Bava Batra 49b — the Talmud in English

An inheritance coming to him

that is destined to come to him

to a person from another place,

that is, an inheritance which he will inherit only by rabbinic enactment, namely, his wife’s inheritance:

A person stipulates concerning it that he will not inherit it,

such as when he says, “I have no claim or concern regarding that inheritance destined to come to me”; and just as he can withdraw from his wife’s inheritance—before it has come into his possession—since it is by rabbinic enactment, so can he withdraw from what the Sages enacted, namely, the usufruct of nikhsei melog for the husband, since while she is betrothed he writes this to her, when they have not yet come into his possession.

And in accordance with Rava! For Rava said:

Anyone who says “

I do not wish for the enactment of the Sages

that they made for my benefit,”

such as

an enactment

of this sort

that they were discussing in the beit-midrash, and it is by rabbinic enactment [and he proceeds to explain it],

we heed him,

for the Sages do not confer a benefit upon a person against his will.

The Gemara asks:

What is “

of this sort”

that Rava said—that is, concerning which enactment did Rava state his principle?

And the Gemara explains: They were occupied at that time in the beit-midrash with the enactment concerning sustenance—which they enacted: the husband shall provide sustenance for his wife, and in exchange, her earnings shall belong to him—and Rava said that in a case of this sort, if the woman said, “I do not wish for the enactment of the Sages, and I do not want my husband to give me sustenance, and I too will not give him my earnings,” she may say so—

And Rava came to teach us

in accordance with Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav! For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

A woman can say to her husband: “

I will not be sustained, and I will not work,”

because the principal purpose of the enactment of the Sages was sustenance for the woman, whereas her labor is compensation for the sustenance, and not in accordance with the view of those who disagree and hold in tractate Ketubot 58b that the principal purpose of the enactment of the Sages was that her labor belong to her husband, and the Sages enacted the sustenance in exchange for her labor; and according to their view she cannot say, “I will not be sustained, and I will not work,” for the principal enactment was not for her benefit.

Here the Gemara returns to the words of the Mishna that we learned: “Nor does a man establish presumptive ownership with regard to his wife’s property,” and it infers:

The presumption is that a man has no basis for proving through it that he purchased his wife’s property;

but proof

through witnesses or a document

there is

[it is effective for him to prove his claim that she sold it to him]; that is, if it is indeed clarified that the woman sold him the field, then her sale is a valid sale—!?

And why

? Let her say

[the woman should say]: “

I acted to please my husband

by selling it to him, so that he would not become angry with me, but it was not my intention to transfer ownership of the property to him”—!?

For

did we not learn

in a Mishna in Ketubot 95a that a woman can make a claim similar to this—!?

But we learned:

A person purchased

a field

from the man,

and it is, after all, encumbered to the woman for collection of her ketuba, like all his other fields,

and then he purchased from the woman,

that is, after his purchase, he came to the woman and had her sign a document that she would have no lien upon the property that he purchased from her husband; therefore

his purchase

of the buyer

is void,

that is, she can still collect her ketuba from this property, despite having signed the cancellation of the lien.

Evidently,

for it is proven from this Mishna that she

said

[she can say]: “

I acted to please my husband

and therefore I signed,” and if so,

here too,

let her say

[the woman should say]: “

I acted to please my husband

and therefore I sold it to him”—!?

And we answer:

It was stated concerning it

of that Mishna:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

It was necessary—

what we learned, “His purchase is void

”—only with regard to those three fields

[and he proceeds to explain them], which are more encumbered to her than the other property, and her mind relies upon them more; and specifically with these is his purchase void, for she certainly did not resolve in her mind and transfer ownership, but merely acted to please her husband. And these are they:

One:

a field

that he wrote for her in the

document of

her ketuba,

that is, he explicitly encumbered it in the ketuba document for payment of her ketuba.