Ketubot 79: Principal and Produce of Usufruct Property

The Gemara continues its discussion of the case where a woman bequeathed land to her daughter only to keep that land from her own husband.  The rabbis discuss ways that women might retain their property; written letters, stated intentions and clauses might help. However, they are clear that the husband is within his rights to access the produce that is attached to his wife's land.  

A new Mishna explains this further.  Any produce that falls from the plants of a woman's land belongs to her.  That produce should be gathered and sold, with the proceeds going toward buying more land where the husband can benefit from the produce of that land, as well.  Any movable property - money included - given to a woman (inherited) during her marriage belongs to her.  However, she is to use the value of that gift to purchase land from which her husband can use the produce.

The rabbis discuss how couples should decide on which properties to purchase.  Property should be purchased before houses, houses before trees, palm trees before other trees, etc.  The principle is that what is bought should be long-lasting.  If there is a choice, the land should produce as much produce for as little cost as possible.  They should pay attention both to the quality of the principal investment and to the quality/quantity of its produce.

The Gemara then moves into a very uncomfortable area.  The rabbis consider what should be done with the offspring of a woman's usufruct animals.  Do they belong to the husband or to the wife?  Are they considered to be part of the 'principal' or part of the 'produce'?  And then the rabbis consider the same question but this time with regard to offspring of the woman's maidservant.  Is that child the property of the wife, or property of the husband as it is 'produce' of the 'principal'?

A woman is entitled to buy back the offspring of her animals or her slaves after she and her husband have divorced.  This is if she makes a formal claim stating that that usufruct property belonged to her paternal family.  Husbands are permitted to continue consuming the produce of a woman's usufruct property as long as the principal remains.  So he can milk a goat until it has no more milk because its hide is still of value to his wife.

A further Mishna teaches us that elderly slaves are not to be sold by husbands.  That is considered to be shameful behaviour.  But the reason given for this ruling is that these slaves are considered to be assets of her paternal family.  The reason is not that one should not humiliate or put at risk an elderly person who has given his/her life for you in service.

Our final Mishna teaches us of a man who makes improvements to his wife's land and eats any produce of hi before they divorce.  After the divorce, he cannot ask her to repay him for that work. As long as he has eaten at least one fig's worth of food.

To read about people being valued less than animals - our hides are not as useful - is disconcerting.  However, as these words of Talmud continue to feel so alive even today, it is difficult to remember that these writings and values are not based on modern understandings of social class.  In our own histories, people were slaves. Their feelings and experiences did not count.