## Bava Kamma Daf 89a

###### Bava Kamma 89a:1
[Bava Kamma 89a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:1)

וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחְתָּיו וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ; וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין; אֵין אוֹמְרִים יְשַׁלְּמוּ כׇּל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, אֶלָּא טוֹבַת הֲנָאַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אֵיזֶהוּ טוֹבַת הֲנָאַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ? אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בִּכְתוּבָּה שֶׁל זוֹ – שֶׁאִם נִתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, וְאִם מֵתָה – יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַּעֲלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and she is under him and serves him,** i.e., she was in fact still married to him, **and** then these witnesses **were found to be conspiring** witnesses who were attempting to deny this woman the ability to ever collect payment of her marriage contract, then the court **does not say** that the witnesses **shall pay the entire** value of **her marriage contract. Rather,** the court says that they shall pay the **financial advantage of her marriage contract.** The Gemara explains: **What is the financial advantage of her marriage contract?** The court **evaluates how much a person** would **want to give** to purchase the rights **of this** woman’s **marriage contract,** taking into account the *halakha* **that if she becomes widowed or divorced** the purchaser will receive its full value, **but if she dies** during her husband’s lifetime, **her husband will inherit her** property and the purchaser will receive nothing.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:2
[Bava Kamma 89a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:2)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לֵיתַהּ לְתַקָּנַת אוּשָׁא, אַמַּאי יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַּעֲלָהּ? תְּזַבֵּין כְּתוּבְּתַהּ לִגְמָרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Idi bar Avin continues: **And if** it **enters your mind** that **there is no ordinance of Usha, why would her husband inherit** from **her?** Let the woman **sell her marriage contract entirely.**


###### Bava Kamma 89a:3
[Bava Kamma 89a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִם אָמְרוּ בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג, יֹאמְרוּ בְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This is not a proof for the existence of the ordinance of Usha, because even **if** there is no ordinance, and the Sages **said** that the woman retains the right to sell **with regard to** the **usufruct property,** would they also **say** that the woman retains the right to sell **with regard to guaranteed property,** which is listed among the possessions she brought into the marriage but is entirely under her husband’s authority? In any event, there is property that she does not have the right to sell and that the husband would inherit if she dies, regardless of whether or not there is an ordinance of Usha, so the marriage contract could not be sold for its full value.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:4
[Bava Kamma 89a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה, הוֹאִיל וַאֲתָא לְיָדַן, נֵימָא בַּהּ מִילְּתָא: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה – לְאִשָּׁה הָוְיָא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְבַעַל הָוְיָא, לֵימְרוּ לַהּ עֵדִים: מַאי אַפְסֵדְינִּךְ? אִי הֲוָה מְזַבְּנַתְּ לַהּ לְטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה, בַּעַל הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל מִינִּךְ! אָמַר רַב שַׁלְמַן: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא רְוַוח בֵּיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said:** With regard to **financial advantage, since** discussion of this matter **came to us, let us say something about it.** The money received for selling the **financial advantage is** given only **to the wife. For if** it **enters your mind** to say that it **is** given **to the husband,** then **let** the conspiring **witnesses,** who have been rendered liable to pay a penalty to the wife, **say to her: What loss have we caused you** by testifying that you had received payment of your marriage contract? Even **if you were to sell it for** the **financial advantage,** your **husband would have taken** it **from you. Rav Shalman said** in response: She still would incur a loss, **because there is a gain** to **the household.** Even if the husband were to be the one to receive the payment from the sale, the financial situation of the household would be improved, leading to a concrete benefit for the wife as well. This offsets the wife’s potential loss.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:5
[Bava Kamma 89a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לָאִשָּׁה, וְאֵין הַבַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? פֵּירָא תַּקִּינוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן, פֵּירָא דְפֵירָא לָא תַּקִּינוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The ***halakha*** is that the money received for selling the **financial advantage** of the marriage contract is given only **to the wife, and the husband does not** even **garner the profits** from that money or from property the wife would purchase with that money. **What is the reason? The Sages instituted** that **the profits** of her property are **for** the husband, but **the Sages did not institute** that **the profits of the profits** are **for him.**


###### Bava Kamma 89a:6
[Bava Kamma 89a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:6)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִבֵּי רַב, אָמְרִי, תְּנֵינָא לְתַקָּנַת אוּשָׁא: הָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה; הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן חַיָּיב, וְהֵם שֶׁחָבְלוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים – פְּטוּרִין. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לֵיתַהּ לְתַקָּנַת אוּשָׁא, תְּזַבֵּין נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג וְתִתֵּן לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall of Rav they said: We learned** a source **for** the **ordinance of Usha** in the mishna (87a): With regard to **a slave or** a married **woman, an encounter with them is disadvantageous,** since **one who injures them** is **liable. But** if **they** were the ones who **injured others they** are **exempt,** because they do not have money with which to pay. **And if** it **enters your mind** to say that **there is no ordinance of Usha,** there would be a method by which a married woman can obtain money with which to pay, as the court can have **her sell** her **usufruct property and give** the money received **to** the one she injured. It can therefore be inferred from the mishna that a woman cannot sell her usufruct property, in accordance with the ordinance of Usha.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:7
[Bava Kamma 89a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:7)

