Ketubot 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

And we resolve it:

Come and hear:

from this

as it was taught

in the Tosefta:

Rabbi Yehuda said: They said before Rabban Gamliel: Since this is his wife [a betrothed woman],

betrothed ],

and this is his wife [a married woman],

then, just as

this [married woman]

married ]

her sale is void, so too this [betrothed woman]

betrothed ]

her sale should be void?

He said to them: We are embarrassed on account of the new ones; but you are piling the old ones upon us.

Conclude from it that he was speaking of the case after the fact!

For they explicitly challenged him that her sale should be void!

Conclude from it!

We learned in our Mishna: “If property fell into her possession after she became betrothed ... Rabbi Yehuda said: The Sages said before Rabban Gamliel:; and he said to them: We are embarrassed on account of the new ones, but you are piling the old ones upon us?”

But in the beraita

it was taught: Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia said: Rabban Gamliel did not answer the Sages in this manner. Rather, he answered them as follows:

No. If you spoke of a married woman, that is because her husband is entitled to her lost property, to the products of her labor, and to the annulment of her vows,

and therefore, if she sold the property, he takes it from the purchasers.

Would you say the same concerning a betrothed woman—

whose husband is entitled neither to her lost property, nor to the products of her labor, nor to the annulment of her vows

except jointly with her father? Even in that case would he take it from the purchasers?!

Rather, it is certainly impossible to compare the two cases!

They said to him: Rabbi,

you answered us with regard to the case in which

she sold the property before she married.

But if

she married and then sold it—

what is the halakha?

Does the husband also take it from the purchasers in this case?

He said to them: This one too may sell and give away the property, and the transaction stands,

even initially!

They said to him:

Why should we not say in this case, since she has already married and he has certainly acquired rights in her,

“Since he acquired the woman, should he not acquire the property as well”?!

He said to them: We are embarrassed on account of the new ones, but you are piling the old ones upon us?!

This is the version of Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia in the beraita.

And we challenge this:

But

indeed

we learned

in the Mishna that if she sold or gave away the property

before she married, and then married, Rabban Gamliel says:

If she sold or gave it away, the transaction stands!

This implies that it stands only after the fact, but initially she may not sell it; whereas in the beraita Rabban Gamliel said, “This one too may sell and give away the property, and the transaction stands,” implying that she may do so even initially?

And we answer:

Rav Zevid said: Read

[let us read in the Mishna]:

She may sell and give away the property, and the transaction stands,

even initially.

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult!

This

statement that she may not sell initially refers to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda in accordance with Rabban Gamliel,

and

this

statement that she may sell initially refers to the view of

Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

And we challenge this:

But

does

did Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia

hold

in accordance with Beit Shammai?

For according to the version of Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia, Rabban Gamliel held that even after she married, she may initially sell property that fell into her possession before the marriage. But according to Beit Hillel, she may not sell it initially even after betrothal; all the more so, she may not sell it initially after marriage. And we answer:

This is what he is saying:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning this matter.

For Rabbi Hanina did not have the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning this matter at all.

Rav and Shmuel both said: Whether property fell into her possession before she became betrothed, or whether property fell into her possession after she became betrothed, and she then married, the husband takes it from the purchasers.

And we challenge this:

In accordance with whom?

According to whose version did Rav and Shmuel hold? Their statement is

neither in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda nor in accordance with Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia

according to Rabban Gamliel. According to those opinions, the husband does not take it from the purchasers: according to Rabbi Hanina, she may sell it initially, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, her sale stands only after the fact. And we answer:

They stated the view of our Rabbis .

As it was taught: Our Rabbis reconsidered the matter and reached a consensus,

and the halakha was established accordingly:

Whether property fell into her possession before she became betrothed, or whether property fell into her possession after she became betrothed, and she then married,

if she sold it—

the husband takes it from the purchasers.

We learned in the Mishna:

After she married—

all agree

that if she sold or gave away the property, the husband takes it from the purchaser.”

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say that we have learned the ordinance of Usha [does our Mishna teach the ordinance of Usha]?!

does our Mishna teach the ordinance of Usha ]?!

And what is the ordinance of Usha?

For Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: In Usha they instituted:

With regard to a woman who sold usufruct property during her husband’s lifetime and then died, the husband takes it from the purchasers.

And if this ordinance was already taught in the Mishna, why was it necessary to institute it in Usha? And we answer:

The Mishna

deals

during her lifetime, and

with the husband’s right

to

take the

produce

from the purchasers. But after the woman’s death, he returns the land to the purchasers.

But

the ordinance of Usha

deals with the husband’s right

to the actual land, and

they instituted that even

after her death

the land belongs to the husband.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between property

and property Property known to the husband—she may not sell it, and if she sold or gave it away, the transaction is void. Property unknown to the husband—she may not sell it, but if she sold or gave it away, the transaction stands.

The Gemara explains:

Which are

the

known

assets whose sale is void,

and which are

the assets

unknown [to the husband]?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Known—

real estate.

It is public knowledge, and the husband certainly knew of it. He married her with this in mind. Therefore, if she sold it, the sale is void.

Unknown—

movable property.

It is not public knowledge, and he does not know of it. Therefore, if she sold or gave it away, the transaction stands.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

Both of these are known [to the husband].

And which are the unknown assets?

Any property that fell into her possession while she was sitting here, in a foreign country.

It was taught likewise [and so we learned in a beraita]—

and so we learned in a beraita ]:

Which are the unknown assets? Any property that fell into her possession while she was sitting here, in a foreign country:

There was a certain woman who wished to conceal her assets from her husband [a case involving a widow who was about to marry a second time and wished that her new husband would not acquire rights to her assets, either with regard to consuming their produce during her lifetime or inheriting them after her death],

It happened that a widow was about to marry again and wanted her new husband not to acquire rights to her property, either to consume its produce during her lifetime or to inherit it after her death ],

What did she do?

She wrote them over to her daughter [she wrote a deed of gift for the assets and gave it to her daughter]. But her intention was only to conceal her assets from her husband.

She wrote a deed of gift for the property and gave it to her daughter ]. But her intention was only to conceal her property from her husband .

She married him, and then she was divorced. [She married, and she was divorced].

She married and then divorced ].