## Yevamot Daf 66b

###### Yevamot 66b:1
[Yevamot 66b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:1)

הַדִּין עִמָּהּ, וְרַב אַמֵּי אָמַר: הַדִּין עִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The *halakha*** favors **her;** she may take the belongings. **And Rav Ami said: The *halakha*** favors **him;** he may retain the items and return their value.


###### Yevamot 66b:2
[Yevamot 66b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:2)

רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר הַדִּין עִמָּהּ — מִשּׁוּם שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ דִּידַהּ הָוֵי. רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר: הַדִּין עִמּוֹ — כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: אִם מֵתוּ — מֵתוּ לוֹ, וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ — הוֹתִירוּ לוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן — יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִי קָתָנֵי ״וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ״? ״הוֹאִיל וְחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן״ קָתָנֵי, וּלְעוֹלָם לָאו דִּידֵיהּ נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rav Yehuda said** that **the *halakha*** favors **her because** they are **the assets of her paternal family,** whose prestige will suffer if they aren’t returned. Therefore, **they are hers. Rabbi Ami said that the *halakha*** favors **him, since the Master said** in the mishna, with regard to guaranteed property: **If they die, their death** is **his** loss, **and if they increase** in value, **their increase** is **his** gain. **Since he bears** financial **responsibility for their** loss, **they partake** of *teruma*. Apparently, the slaves belong to the husband. Therefore, he is obligated to return only their monetary value. **Rav Safra said** in rejection of Rabbi Ami’s reasoning: **Does** the mishna **teach** that **they are his?** It **teaches** only that **he bears** financial **responsibility for their** loss, **but actually they are not his.**


###### Yevamot 66b:3
[Yevamot 66b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:3)

וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן אָכְלִי בִּתְרוּמָה? וְהָתְנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׂכַר פָּרָה מִכֹּהֵן — הֲרֵי זֶה יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵּי תְרוּמָה. כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׂכַר פָּרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ עָלָיו — לָא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵּי תְרוּמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do they partake of *teruma* wherever he bears** financial **responsibility for their** loss, even if they are not his actual possession? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Terumot* 11:9): **An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest may feed it vetches [*karshinin*] of *teruma*,** since the animal belongs to a priest? With regard to **a priest who rented a cow from an Israelite, although** its feed **is** incumbent **upon him, he may not feed it vetches of *teruma*,** as it does not belong to him. This indicates that the requirement for enabling an acquisition to eat *teruma* is possession, not responsibility.


###### Yevamot 66b:4
[Yevamot 66b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:4)

וְתִסְבְּרָא? נְהִי נָמֵי דִּמְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה, בְּאוֹנְסֶיהָ בְּכַחְשָׁהּ וּבְנִפְחַת דָּמֶיהָ — מִי מִיחַיַּיב? הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְסֵיפָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁם פָּרָה מִכֹּהֵן, לָא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵּי תְרוּמָה. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׁם פָּרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל — יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵּי תְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **And** how can **you understand** that the case of the rented cow is parallel to the case of guaranteed property? **Though** the renter **is indeed liable for theft and loss, is he liable for unavoidable accidents, for emaciation,** i.e., the cow became thinner or weaker for any reason, **or for** any other **decrease in its value?** Certainly he is not. In fact, the case of guaranteed property **is similar only to the latter clause** of that mishna: In the case of **an Israelite who appraised a cow** upon renting it **from a priest** under an arrangement where he guaranteed its value to the owner, he **may not feed it vetches of *teruma*,** as it is considered his own. **However, a priest who appraised a cow** upon renting it **from an Israelite may feed it vetches of *teruma*.** This indicates that guaranteed property is considered the acquisition of its recipient with regard to enabling it to eat *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 66b:5
[Yevamot 66b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:5)

יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף בְּשִׁילְהֵי פִּרְקֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וְתַנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי. תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי: עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יוֹצְאִין בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן. לָאִישׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לָאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba and Rav Yosef sat at the conclusion of Rav Naḥman’s sermon, and they sat and said: It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda, and it is taught** in another *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ami. It is taught in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ami** in the following *baraita*: If a slave’s owner strikes him and knocks out his tooth or blinds him in an eye, he is set free. **Slaves of guaranteed investment go** free **at** the loss of **a tooth or an eye** caused **by the husband, but not** at such loss caused **by the wife.** This indicates that they belong to the husband.


###### Yevamot 66b:6
[Yevamot 66b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:6)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: הַמַּכְנֶסֶת שׁוּם לְבַעְלָהּ, אִם רָצָה הַבַּעַל לִמְכּוֹר — לֹא יִמְכּוֹר. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ הִכְנִיס לָהּ שׁוּם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, אִם רָצָה הַבַּעַל לִמְכּוֹר — לֹא יִמְכּוֹר. מָכְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם לְפַרְנָסָה, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר: הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, **it is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda:** When a woman **brings appraised,** guaranteed **property** into her marriage **to her husband, if the husband wishes to sell** it, **he may not sell** it, as it belongs to her. **And not only** that, but **even** when her husband **brought** property **into** the marriage and added it to **her** dowry as **an appraised,** guaranteed gift **of his own,** even **if the husband wishes to sell** that gift **he may not sell** it. With regard to a case in which **either** the husband or wife unlawfully **sold** this property **for subsistence,** there **was an incident** like **this** that came **before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he said:** Although **the husband** executed the sale, **he may repossess** the property **from the purchasers,** as the sale is void.


###### Yevamot 66b:7
[Yevamot 66b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:7)

אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַב יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וְהָתַנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי! אַף עַל גַּב דְּתַנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, מִסְתַּבְּרָא טַעְמָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that **Rav Naḥman said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ami?** He replied: **Although it is taught in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ami, Rav Yehuda’s rationale,** that the wife may take the objects in question **because** they are **assets of her paternal family** and their complete removal from her domain would hurt the family’s prestige, **is** more **reasonable.**


###### Yevamot 66b:8
[Yevamot 66b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:8)

הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּעַיִּילָה לֵיהּ לְגַבְרַאּ אִיצְטְלָא דְמֵילָתָא בִּכְתוּבְּתַהּ. שְׁכֵיב, שַׁקְלוּהָ יַתְמֵי וּפַרְסוּהָ אַמִּיתָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates an incident: **A certain woman brought into** her marriage to her **husband a robe [*itztela*] of fine wool [*meileta*],** which was deemed guaranteed property **by her marriage contract.** Her husband subsequently **died,** and **the orphans took** that robe **and spread it over the corpse** as a shroud. The woman demanded that the robe be returned to her.


###### Yevamot 66b:9
[Yevamot 66b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:9)

אֲמַר רָבָא: קַנְיַיהּ מִיתָנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ נָאנַאי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְהָאָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַב יְהוּדָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי לָא מוֹדֶה רַב יְהוּדָה דִּמְחוּסַּר גּוּבְיָינָא. וְכֵיוָן דִּמְחוּסַּר גּוּבְיָינָא — בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The dead has acquired it,** as deriving benefit from anything consecrated for the dead is prohibited. **Nanai, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to Rav Kahana: But didn’t Rava say** that **Rav Naḥman said** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda?** Accordingly, the woman’s robe must be returned. **He said to him: Doesn’t Rav Yehuda admit that** the robe **has not yet been collected? And since it has not yet been collected, it remains in his possession,** and his inheritors can render its use as a burial shroud prohibited.


###### Yevamot 66b:10
[Yevamot 66b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/66b:10)

רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הֶקְדֵּשׁ, חָמֵץ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that in this regard **Rava** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as Rava said: Consecration** of property, the prohibition against benefiting from **leavened bread** on Passover,