, except that the responsibility for payment of her marriage contract is carried out through mortgaging the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam .

לֹא יֹאמַר לָהּ ״הֲרֵי כְּתוּבָּתֵיךְ מוּנַּחַת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן״ אֶלָּא כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחֲרָאִין לִכְתוּבָּתָהּ. וְכֵן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״הֲרֵי כְּתוּבָּתֵיךְ מוּנַּחַת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן״ אֶלָּא כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחֲרָאִין לִכְתוּבָּתָהּ.

Therefore, the yavam may not say to her: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. He may not set aside a designated sum of money for this payment. Rather, all of the first husband’s property is mortgaged for her marriage contract as long as he has not divorced her. And similarly, in general a man may not say to his wife: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. Rather, all his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract.

גֵּירְשָׁהּ – אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא כְּתוּבָּה, הֶחֱזִירָהּ – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַנָּשִׁים, וְאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא כְּתוּבָּה בִּלְבַד.

If the yavam divorced her after performing levirate marriage, she has only her marriage contract, as she does not retain any rights to the rest of her first husband’s property. If he subsequently remarried her, she is like all women, and she has nothing but her marriage contract. In this case, the property of her first husband is no longer pledged for the payment of her marriage contract.

גמ׳ אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה, מִי קוֹבְרָהּ? יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל קָבְרֵי לָהּ – דְּקָא יָרְתֵי כְּתוּבָּה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב קָבְרֵי לָהּ – דְּקָא יָרְתֵי נְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּה? אֲמַר רַב עַמְרָם; תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּתַנְיָא, שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a widow awaiting her yavam who dies, who buries her? Who is obligated to bear the expenses of her burial? Must the husband’s heirs bury her, as they inherit the marriage contract, or perhaps her father’s heirs are obligated to bury her, as they inherit the property that comes and goes with her? Rav Amram said: Come and hear a solution. As it is taught in a baraita : In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who dies,