(Mishnah): If a wife inherited money, the husband buys land with it and eats the Peiros. [Also if she inherited] Peiros detached from the ground, he buys land with it and he eats the Peiros.

Attached Peiros - R. Meir says, we evaluate how much [the land] is worth with Peiros and how much it is worth without Peros. The excess, he buys land (for her) for this amount, and he eats the Peiros;

Chachamim say, attached Peiros are his. Detached Peiros are hers, and he buys land with them and eats the Peiros;

(Gemara - R. Yirmeyah): R. Meir [teaches here like he taught elsewhere], for R. Meir considers attached [Peros] like detached [and holds that one swears about them, like Metaltelim].

Question (R. Yosi): Did he not hear that R. Yosi ben Chaninah said that R. Meir said so [about Shevu'ah] only about crops and vines standing to be harvested, but not fodder? However, here, even fodder (he does not consider it attached)!

Question (R. Yirmeyah): R. Meir contradicts himself! There (regarding Shevu'ah) he does not consider attached to be like detached (unless it is ready to be harvested), and here he considers attached like detached (even if it is not ready to be harvested)!

Answer (R. Yochanan): R. Meir does not consider attached to be like detached. Rather, if you view the attached crop as if it is detached, you give more rights to the woman. [If you consider the] field [as if] it was not seeded (and everything grew in her husband's Reshus), you give more rights to the man. Amidst Safek (to whom the crops belong), you evaluate how much [the land] was worth before it was seeded, and how much it is worth after it was seeded;

[E.g. if] before it was seeded it was worth one Dinar, and after it was seeded it was worth two Dinarim, that Dinar (the excess), he buys land with it, and he eats the Peiros.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): In the place (matter) in which [her husband] has more rights when she enters, he has less rights when she leaves (is divorced). In the place in which he has less rights when she enters, he has more rights when she leaves;

What is attached to the ground, when she enters, it is his. When she leaves, it is hers. What is detached from the ground, when she enters, it is hers. When she leaves, it is his.

(Gemara): You say that when she enters, it is his. If she sold [the attached Peros], they are not sold. If she gave [the land] to a sharecropper, [her husband] benefits from it (gets the owner's share of the Peros). If she declared them to be Bikurim, they did not become Kadosh;

You say that when she leaves, it is hers. If he sold [the attached Peros], they are not sold. If he gave [the land] to a sharecropper, she benefits from it. If he declared then to be Bikurim, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this. (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE);

They argued about "v'Samachta b'Chol ha'Tov Asher Nasan Lecha Hash-m Elokecha ul'Veisecha" - this teaches that a man brings Bikurim from his wife's property.

(Reish Lakish): This is after death, but in her lifetime, no;

(R. Yochanan): There is no difference between in her lifetime and after death.

Reish Lakish holds like he taught elsewhere. He said that one does not inherit his wife mid'Oraisa [therefore a verse needs to teach that he brings. If mid'Oraisa he inherits her, obviously he brings! - PNEI MOSHE.]

[If he was Mekadesh Bikurim] in her lifetime, according to Reish Lakish they are not Kadosh. According to R. Yochanan, they are Kadosh, but their Kedushah is uprooted (if she left his Reshus before he detached them, for they were Kadosh only for after he will detach them. His right to detach them caused that she could not sell, give or be Makdish them. - RIDVAZ)

(Mishnah): If she inherited old slaves, they are sold. He buys land with the money and eats the Peiros;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, they are not sold (if she protests), because they are the honor of her father's house.

(Gemara): [The coming] Mishnah discusses when [the trees] do not produce Kedei Tipulam (fruits worth the cost of taking care of their food and needs), but if they do Kedei Tipulam, she may not sell, for the honor of her father's house endures (SEFER NIR. It seems that this is out of place; it belongs after the coming Mishnah. The Yerushalmi was initially printed without Mishnayos (ALEI TAMAR 3:7). Perhaps the one who inserted the Mishnayos put this Gemara between these Mishnayos, for he thought that it discusses slaves who do not produce... - PF)

(Mishnah): If she inherited old olive trees and vines, they are sold for wood; he buys land with the money and eats the Peiros;

R. Yehudah says, she does not sell them, because they are the honor of her father's house.

(Gemara - R. Avun citing Rabanan there (in Bavel)): Our Mishnah discusses when she inherited olive trees, but not [rights to] their land, or vines, but not their land;

However, if she inherited olive trees and their land, or vines and their land, [all agree that] she does not cut them, for the honor of her father's house endures.

Rabanan here (in Eretz Yisrael) say, even if she inherited olive trees and their land, or vines and their land, [he cuts them, for it is not called an olive orchard, since [the trees are old, and it is as if] they fell, and then, and it is not called a vineyard, since [it is as if] they fell. (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Support (for Rabanan there): [If one said] 'I sell to you a vineyard', even if there are no vines in it, it is sold, for he sold to him only its name (it is called a vineyard). 'I sell to you an orchard', even if there are no trees in it, it is sold, for he sold to him only its name.