יד וכי תימא זבינא ניהליה לההוא דחבלה ביה בטובת הנאה
14 Raba stated: 'The law is that the purchase money for the satisfaction of the benefit belongs solely to the woman, and the husband will have no right to enjoy any profit [that may result from it], the reason being that it was only profits that the Rabbis assigned to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Out of the substance belonging to her. Cf. Keth. 47b and 79b. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> whereas profits out of profits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as here in the case of the purchase money. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> were not assigned to him by the Rabbis. When R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua came from the College they said: We have learnt to the same effect as the enactment of Usha [in the following Mishnah]: A SLAVE AND A WOMAN ARE AWKWARD TO DEAL WITH, AS HE WHO INJURES THEM IS LIABLE [TO PAY], WHEREAS IF THEY HAVE INJURED OTHERS THEY ARE EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 502, n. 1. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Now, if you assume that the enactment of Usha is not effective why should she not sell her <i>melog</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> property and with the purchase money pay the compensation? — But even according to your reasoning, granted that the enactment of Usha is effective, in which case she would be powerless to alienate altogether her <i>melog</i> possessions, yet let her sell the <i>melog</i> estate for what the satisfaction of the benefit would fetch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the purchaser should stand in her place and become entitled to it in case she should become a widow or divorced. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and with his purchase money pay the compensation? It must therefore Surely be said that the ruling applies where she had no <i>melog</i> property; so also [according to the other view] the ruling would apply only where she possessed no <i>melog</i> property. But why should she not sell her <i>kethubah</i> for as much as the satisfaction of the benefit will fetch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the purchaser should stand in her place and become entitled to it in case she should become a widow or divorced. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and thus pay compensation? — The ruling is based on the view of R. Meir, who said that it is prohibited for any man to keep his wife without a <i>kethubah</i> even for one hour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 57a. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> But what is the reason of this? So that it should not be an easy matter in his eyes to divorce her. In this case too he will surely not divorce her, for if he were to divorce her those who purchased the <i>kethubah</i> would certainly come and collect the amount of the <i>kethubah</i> from him. [Why then should she not be compelled by law to sell her <i>kethubah</i> and pay her creditors?] — We must therefore say that the satisfaction of such a benefit is a value of an abstract nature<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'words', 'an order for payment'. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> and abstract values are not considered mortgaged [for the payment of liabilities]. But why not? Could these abstract values not be sold for actual <i>denarii</i>? — We must therefore [say that it would not be practical to compel her to sell her <i>kethubah</i>] on account of the statement of Samuel. For Samuel said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 20a; B.B. 147b. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Where a creditor assigns a liability on a bill to another and subsequently releases the debtor from payment, the debt is considered cancelled. Moreover, the creditor's heir may cancel the liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would therefore not be practical to compel her to sell her kethubah, for she might subsequently release the husband from the liability of the kethubah. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> I would, however, ask: Why should she not be compelled to sell it and pay with the proceeds the compensation, though if she should subsequently release her husband from the obligation the release would be legally valid? — It may be replied that since it is quite certain that where there is an obligation on the husband the wife will release him, it would not be right to make a sale which will straight away be nullified. Should you say, why should she not assign her <i>kethubah</i> to the person whom she injured, thus letting him have the satisfaction of the benefit,