Ketubot 78a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If a woman to whom property fell

which she received

property

through inheritance or as a gift,

before she was betrothed, —

before she was betrothed — and she was betrothed,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell and give, and it stands .

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!

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.

Both [schools] agree that if she sold

or

gave,

what she sold

stands.

And their reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Judah said: The Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman

at the time of betrothal,

will he not acquire the property?!

And the Gemara will explain that their intention was to raise a difficulty both against Beit Shammai and against Beit Hillel: why can the husband not take [the property] from the purchasers?

He said to them

Rabban Gamliel:

Regarding the new [cases],

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

we are embarrassed,

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

But you are making us answer for the old [cases]

that is, that even if she sold before the marriage, the husband will take [the property] from the purchasers

?! And the Mishna continues: If

property fell to her

property

after she was married, both [schools] agree —

that if she sold or gave it, the husband takes

the produce

from the purchasers.

And it is an institution of the Sages, so that the woman should not be able to hide her property from her husband and prevent him from eating the produce.

But if property fell to her

before she was married ,

and

afterward

she married,

and she wishes to sell her property,

Rabban Gamliel says:

ab initio she should not sell, but

if she sold or gave it —

it stands.

And the husband does not take it from the purchasers.

Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya said: The Sages said

before

Rabban Gamliel,

why does the husband not take it from the purchasers,

since he acquired the woman

when he married her,

will he not acquire the property

that is hers?!

He said to them: Regarding the new [cases] we are embarrassed

as explained,

but you are making us answer for the old [cases]?!

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

Rabbi Shimon disagrees

distinguishing

between properties.

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

property known to the husband

that he knew before the marriage that this property would fall to her through inheritance after the marriage, and he married her on that understanding, expecting that this inheritance would fall to her,

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

But property

not known to the husband,

ab initio —

she should not sell. And if she sold or gave it, it stands.

And in the Gemara Rabbi Shimon's view will be explained in greater detail.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that if property fell to her before the betrothal and she was 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 concerning it:

What is different in the first clause,

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

that they do not disagree,

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

and what is different in the latter clause,

where property fell to her after the betrothal,

that they disagree?

After all, he already acquired his wife after the betrothal; why may she sell it ab initio?

And the Gemara answers —

the school of Rabbi Yannai say:

In the

first clause

she may sell it, since

it fell through her merit.

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 merit.

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

And we raise an objection:

If it fell through his merit, why, if she sold or gave it, does it stand?

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

And on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara establishes the words of the Mishna 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 merit.

But in the

latter clause,

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

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

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

And therefore —

ab initio she should not sell,

because of the uncertainty, but

if she sold or gave it, it stands .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah said: The Sages said before Rabban Gamliel

since he acquired the woman, will he not acquire the property?!

And the Gemara is uncertain:

They raised a dilemma before them: Did Rabbi Judah refer to ab initio or to after the fact?

That is: was the objection, “They said to him,” directed only against the words of Beit Shammai — why does she sell ab initio after the betrothal? Or perhaps they also objected to the words of Beit Hillel — why, after the fact, if she sold or gave it, does it stand?