Study Bava Batra folio 51B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ובעל אוכל פירות. ברם, רבי אבא ורבי אבהו וכל גדולי הדור אמרו: במתנה בקש ליתנו לה, ולמה כתב לה לשום מכר? כדי ליפות את כחה.
and as long as they remain married, the husband enjoys the profits, as he would with any usufruct property. But R' Abba and R' Abbahu and all of the great rabbis of the generation said that the assumption is that the husband wanted to give it to her as a gift. And why did he write the deed for her employing terminology indicating that it is for the sake of a sale? It was in order to enhance her power.
מיתיבי: לוה מן העבד ושחררו, מן האשה וגרשה – אין להן עליו כלום. מאי טעמא? לאו משום דאמרי: לגלויי זוזי הוא דבעא?
The Talmud raises an objection from a baraita to the ruling that the wife acquires the property: If one borrowed from his own slave and then freed him, or if one borrowed from his wife and then divorced her, they do not have any claim on him, and he need not repay them. What is the reason for this? Is it not because we say that he desired to expose their concealed money, and his taking of the loan was merely an artifice to claim money to which he was entitled? Similarly, the assumption should be that his sale to her was merely an artifice.
שאני התם, דלא לישוי איניש ״עבד לוה לאיש מלוה״.
The Talmud answers: It is different there, because there is an additional reason to think it was an artifice, as it is uncomfortable for a person to be described by the verse: “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). It is therefore reasonable to posit that his intention was not to borrow money, but to expose the concealed money that was in the possession of his slave or wife. This concern does not apply to one who sells property to his wife, and therefore the sale is valid.