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּאִיתַיהּ לְתַקָּנַת אוּשָׁא – וְלָא מָצֵי מְזַבְּנָה לִגְמָרֵי; תְּזַבֵּין לְנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה, וְתִתֵּן לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא דְּלֵית לַהּ; הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלֵית לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And according to your reasoning, though indeed there is an ordinance of Usha, and she cannot fully sell** her usufruct property, **she** should nevertheless be able to **sell** her **usufruct property for** the **financial advantage,** i.e., the purchaser will pay her for the future rights to the property in the event that she gets divorced or is widowed, **and she will give** that money **to** the one she injured. **Rather,** it must be that the mishna is discussing a case **where she does not have** usufruct property of which she can sell the future rights. **So too,** there is no source from the mishna for the ordinance of Usha, as the mishna is discussing a case **where she does not have** usufruct property to sell.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:8
[Bava Kamma 89a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:8)

וּתְזַבֵּין כְּתוּבְּתַהּ בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה, וְתִתֵּן לֵיהּ! הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיְּשַׁהֶא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת בְּלֹא כְּתוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the ruling of the mishna: Why does the mishna assert that a married woman will not have money with which to pay, **but she should sell** the **financial advantage** of **her marriage contract and give** the money received **to** the one she injured? The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** ruling of the mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that it is **prohibited for a man to remain** living together **with his wife** for **even one hour without** her having **a marriage contract.** Therefore, the woman cannot sell the financial advantage of her marriage contract.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:9
[Bava Kamma 89a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:9)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי – כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ; הָכָא לָא מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ – דְּאִי מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ, אָתוּ הָנָךְ דְּזָבְנִי, גָּבוּ לַהּ לִכְתוּבְּתַהּ מִינֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** for the ruling of Rabbi Meir? It is **so that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that** he will easily **divorce her,** as he would not suffer any adverse financial consequences by divorcing her. The Gemara asks: If that is the reason, then **here,** when she sold her marriage contract to others, the husband **will not** easily **divorce her, as, if he would divorce her, those who purchased** her marriage contract **will come** and **collect** payment of **her marriage contract from** the husband. It makes no difference to the husband whether he will have to pay the marriage contract to her or to the purchasers. Therefore, the reason for the ruling of the mishna cannot be based upon the statement of Rabbi Meir.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:10
[Bava Kamma 89a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:10)

אֶלָּא טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה מִילֵּי נִינְהוּ, וּמִילֵּי לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the reason she is not required to sell the financial advantage of her marriage contract to pay the one she injured is that the **financial advantage** of her marriage contract **is** mere **words,** i.e., not a specific possession, but a legal entity that simply creates the possibility to collect its value at a later date. **And** mere **words are not mortgaged** for the payment of debts, in this case her debt to the injured party.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:11
[Bava Kamma 89a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:11)

אַלְּמָה לָא? מִילֵּי דְּמִזְדַּבְּנִי בְּדִינָרֵי נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמּוֹכֵר שְׁטַר חוֹב לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְחָזַר וּמְחָלוֹ – מָחוּל. וַאֲפִילּוּ יוֹרֵשׁ מוֹחֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this assertion: **Why not?** Why is financial advantage not mortgaged? **They are words that are sold for dinars.** Since the financial advantage of her marriage contract has a market value, it is mortgaged to pay the debt to the injured party. **Rather,** she is not required to sell the financial advantage of her marriage contract **because** of the statement **of Shmuel, as Shmuel says:** With regard to **one who sells a promissory note to another, and** the seller **went back and forgave** the debtor his debt, **it is forgiven,** and the promissory note is left valueless, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, **and even** the seller’s **heir can forgive** the debt. Since there is a concern that the woman will forgive the debt of her marriage contract after having sold it, causing a loss to the purchaser, she is not required to sell it.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:12
[Bava Kamma 89a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:12)

אָמְרִי: זַבּוֹנֵי [תְּ]זַבֵּין וְתִתֵּן לֵיהּ, וְאִי מָחֲלָה לֵיהּ לְגַבֵּי בַעַל – תִּמְחֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say:** Let her **sell** the financial advantage of the marriage contract **and give** the money **to** the one she injured, **and if she** happens to **forgive** the debt of her marriage contract **to** her **husband, she will forgive it.** Just as it is generally permitted for one to sell a promissory note despite the fact that he could then forgive the debt, the same should hold true in this case as well.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:13
[Bava Kamma 89a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:13)

אָמְרִי: כֹּל לְגַבֵּי בַעַל, וַדַּאי מָחֲלָה לֵיהּ. (וְאַפְסְדִינֵּיהּ לְהָהוּא זְבִינָא בְּיָדַיִם לָא אַפְסְדִינְהוּ.)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say:** In **any** matter that will engender a benefit **to** her **husband, she** will **certainly forgive** the debt **to him** so that he will not have to pay the marriage contract. **And** with regard to **causing** a definite **loss to that purchaser through** direct **action** by having the woman sell the financial advantage of her marriage contract in a case where she will certainly forgive the debt, the Sages will **not** be willing to **cause a** definite **loss to** the purchaser.


###### Bava Kamma 89a:14
[Bava Kamma 89a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/89a:14)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: (זְבִינָא) [תְּזַבְּנַיהּ] נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְהָהוּא דַּחֲבַלָה בֵּיהּ בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers another suggestion: **And if you would say** that she should **sell** her marriage contract **to that one whom she injured** in order to receive the money **for the financial advantage,**