אתאי לקמיה דרב נחמן קרעיה ר"נ לשטרא אזל רב ענן לקמיה דמר עוקבא א"ל חזי מר נחמן חקלאה היכי מקרע שטרי דאינשי א"ל אימא לי איזי גופא דעובדא היכי הוה
The mother came before Rav Naḥman for judgment. Rav Naḥman tore the document, accepting her claim that she did not intend to transfer ownership of her property. Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva, the Exilarch, and said to him: Let the Master observe Naḥman the farmer, how he tears people’s documents. Rav Anan was upset that Rav Naḥman destroyed a legitimate document. Mar Ukva said to him: Tell me, please, what was the actual incident?
א"ל הכי והכי הוה א"ל שטר מברחת קא אמרת הכי א"ר חנילאי בר אידי אמר שמואל מורה הוראה אני אם יבא שטר מברחת לידי אקרענו
Rav Anan said to Mar Ukva: This and that transpired; i.e., he apprised him of all the details. Mar Ukva said to him: Are you saying it was a document of evasion? This is what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi said that Shmuel said: I am an authority who issues rulings and have issued the following directive: If a document of evasion comes to my hand, I will tear it, as it is clear that it was not intended for the actual transfer of property but merely to distance it from someone else.
א"ל רבא לרב נחמן טעמא מאי דלא שביק איניש נפשיה ויהיב לאחריני ה"מ לאחריני אבל לברתה יהיבא אפ"ה במקום ברתה נפשה עדיפא לה
After seeing Rav Naḥman tear the document, Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is the reason for your actions? Is it that you assume that it was not a wholehearted gift because a person does not abandon his own interests and give a gift to others? That applies only when it is given to others who are strangers, but to her daughter a mother would give property wholeheartedly. Rav Naḥman replied: Even so, where her interests clash with those of her daughter, her own interests are preferable to her, and therefore she did not intend to waive her rights.
מיתיבי הרוצה שתבריח נכסיה מבעלה כיצד היא עושה כותבת שטר פסים לאחרים דברי רשב"ג
The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to one who seeks to distance her property from her husband, how does she proceed? She writes in a document of agreement that her property should be given to others, who agree not to acquire the property. This document prevents her husband from gaining access to her property. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
וחכ"א רצה מצחק בה עד שתכתוב לו מהיום ולכשארצה
And the Rabbis say: This solution is flawed, because if the recipient wishes, he can deceive her and retain the property by virtue of the valid document in his possession. That possibility cannot be avoided until she writes to him in the document that the gift is granted from today and the gift is in effect only while I still wish to give it. In that case, if the one to whom she gave the gift comes to take possession of it, she can say that she no longer wants to give the gift and can thereby invalidate the document.
טעמא דכתבה ליה הכי הא לא כתבה ליה הכי קננהי לוקח
The Gemara infers: The reason she can ultimately retain her property is due to the fact that she wrote this to him; but if she did not write this to him, the purchaser has acquired it. This indicates that a document of evasion is legally valid.
א"ר זירא לא קשיא הא בכולה הא במקצתה
Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult, as this, the ruling that the document of evasion is void, is in a case where the document was written about all of the property, as clearly a person does not give away all his property as a gift and leave himself with nothing. Conversely, that ruling that the document is not canceled is in a case where the document was written about only part of the property, and therefore a clause must be added ensuring that the recipient cannot retain possession of the gift.
ואי לא קננהי לוקח ניקנינהו בעל אמר אביי עשאום כנכסים שאין ידועין לבעל ואליבא דר"ש:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in the case where the document is invalid because all of the property was included, if the purchaser does not acquire the property, the husband should acquire it. Abaye said: The Sages rendered this property given as a gift like property that is unknown to the husband, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna that if she sold such property after her marriage, the sale is valid. Therefore, the husband does not have access to the property.
מתני׳ נפלו לה כספים ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות פירות התלושין מן הקרקע ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות
MISHNA: If money was bequeathed to a woman as an inheritance while she was married, land is acquired with it, and the husband consumes the produce of the land while the principal remains hers. If she inherited produce that is detached from the ground, it is considered like money; therefore, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce of the land.
[פירות] המחוברים בקרקע א"ר מאיר שמין אותה כמה היא יפה בפירות וכמה היא יפה בלא פירות ומותר ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות וחכ"א המחוברים לקרקע שלו והתלושין מן הקרקע שלה וילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות
With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates how much the land is worth with the produce, and how much it is worth without the produce, and the difference between these sums is the surplus value that belongs to the woman. Land is then acquired with the surplus and he consumes the produce. And the Rabbis say: That which is attached to the ground is his, as he is entitled to the produce from her property and he may therefore eat from it. And that which is detached from the ground is hers, like all other money she brings to the marriage, and land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.
ר"ש אומר מקום שיפה כחו בכניסתה הורע כחו ביציאתה מקום שהורע כחו בכניסתה יפה כחו ביציאתה כיצד פירות המחוברים לקרקע בכניסתה שלו וביציאתה שלה והתלושין מן הקרקע בכניסתה שלה וביציאתה שלו:
Rabbi Shimon says: In a case where his right is superior upon her entrance to the marriage, his right is inferior upon her exit if he divorces her. Conversely, in a case where his right is inferior upon her entrance, his right is superior upon her exit. How so? With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, if she married while owning such produce, upon her entrance it is his, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and upon her exit, when he divorces her, it is hers, as it is considered part of her property. But in the case of produce that is detached from the ground, upon her entrance it is hers, and if such produce is detached before their divorce, upon her exit it is his, as he was already entitled to all the produce of her property.
גמ׳ פשיטא ארעא ובתי ארעא בתי ודיקלי בתי דיקלי ואילני דיקלי אילני וגופני אילני
GEMARA: The Gemara observes that in the cases in the mishna where land is bought with the money, it is obvious that if one spouse proposes acquiring land and the other proposes buying houses, they must buy land, because it is a more secure purchase. If the decision is between houses and palm trees, they should acquire houses. If the decision is between palm trees or other types of trees, they should buy palm trees. If the decision is between regular trees or grapevines, they should purchase trees. The principle is that they acquire that which lasts longer and will not deteriorate over time.
אבא זרדתא ופירא דכוורי אמרי לה פירא ואמרי לה קרנא כללא דמילתא גזעו מחליף פירא אין גזעו מחליף קרנא
If the wife inherited a forest [abba] of hawthorn [zeradeta] trees, whose produce is inferior, or a fishpond, their status is a matter of dispute: Some say they are considered like produce, and some say they are like the principal, as they do not replenish themselves but eventually wear out. The principle of the matter is as follows: Any tree or plant whose trunk renews itself and grows again after it is cut is considered produce, whereas any tree or plant whose trunk does not renew itself is considered part of the principal.
א"ר זירא א"ר אושעיא אמר ר' ינאי ואמרי לה אמר ר' אבא א"ר אושעיא א"ר ינאי הגונב
Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Yannai said, and some say Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Yannai said: One who steals