- The proceeds of a sold kesubah belong to the wife
The Gemara discusses a married woman who sells her kesubah, which the buyer would collect if she becomes divorced or widowed, but not if she dies first. Abaye says: טובת הנאה לאשה הויא – the discounted amount paid by the buyer belongs to the wife. He quotes a Mishnah where witnesses falsely testify that a man divorced his wife and paid her kesubah, and were found זוממין. They do not pay her the full kesubah, since she may never collect it. Rather, they pay "טובת הנאת כתובתה" – the discounted amount of her kesubah which someone would agree to pay for that risk. If the husband would receive the proceeds of such a sale, and not the wife, the עדים זוממין would not have caused her any loss!? Rav Shalman answered: משום דאיכא רווח ביתא – even if she would not personally keep the proceeds, there is profit to the home from its increased assets through the sale. Rava ruled like Abaye and added that the husband does not even consume פירות from that income, because פירא דפירא לא תקינו ליה רבנן – the Rabbis did not institute for him to take produce of the produce.
- Why a woman does not sell her kesubah to pay damages
On Daf 87a, the Mishnah taught that married women do not pay for damages they inflict, since they do not have money. The Gemara asks that she should sell her נכסי מלוג to pay the victim, and is forced to say the case is where she has none. The Gemara asks that she should sell her kesubah for its risk value, and attempts to answer that it reflects Rebbe Meir’s opinion, that אסור לו לאדם שישהא את אשתו אפילו שעה אחת בלא כתובה – it is forbidden for a man to keep his wife even for one hour without a kesubah. This is rejected, because Rebbe Meir’s reason is to discourage him from divorcing her. Here, he will hesitate to divorce her even though she will not collect her kesubah, because the buyer will. Therefore, the Gemara explains that even if she would sell the kesubah, she could later forgive the kesubah (which Shmuel taught is effective), which she would certainly do for her husband, and we do not want to actively cause the buyer a loss. Although she could “sell” it to the victim, who has nothing to lose, we do not trouble Beis Din for nothing (since she will definitely forgive the kesubah).
- שן ועין of a slave of נכסי מלוג
Two Baraisos discuss slaves of melog property (owned by the wife, and the husband enjoys their produce). One states: יוצאין בשן ועין לאשה – they go out free with the loss of a tooth or an eye inflicted by the wife, who is considered the owner, אבל לא לאיש – but not if it was inflicted by the husband, who is not considered an owner. The other Baraisa teaches that neither is considered an exclusive owner. Four explanations are offered: (1) Although the wife should be considered the owner, the second Baraisa holds of תקנת אושא (quoted the previous Daf), whereby the husband’s right was strengthened (to undermine her selling the property), so she is also not considered an owner. (2) Both Baraisos hold of תקנת אושא, but the first discusses the time period before the takanah. (3) The first Baraisa accords with Rava’s principle, that שחרור releases a שיעבוד. Therefore, the wife’s act which causes the slave’s freedom releases the husband’s lien on him. The second Baraisa agrees with Rava’s principle, but holds that the husband’s lien was strengthened though תקנת אושא so that שחרור cannot remove it.
The fourth explanation is presented on the following Daf.
