Study Ketubot folio 79B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
the offspring of an animal of a woman’s usufruct property must pay payment of double the principal to the woman. Apparently this ruling is based on the assumption that the offspring is not treated as the produce of her property but as the principal, which belongs to the woman.
The Talmud asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of Ḥananya. The Talmud explains the dispute alluded to here: As it is taught in a baraita: The offspring of a usufruct animal belongs to
The Talmud answers: You can even say that all agree with R' Yannai’s ruling, as there is a difference between the general use of property and the double payment. This is because the rabbis instituted for the husband to consume the produce, but the rabbis did not institute for him to consume the pro
The Talmud asks: Granted, according to Ḥananya, who equates the halakha of a female slave’s child to that of an animal’s offspring, this is because we are not concerned about the death of the mother. Therefore, the mother is the principal while its offspring is considered the produce.
But according to the Rabbis, if they are concerned about the death of the mother, and this is why a female slave’s child belongs to the wife, even the offspring of a usufruct animal should not have the status of produce either. Rather, it should have the status of principal, because if the usufruct