Commentary for Bava Kamma 177:13

אמרי כל לגבי בעל ודאי מחלה ליה ואפסדיניה לההוא זבינא בידים לא אפסדינהו

Abaye further said: Since the subject of the [mere] satisfaction of a benefit has been raised, let us say something on it. The [purchase money of this] satisfaction of the benefit would belong solely to the woman. For if you assume that it should be subject to [the rights of] the husband, why could the witnesses not argue against her: 'What loss did we cause you, for should you even have sold the satisfaction of the benefit, the husband would have taken away [the purchase money] from you'? — R. Shalman, however, said: Because [even then] there would have been ample domestic provision.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is also for her benefit that the income of her husband increases. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 177:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.