Ketubot 78a (עח.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A woman to whom property fell

who received

property

through inheritance or as a gift,

before she was betrothed,

before she became betrothed—and then she became betrothed,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell it or give it away, and it remains valid .

That is, as long as she has not married, she may sell or give this property to whomever she wishes, and her husband has no right to take the produce from the purchasers.

But if

property fell to her

property

after she was betrothed—

Beit Shammai say: She may sell it!

And the husband has no right to take it from the purchasers, since he did not acquire it until the time of marriage.

And Beit Hillel say:

Ab initio—

she should not sell it.

Both these and those agree that if she sold it

or

gave it away,

what she sold

remains valid.

Their rationale will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehuda said: The Sages said before Rabban Gamliel, since he acquired the woman

at the time of betrothal,

would he not acquire the property?!

The Gemara will explain that their question was directed both at Beit Shammai and at Beit Hillel: Why can the husband not take it from the purchasers?

He said to them,

Rabban Gamliel:

As for the new cases,

that is, the law stated later in the Mishna—that the husband takes the produce from the purchasers when property fell to the woman after she married—

we are embarrassed,

what did the Sages see that led them to institute this?

But you are imposing upon us the old cases

that is, that even if she sold the property before marriage, the husband would take it from the purchasers ?!

The Mishna continues: If

property fell to her

property

after she married, both these and those agree—

that if she sold it or gave it away, the husband takes it

the produce

from the purchasers.

This is a rabbinic enactment, so that the woman would not be able to conceal her property from her husband and prevent him from consuming its produce.

But if property fell to her

before she married ,

and

afterward

she married,

and she wishes to sell her property,

Rabban Gamliel says:

Ab initio she should not sell it, but

if she sold it or gave it away—

it remains valid.

The husband does not take it from the purchasers.

Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia said: The Sages said

the Sages

before Rabban Gamliel:

Why does the husband not take it from the purchasers,

since he acquired the woman

when he married her,

would he not acquire the property

that belongs to her?!

He said to them: As for the new cases, we are embarrassed

as explained

but you are imposing upon us the old cases!?

That even if she sold property that fell to her before the marriage, the husband would take it from the purchasers?!.

Rabbi Shimon disagrees

he distinguishes

between different properties.

There are properties that, if she sold them after marriage, the husband takes them from the purchasers, and there are properties that he does not take:

property known to the husband

that is, he knew before the marriage that this property would fall to her through inheritance after the marriage, and he married her with this in mind, anticipating that she would receive that inheritance

she should not sell it, and if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is void.

But property

unknown to the husband,

ab initio—

she should not sell it. But if she sold it or gave it away, it remains valid.

The Gemara will explain Rabbi Shimon's view in greater detail.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that if property fell to her before the betrothal and she then became betrothed, according to everyone she may sell it ab initio. But if it fell to her after the betrothal, according to Beit Hillel she should not sell it ab initio.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the difference in the first clause,

where property fell to her before the betrothal and she then became betrothed,

that they do not disagree,

Beit Hillel agreeing that she may sell it ab initio, even though she is now betrothed,

and what is the difference in the latter clause,

where property fell to her after the betrothal,

that they disagree?

For he had already acquired his wife after the betrothal; why, then, may she sell it ab initio?

The Gemara answers:

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai say:

In the

first clause

she may sell it, since

it fell through her own right.

That is, she acquired it before she entered the husband's domain.

But in the

latter clause,

where property fell to her after the betrothal, she should not sell it ab initio, since

it fell through his right.

That is, she had already entered his domain and he had acquired it.

And we object:

If it fell through his right, why, if she sold it or gave it away, does it remain valid?

Did the Sages not institute that the husband takes it from the purchasers if she sold her property while married to him?

By virtue of this objection, the Gemara establishes the Mishna's statements differently:

Rather, the first clause,

where property fell to her before the betrothal, she may sell it ab initio, because

it certainly fell through her own right.

But in the

latter clause,

where property fell to her after the betrothal, when the matter is uncertain—whether they will ultimately marry or not—

perhaps it fell through her right, perhaps it fell through his right.

It is uncertain whether it fell while in her domain or while in his domain ,

Therefore—

ab initio she should not sell it,

because of the uncertainty, but

if she sold it or gave it away, it remains valid .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: The Sages said before Rabban Gamliel

Since he acquired the woman, would he not acquire the property?!

The Gemara raises a question:

They raised a dilemma before them: Is Rabbi Yehuda referring to the ab initio ruling or to the after-the-fact ruling?

That is: Was the question, “They said to him,” directed only at the statement of Beit Shammai—why may she sell it ab initio after the betrothal? Or perhaps they also challenged the statement of Beit Hillel: Why, after the fact, if she sold it or gave it away, does it remain valid?