אבן העזר פ״הEven HaEzer 85

Se’if 1א׳

פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ כֵּיצַד, תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל פֵּרוֹת נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ תַּחַת פִּדְיוֹנָהּ שֶׁחִיְּבוּהוּ לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. וְאִם אָמַר: אֵינִי חָפֵץ בְּפֵרוֹתֶיהָ וְלֹא אֶפְדֶּה, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמְרָה הִיא: אֵינָהּ חֲפֵצָה בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ:

Her fruits: How so? They enacted that he should eat the fruits of his wife's property in return for redeeming her, for they obligated him to redeem her. And if he says: I don't want the fruits and I won't redeem her, they don't listen to him. And the same is true if she says: I don't want this enactment, they don't listen to her.

Se’if 2ב׳

נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, הֵם הַנְּדוּנְיָא דְּהַנְעַלַת לֵהּ בְּגָדִים אוֹ בְּהֵמָה וַעֲבָדִים וּמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוּת (טוּר), אִם מֵתוּ, מֵתוּ לוֹ; וְאִם הוֹתִירוֹ, הוֹתִירוֹ לוֹ; וְכֵן אִם פָּחֲתוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ, הַכֹּל לוֹ. וְנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג, הֵם נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵינָן בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ (גַּם זֶה טוּר), אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ אוֹ פָּחֲתוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ נֶאֶבְדוּ, הַכֹּל לָהּ, שֶׁאֵין לַבַּעַל בָּהֶן אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּרוֹת; וְאִם פָּשַׁע הַבַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג, וְנֶאֶבְדוּ, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא עִמּוֹ בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ וְהָוֵי פְּשִׁיעָה בִּבְעָלִים. הַגָּה: עַיֵּן לְעֵיל סִימָן ע"ז סָעִיף ג', כָּתַבְתִּי דִּין בִּגְדֵי אִשָּׁה אִם מִקְּרֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אוֹ נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג. הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁהַבַּעַל שָׁם לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ, דִּינוֹ כְּצֹאן בַּרְזֶל (תְּשׁוּבַת רֹא"שׁ) וְעַיֵּן לְקַמָּן סִימָן צ' סָעִיף ט"ז:

Iron sheep property: This is the dowry that she brought in to the marriage, clothes, or animals or slaves and he took responsibility for them (Tur). If they die, they die for him. And if they increase, they increase for him. And similarly if they decrease or are stolen, or lost, everything is to him. And pluckable property: This is the property for which he has no responsibility (Tur). If they die or increase or decrease or are stolen, or lost, everything is to her, for the husband has rights only to the fruit. And if the husband is negligent with the pluckable property, and they were lost, he is exempt, for she is working with him and this is considered "negligence in the presence of the owners." Hagah: See above siman 17, p. 3, where I wrote the law of the woman's clothes, whether they are considered iron sheep property or pluckable property. The field that the husband appointed for her ketubah, its rule is as iron sheep property (Responsa of the Rosh). And see below, siman 90, p. 16.

Se’if 3ג׳

יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר, דְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שָׁמוּ אוֹתָם עָלָיו בְּדָמִים קְצוּבִים, אוֹ שֶׁקִּבֵּל אַחֲרָיוּתָן בְּפֵרוּשׁ. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר, שֶׁמֵּאַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבָן בַּכְּתֻבָּה, נִתְחַיֵּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמוּ אוֹתָם וְלֹא נִתְחַיֵּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָם. וְהָרִאשׁוֹן עִקָּר:

There are those that say: that [regarding] the assets of a flock in iron, there is no requirement of a guarantee. Rather if thusly there was an appraisal of them in blood measures, or that a guarantee is received clearly. And there are those that say: that the since it is written in the ketuba (marriage contract), one is obligated in [the making of a] guarantee even though there is no appraisal on them and one is not obligated in their guarantee. And the first principle is: