by Rabbi Abba that in the school of Rav they say: It is even a cluster of dates stuck together. Rav Beivai asks: If one ate dough made of dates, what is the halakha? Is this considered dignified consumption? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara asks: If he did not eat it in a dignified manner, what is the halakha? How much must he eat to be deemed a proper act of consumption? Ulla said: Two amora’im in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, disagree about this matter. One said: He ate the amount of an issar, and one said: He ate the measure of a dinar.

The judges of Pumbedita say: Rav Yehuda took action in a case of a bundle of branches. A husband took them from his wife’s property and fed them to his animals, and Rav Yehuda ruled that this was treated as consumption of her property. The Gemara comments: Rav Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Yehuda said: If one took possession of a plot of land and consumed some of the produce of its trees that was forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] or produce of the seventh year, or a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, this is considered taking possession of the land, as he was allowed to benefit from the permitted branches.

§ Rav Yaakov said that Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to one who outlays expenditures for the property of his wife who is a minor girl and was married off by her mother or brothers, he is considered like one who outlays expenditures for the property of someone else. Therefore, if she performed refusal upon reaching maturity, thereby annulling the marriage, he takes the value of the improvement. What is the reason for this? The Sages enacted this ordinance in order that he should not let her property depreciate. If he is not guaranteed reimbursement for his expenses if she refuses him as her husband, he will not attend to the upkeep of her property, causing its value to decline.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who had four hundred dinars bequeathed to her in Bei Ḥozai, a remote location in Babylonia. The man, her husband, went and took with him six hundred of his own dinars for travel expenses and brought back with him four hundred. While he was coming back he required one dinar, which he took from the money he had collected. He came before Rabbi Ami for a ruling. Rabbi Ami said to him: That which he spent he has spent, and that which he ate he has eaten. He has benefited from one dinar of her money and spent six hundred of his own, and neither amount can be claimed.

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Ami: This applies only where he consumes the produce of his wife’s property, but this one ate from the principal, and it is merely expenditures. He replied: If so, this is a case of one who pays expenditures and did not eat, and the halakha is that in such a case he takes an oath with regard to how much he paid and then takes that amount.

§ The mishna states: He takes an oath with regard to how much he spent and takes this sum. Rabbi Asi said: And this applies only if there is enhancement to the property corresponding to his expense. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Is this a stringency for the husband that if the value of enhancement is less he may not reclaim all his expenses, or is it a leniency that if the value is greater he need not take an oath? Abaye said: It means that if the value of enhancement was greater than the expense, he takes the expense without an oath.

Rava said to him: If so, he will come to deceive, as he can always say that he spent slightly less than the value of the enhancement and thereby receive this amount without having to take an oath. Rather, Rava said: It means that if the expense was greater than the enhancement, he has rights to reclaim the expense only up to the amount of the enhancement, but no more, and even this amount he can claim only by an oath.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who engaged sharecroppers to work his wife’s property in his stead, what is the halakha? Does a sharecropper begin work on the land with the intention to work for the husband, so that if the husband departs the property, e.g., if he divorces his wife, they too depart as sharecroppers and do not receive their share of the profits from the land? Or perhaps a sharecropper begins work with the intention to work the land, and the land, as it stands, stands to be worked by sharecroppers? Since their involvement is directly with the land, it makes no difference who hired them, and they would stay on the land.

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan objects to this line of inquiry: In what way is this case different from that of one who entered the field of another and planted it without permission? In such a situation one evaluates his expenses for him and the value of his enhancement of the field, and he is at a disadvantage. Therefore, he always receives the smaller sum, whether it is equal to his expenses or the enhancement of the property. In this case too, even if the sharecroppers are viewed as unauthorized occupiers of the land, why shouldn’t they be treated like one who entered another’s field without permission and receive at least the smaller sum?

The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable: There, when one enters another’s land, there is no one else that will exert himself for it, and therefore it is reasonable that the one who invested in this property should at least be compensated for the lesser value. However, here, there is a husband who exerts himself for the land. Since the sharecroppers act in his stead, they are entitled to remain on the land only as long as he is present.

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it, i.e., the original question? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We examine the matter: If this husband is a sharecropper himself and possesses sufficient knowledge of working the land to perform the task himself, then when the husband departs from the property they too depart, as they are taking his place. If the husband is not a sharecropper, the land is ready for sharecroppers, as the husband would not have performed the work himself. Since the wife was in need of sharecroppers, they are not considered to have acted on behalf of the husband and do not forfeit their share.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who sold his wife’s land for produce, i.e., rights to the produce were sold to one who agrees to work the land in exchange, what is the halakha? Do we say: That which belongs to the husband he has transferred to others, and therefore the sale of the produce is valid, or perhaps the principle is that when the Sages instituted that the produce goes to the husband,