Yevamot 66B

הדין עמה, ורב אמי אמר: הדין עמו.

The halakha favors her; she may take the belongings. And Rav Ami said: The halakha favors him; he may retain the items and return their value.

רב יהודה אמר הדין עמה ⁠— משום שבח בית אביה דידה הוי. רבי אמי אמר: הדין עמו ⁠— כיון דאמר מר: אם מתו ⁠— מתו לו, ואם הותירו ⁠— הותירו לו, הואיל וחייב באחריותן ⁠— יאכלו. אמר רב ספרא: מי קתני ״והן שלו״? ״הואיל וחייב באחריותן״ קתני, ולעולם לאו דידיה נינהו.

The Talmud explains that Rav Yehuda said that the halakha favors her because they are the assets of her paternal family, whose prestige will suffer if they aren’t returned. Therefore, they are hers. R' Ami said that the halakha favors him, since the Master said in the Mishnah, with regard to guaranteed property: If they die, their death is his loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is his gain. Since he bears financial responsibility for their loss, they partake of teruma. Apparently, the slaves belong to the husband. Therefore, he is obligated to return only their monetary value. Rav Safra said in rejection of R' Ami’s reasoning: Does the Mishnah teach that they are his? It teaches only that he bears financial responsibility for their loss, but actually they are not his.

וכל היכא דחייב באחריותן אכלי בתרומה? והתנן: ישראל ששכר פרה מכהן ⁠— הרי זה יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה. כהן ששכר פרה מישראל, אף על פי שמזונותיה עליו ⁠— לא יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה!

The Talmud asks: And do they partake of teruma wherever he bears financial responsibility for their loss, even if they are not his actual possession? But didn’t we learn in a Mishnah (Terumot 11:9): An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest may feed it vetches [karshinin] of teruma, since the animal belongs to a priest? With regard to a priest who rented a cow from an Israelite, although its feed is incumbent upon him, he may not feed it vetches of teruma, as it does not belong to him. This indicates that the requirement for enabling an acquisition to eat teruma is possession, not responsibility.