R’ Shimon distinguishes between one kind of property and another: Property that is known to the husband —- she may not sell; if she sold [it] or gave [it] away, [the act] is invalid. [Property] unknown to the husband —- she may not sell; but if she sold [it] or gave [it] away, [the act] is valid.

[If] money fell to her, land should be bought with it, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. Produce detached from the ground —- land should be bought with it, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. But [produce] that is attached to the ground —- said R’ Meir: They appraise them [and determine] how much they are worth with the produce and how much they are worth without the produce; with the difference, land should be bought, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. The Sages, however, say: [Produce] attached to the ground belongs to him; detached from the ground belongs to her; land should be bought with it, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof].

R’ Shimon says: Wherever he has the advantage when he marries her, he has the disadvantage when he divorces her; wherever he has the disadvantage when he marries her, he has the advantage when he divorces her. Produce attached to the ground —- when he marries her, it is his; when he divorces her, it is hers. [Produce] detached from the ground —- when he marries her, it is hers; when he divorces her, it is his.

[If] old slaves or [old] slave-women fell to her, they should be sold; land should be bought with the proceeds, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She need not sell [them], because they are the pride of her father’s house.  [If] old olive trees or [old] grapevines fell to her, they should be sold as wood; land should be bought with the proceeds, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. R’ Yehudah says: She need not sell [them], because they are the pride of her father’s house.  [If] one spent money on his wife’s property —- whether he spent much and ate little, or [spent] little and ate much —- what he spent he spent, and what he ate he ate. [If] he spent and did not eat, he must swear how much he spent, and take [compensa-tion].

A woman awaiting a yavam, to whom property fell —- Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that [if] she sells [it] or gives [it] away, [the act] is valid. [If] she died, what is to be done with her kesubah and with the property that comes in and goes out with her? Beis Shammai say: The husband’s heirs divide [it] with the father’s heirs; but Beis Hillel say: The property remains in their pos-session; the kesubah is in the possession of the husband’s heirs, [and] the property that comes in and goes out with her is in the possession of the father’s heirs.

[If] his brother left money, land should be bought with it, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. [If he left] produce detached from the ground, land should be bought with it, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. [If he left produce] that is attached to the ground —- said R’ Meir: They appraise them [and determine] how much they are worth with produce and how much they are worth without produce; with the difference, land should be bought, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. The Sages, however, say: Produce attached to the ground is his; detached from the ground —- whoever comes first gains possession [of them]: [If] he comes first, he gains possession; [if] she comes first, land should be bought with it, and he enjoys the usufruct [thereof]. [If] he married her, she is considered his wife in all respects, except that her kesubah is a lien on her first husband’s property.

He shall not say to her: “Your kesubah is lying on the table”; rather, all his property is surety for the kesubah. Likewise, a man shall not say to his wife, “Your kesubah is lying on the table”; rather, all his property is surety for her kesubah. [If] he divorced her, she is entitled only to her kesubah. [If] he remarried her, she is like all [other] women; she is entitled only to her kesubah.

[If] one writes to his wife: “I have neither right nor claim to your property,” he may [nevertheless] enjoy the usufruct during her lifetime. If she dies, he inherits her. If so, why did he write to her: “I have neither right nor claim to your property”? That if she sold [it] or gave [it] away, [the act] is valid.  [If] he wrote to her: “I have neither right nor claim to your property or its usufruct,” he does not enjoy the usufruct during her lifetime; but if she dies, he inherits her. R’ Yehudah says: He may always enjoy the usufruct of the produce unless he writes to her: “I have neither right nor claim to your property or its produce or the usufruct of its produce forever.”  [If] he wrote to her: “I have neither right nor claim to your property or its produce or the usu-fruct of its produce during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not enjoy the usufruct during her lifetime; and if she dies, he does not inherit her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she dies, he inherits her, because he stipulated on what is written in the Torah, and whoever stipulates on what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.

[If] someone died and left a wife, a creditor, and heirs, and he had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others —- R’ Tarfon says: They shall be given to the weakest among them. R’ Akiva says: No clemency is shown in judgment! Rather, it shall be given to the heirs, for they all require an oath, whereas the heirs do not require an oath.

[If] one left produce detached from the ground, whoever comes first gains possession of it. [If] the wife gained possession of more than her kesubah, or [if] the creditor [gained possession] of more than his debt, the difference —- R’ Tarfon says: It shall be given to the weakest among them. R’ Akiva says: No clemency is shown in judgment! Rather, it shall be given to the heirs, for all of them require an oath, but the heirs do not require an oath.

[If] one sets up his wife as a storekeeper, or [if] he appointed her [as] an administratix, he may impose an oath on her whenever he wishes. R’ Eliezer says: Even concerning her spindle on her dough.

[If] he wrote to her: “I have neither a vow nor an oath upon you,” he cannot impose an oath upon her, but he can impose an oath upon her heirs or her successors.  [If he wrote:] “I have neither a vow nor an oath upon you, your heirs, or your suc-cessors,” he cannot impose an oath upon her, her heirs, or her successors; but his heirs can impose an oath upon her, her heirs, or her successors.  [If he wrote:] “Neither I, my heirs, nor my successors have a vow or an oath upon you, your heirs, or your successors,” neither he, his heirs, nor his successors can impose an oath upon her, her heirs, or her successors.