Ketubot 80B

משום רווח ביתא, אבל לזבוני ⁠— לא? יהודה מר בר מרימר משמיה דרבא אמר: מה שעשה, עשוי. רב פפא אמר משמיה דרבא: לא עשה ולא כלום.

they did so for the gain of the house, as more food is available when he brings produce home, but in order for him to sell it they did not institute their decree? Two opinions were stated with regard to this issue: Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar said in the name of Rava: What he did is done, i.e., takes effect. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: He did not do anything.

אמר רב פפא: הא דיהודה מר בר מרימר לאו בפירוש אתמר, אלא מכללא אתמר. דההיא איתתא דעיילה ליה לגברא תרתי אמהתא, אזל גברא נסיב איתתא אחריתי, עייל לה חדא מנייהו.

Rav Pappa said: This statement of Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar was not stated explicitly in Rava’s name. Rather, it was stated from an inference based on an incident that occurred in which a certain woman brought in for her husband two female slaves as part of her dowry. The man went and married another woman in addition to the first. He subsequently brought in to the second wife one of the female slaves to attend to her needs.

אתאי לקמיה דרבא, צווחה, לא אשגח בה. מאן דחזא סבר משום דסבר מה שעשה עשוי. ולא היא, משום רווח ביתא ⁠— והא קא רווח.

The first wife came before Rava and cried about the injustice done to her, but Rava took no notice of her, claiming she had no right to complain. He who observed this incident thought that Rava ruled this way because he holds that what he did is done, i.e., takes effect, and a husband may sell his wife’s usufruct property and use its produce as he sees fit. But that is not so, as the rabbis instituted the ordinance that a husband owns the rights to the produce of his wife’s property for the gain of the house, and here the house does gain from his action, as the female slave also performs work for the house.