Resources for Kesubos 80

1.     The גמרא discusses whether a man can sell his wife’s land for the פירות that he owns in it. The גמרא’s מסקנא is that it cannot be sold and the reason according to רבא is because חז"ל only gave him פירות because of רווח ביתא and not to enrich himself personally. Therefore, if he uses the money as an investment to increase the money they have in the house then the sale would be valid. What does this tell us about the nature of the husband’s ownership of the פירות? Does he fully own it with a kind of condition that it be spent on the family or does he only own it insofar as he can use it for the family but he doesn’t have a real קנין הגוף in the פירות? The שיטה מקובצת brings the ריב"ש on דף ע"ט ע"ב who says explicitly that the husband does not own the פירות completely but rather only owns them insofar as he can use it for the house. It sounds like a type of  קנין לחצאין. In אגרות משה יו"ד חלק ג in הלכות ריבית הערה י"ד Rav Moshe z”l says that this is a מחלוקת in two תירוצים in תוספות in בבא מציעא דף צ"ו ד"ה שאל. The גמרא there is talking about the הלכה of בעליו עמו. It asks what the הלכה is if a woman lent out her נכסי מלוג to someone and the husband is simultaneously working for the borrower. תוספות asks that it is the husband who owns all the פּירות so what does it mean that the wife lent her stuff out? She doesn’t own the use of them at all! תוספות has two answers: one is that the husband can’t lend them her נכסי מלוג out either without her permission based on our גמרא that he only has it for רווח ביתא. The second answer is that the גמרא just means a person borrowed from the man his wife’s stuff. What is the difference between the two answers? Rav Moshe said it’s exactly this point! The first answer assumes the husband is not the full owner and he needs her permission since he only owns פּירות for the benefit of the house, whereas the second answer holds that he is the full owner and she isn’t an owner at all.

2.     The גמרא brings a case where a man spent $600 to bring back $400 of his wife’s assets. The גמרא’s מסקנא is that he swears how much he spent and takes that amount. The רשב"א points out that he can’t be entitled to take more than the שבח as the גמרא says later, so it must mean that the husband can only take up to $400. There is a fascinating הפלאה here that disagrees. He says that the husband can take the full $600 for the following reason: חז"ל said that the husband is considered a יורד שלא רשות. In other words, if someone goes into your field and spends money to improve it without your permission, he is only entitled to charge you for his expenses or what your field gained in value, whichever is less. However, if he has your permission to improve your field then he is entitled to receive back his full expenses even if they are more than the increase in value of your field. Typically, a husband is considered to be a יורד שלא רשות. However, in this case where he went to collect something of hers from someone else, he would have needed to get a שטר הרשאה to allow him to collect. That means she gave him explicit רשות. In that case he is entitled to the full $600 which is the simple reading of the גמרא. 

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander

Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos