Support (Rav Idi bar Avin - Beraisa): If two witnesses testified that Reuven divorced his wife and paid her Kesuvah, and she is still living with him as his wife, and they were found to be Zomemim, they do not pay to her the full value of her Kesuvah, only the Tovas Hana'ah.

Question: What is the Tovas Hana'ah?

Answer: We evaluate how much someone (Shimon) would pay for the following proposition: if she will be divorced or widowed, Shimon will receive her Kesuvah. If she dies before her husband, her husband inherits her (Shimon receives nothing).

Summation of support: If not for the enactment of Usha, why does her husband inherit her? She should be able to sell (property that she brought into the marriage that is written in) her Kesuvah absolutely (i.e. the buyer gets it after the marriage ends, no matter who dies first)!

Rejection (Abaye): This does not prove that there was such an enactment. Granted, without an enactment, she could sell Melug property (her husband has no responsibility for it. He just has rights to eat the Peros during the marriage);

However, even without an enactment, she could not sell Tzon Barzel property (if she is widowed or divorced, she gets back its initial value when she brought it into the marriage. It is in his Reshus)!

(Abaye): When a woman sells the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah, the money is entirely hers.

If it belonged to her husband, why should the Zomemim witnesses pay her? Even had she sold it, her husband would get the money!

Rejection (Rav Salman): Really, her husband gets the money. Zomemim witnesses pay her because she prefers that her husband have more money to spend.

(Rava): The Halachah is, when a woman sells the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah, the money is entirely hers. Her husband does not get the Peros (profits made with the money).

Question: Why doesn't he get the Peros?

Answer: Chachamim enacted that a husband gets the Peros, but not the Peros of the Peros. (The Tovas Hana'ah is like Peros of her Kesuvah.)

(Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We may derive the enactment of Usha from our Mishnah.

(Mishnah): One loses from encounters with a slave or (married) woman. One who damages either of them is liable. If either of them damaged someone, he or she is exempt.

If not for the enactment of Usha, she should sell her Melug property to pay the damage!

Rejection: Even if the enactment was made, granted, she cannot absolutely sell her Melug property to pay the damage, but she can sell the Tovas Hana'ah (if she is widowed or divorced, the buyer will get the property)!

We must say that the Mishnah discusses one who has no Melug property. Therefore, we cannot deduce whether or not there was an enactment.

Question: She should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the Kesuvah (that her husband must pay to her if she is widowed or divorced, at least 200 Zuz (if she was a virgin when he married her, or 100 if she was a widow)) to pay the damage!

Answer #1: Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, who forbids a man to live with his wife even for a moment if she does have a Kesuvah of at least 100 or 200.

Objection: R. Meir forbids this lest he consider divorce to be a light matter. Even if she sells her Kesuvah, is not a light matter, for he would need to pay the buyer of the Kesuvah!

Answer #2: Rather, Tovas Hana'ah is Mili (intangible), therefore there is no lien on it to (force her to sell it to) pay the damage.

Objection: Why is there no lien? People would pay money for such Mili!

Answer #3: She need not sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the Kesuvah due to Shmuel's law.

(Shmuel): If Reuven sells a document (and rights to collect the loan it was written for) and then pardons the loan, the loan is void. Even Reuven's heir can pardon the loan. (If she sells her Kesuvah, she can pardon it.)

Question: Even so, she can sell Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah! If she will pardon the loan, the buyer will lose. (Even without Shmuel's law, the buyer might never receive the Kesuvah, and he pays only a fraction of the amount written in the Kesuvah!)

Answer: She will surely pardon the Kesuvah (to please her husband. No one would pay anything for it!)

Question: Would she really do so, causing the buyer to lose?!

Answer: Yes, for she does not directly make him lose.

Suggestion: She should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to the victim! Even if she will pardon the Kesuvah, he does not lose (for without this sale, he does not collect anything)!

Answer: She will surely pardon the Kesuvah. We do not exert Beis Din to arrange a sale that will not help the victim.

Question (Beraisa): Similarly, if she hit her husband, she does not forfeit her Kesuvah.

She should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to her husband. If she will pardon it, her husband does not lose. He is exempted from paying her!

Answer: Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, who forbids a man to live with his wife even for a moment if she does have a Kesuvah (of at least 100 or 200);

The reason is lest he consider divorce to be a light matter. Here, divorce would be a light matter, for he can divorce her without paying (since he owns collection rights of the Kesuvah)!

Question: Even if she does not sell the Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to him, he considers divorce to be a light matter, for he will take back what he pays her to be payment for the damage!

Answer: The case is, the damage is worth much less than the Kesuvah. He will not divorce her needlessly just because he will get back a small part of the Kesuvah (for the damage).

Question: If her Kesuvah is more than the minimum that the Torah requires (200 for a virgin or 100 for a widow), she can sell to him the Tovas Hana'ah of the excess!

Answer: The case is, her Kesuvah is the minimum;

He will not divorce her needlessly just because he will get back (e.g.) four or five Zuz of the 100 Zuz he pays for the Kesuvah (or 200 Zuz if she was a virgin when she married him)!

Question (Beraisa): Just like she cannot sell her Kesuvah and continue to live with her husband, she cannot lose (even part of) her Kesuvah (to pay for damage to her husband) and continue to live with her husband.

The above answer holds that if her Kesuvah is more than the minimum, she loses from the excess!

Answer (Rava): The Seifa (she cannot lose) discusses the Tenai Kesuvah (stipulation) about sons (that if she dies before her husband, when her husband dies, her sons (from him) will inherit her dowry);

The Beraisa teaches that just like one who sells her Kesuvah does not lose the Tenai about sons, also one who sells her Kesuvah to her husband does not lose this Tenai.

In both cases, the reason is that she was forced to sell her Kesuvah to get money (she does not intend to make her sons lose).

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about the enactment of Usha.

(Beraisa #1): If Leah brought a slave into her marriage to be Melug property, if she destroys a limb of his, the slave goes free, but not if her husband destroys a limb.

(Beraisa #2): A Melug slave does not go free whether she or her husband destroys a limb.

We are assuming that both Tana'im agree that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf (therefore, the husband is not considered the owner even though he owns the Peros).

Suggestion: (The) Tana (of Beraisa) #2 holds that there was an enactment (he is not considered to be her slave, since she cannot sell him), and Tana #1 disagrees (therefore, he is considered to be her slave).

Rejection #1: No. Both Tana'im hold that there was an enactment;

Beraisa #1 discusses before the enactment, and Beraisa #2 discusses after the enactment.

Rejection #2: Both Tana'im hold that there was an enactment, and discuss after the enactment.

Question: Why does Beraisa #1 say that if she destroys a limb, the slave goes free?

Answer: This is like Rava taught, that liens on animals, grain and slaves are uprooted through (making animals) Hekdesh, fermentation (of grain, when Pesach comes, for then Chametz is forbidden) and freedom. (The husband only had a lien on the slave. Destroying a limb sets the slave free and uproots the lien.)