A woman about to have Nisu'in wanted to divert her property from her husband. She wrote a document giving her property to her daughter, had Nisu'in, and was divorced.

The document came in front of Rav Nachman; he tore it up.

Rav Anan (to Mar Ukva, the Av Beis Din). Nachman the farmer (i.e. he is not proficient in monetary laws) tears up people's documents!

Mar Ukva (after hearing the entire story): You discuss a document to divert? Shmuel said that he would tear up such a document! (Rav Nachman acted correctly.)

Question (Rava, to Rav Nachman): Did you tear it up because a person would not abandon himself and give his money to others? That applies to others, but one does give to his daughter!

Answer (Rav Nachman): Even so, a person takes precedence over his daughter.

Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If one wants to divert property from her husband, she writes to someone else a document of Pasim (she appeases the recipient to accept the property to divert it from her husband);

Chachamim say, the recipient can keep the property and laugh at her, unless she wrote 'From today until when I want'.

Summation of question: If she did not write this, the document is valid!

Answer (R. Zeira): If the document gives all her property, it is invalid even if this was not written. If it gives part of her property, it is valid unless the clause was written.

Question: If the receiver does not get the property, the husband should get it!

Answer (Abaye): It is considered like property unknown to the husband. This is like R. Shimon.

(Mishnah): If a wife inherited money, the husband buys land with it and eats the Peiros. The same applies if she inherited Peiros detached from the ground;

R. Meir says, if she inherited attached Peiros, we evaluate how much the Peiros add to the value of the land. The husband buys land (for her) for this amount, and he eats the Peiros;

Chachamim say, attached Peiros are his. Detached Peiros are hers, and he buys land with them and eats the Peiros;

R. Shimon says, in the place (matter) in which [her husband] has more rights when she enters, he has less rights when she leaves (is divorced). In the place in which he has less rights when she enters, he has more rights when she leaves;

What is attached to the ground, when she enters, it is his. When she leaves, it is hers. What is detached from the ground, when she enters, it is hers. When she leaves, it is his.

(Gemara): (When he and she disagree about how to invest the money,) clearly the preferred investment for the money is land, followed by houses (they are second best), followed by date trees, followed by other trees, followed by vines.

Some say that a forest of trees (that do not bear considerable fruit, but are cut for lumber) and a pond of fish are considered like Peiros (and the wood and fish belong to the husband);

Others say that they are like principal (the husband buys land with them and eats the Peiros, but the land is his wife's).

The rule is, things that grow back are Peiros. Things that do not grow back are principal.

(R. Zeira): (If a thief is convicted for stealing, he pays twice the value of what he stole.) If the child of a Melug animal was stolen, the extra payment goes to the wife.

Question: This is not like Chachamim, nor like Chananyah!

(Beraisa): The child of a Melug animal belongs to the husband; the child of a Melug slave belongs to the wife;

Chananyah ben Achi Yoshiyah says, mid'Rabanan the child of a Melug slave is like the child of a Melug animal.

Answer: R. Zeira's law can be according to both opinions.

It was enacted only that the husband eats Peiros (of principal); but not Peiros of Peiros (such like the extra payment for the child of the Melug animal).

Question: We understand Chananyah. He is not concerned for death (of the mother animal or slave, so the children are like Peiros that grow back). But how do Chachamim hold?

If they are concerned for death, even the child of an animal should be considered principal. If they are not concerned for death, even the child of a slave should be Peiros!

Answer: They are concerned for death. However, when an animal dies, there is still the hide. The principal is not entirely consumed.

(Rav Huna): The Halachah follows Chananyah.

(Rava): Chananyah admits that if she is divorced, she may pay the value of the slaves' children and keep them, for this is the honor of her father's house.

(Rava): If she brought in a goat for milk, a sheep for shearings, a hen for eggs, or a date tree for dates, the husband consumes them until the principal is finished.

(Rav Nachman): If she brought in a cloak, he may wear it until it wears out, since it is considered like Peiros.

This is like Chachamim in the following Beraisa (who say that any usage in which even a small remnant remains is considered Peiros):

(Beraisa): Salt and sand are considered Peiros;

R. Meir says, a reserve of sulfur or alum is considered principal;

Chachamim say, it is like Peiros.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): The place where the husband has more rights...

Question: The previous Tana (Chachamim) also says so!

Answer (Rava): They argue about attached Peiros when she leaves. (Chachamim say that they are his; R. Shimon says that they are hers.)

(Mishnah): If she inherited old slaves, they are sold. He buys land with the money and eats the Peiros;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, they are not sold (if she protests), because they are the honor of her father's house.

If she inherited old olive trees and vines, they are sold. He buys land with the money and eats the Peiros;

R. Yehudah says, they are not sold, because they are the honor of her father's house.

(Gemara - Rav Kahana): They argue about trees in her field. If they are in another person's field all agree that they are sold, because the principal will be consumed.

Objection (Rav Yosef): Slaves are like trees in another's field (there is no remnant if they die), and Tana'im argue about them in our Mishnah!

Correction (Rav Kahana): Rather, they argue about trees in another's field. If they are in her field all agree that they are not sold, due to the honor of her father's house.

(Mishnah): If a husband spent money to upkeep his wife's property, whether he spent much and ate little, or spent little and ate much, there is no compensation;

If he spent and did not eat, he swears how much he spent and receives this.

(Gemara) Question: How much is considered (eating) little?

Answer #1 (R. Asi): It is even one dried fig, if he ate it honorably.