Ketubot 78b — 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 ,

betrothed ],

and this is his wife

[married], then, just as

this one

[the married woman]

her sale is void, so this one

[the betrothed woman]

her sale is void?”

He said to them: “With regard to the new [cases] we are ashamed, but you are rolling the old [cases] upon us.”

Conclude from it that he is speaking of a 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 to her after she became betrothed ... Rabbi Yehuda said: The Sages said before Rabban Gamliel:; he said to them: ‘With regard to the new [cases] we are ashamed, but you are rolling the old [cases] upon us’?”

But in the baraita

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

“No. If you said this with regard to a married woman, [it is] because her husband has rights to what she finds, to the product of her hands, and to the annulment of her vows,

and therefore, if she sold [the property], he removes it from the purchasers.

“Can you say [the same] with regard to a betrothed woman—

whose husband has no rights to what she finds, nor to the product of her hands, nor to the annulment of her vows

exclusively, but only in partnership with the father? Even in that case, will he remove it from the purchasers?!

Rather, certainly, the two cases cannot be compared!

They said to him: “Rabbi,

you answered us in a case where she

sold [the property] before she married.”

But where she

married and afterward sold [it]—

what

[is the law]? Does the husband also remove it from the purchasers?

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

even from the outset!

They said to him,

why should it not be said 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: “With regard to the new [cases] we are ashamed, but you are rolling the old [cases] upon us”?!

Up to here is Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya’s version of the baraita.

And we challenge it:

But

surely

we learned

in the Mishna that if she sold and gave [the property]

before she married, and she married, Rabban Gamliel says—

if she sold and gave [it], [the transaction] stands!

And it implies only after the fact, but from the outset she may not sell; whereas in the baraita Rabban Gamliel said, “This one too may sell and give, and [the transaction] stands,” implying even from the outset?

And we answer:

Rav Zevid said: Teach

[let us read in the Mishna]:

“She may sell and give, and [the transaction] stands,”

even from the outset .

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult!

This

statement that we say she may not sell from the outset is according to

Rabbi Yehuda in accordance with Rabban Gamliel,

and

this

statement that we say she may sell from the outset is according to

Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

And we challenge it:

But

does

Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya

hold

in accordance with Beit Shammai?

For according to Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya’s version, Rabban Gamliel holds that even after she married she may sell from the outset property that fell to her before the marriage; and according to Beit Hillel she may not sell from the outset even after betrothal—how much more so may she not sell from the outset after marriage? And we answer:

This is what he is saying—

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

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

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

And we challenge it:

In accordance with whom?

According to whose version did Rav and Shmuel hold? Their words are

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

in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, for according to them the husband does not remove it from the purchasers; rather, according to Rabbi Hanina she may sell from the outset, and according to Rabbi Yehuda [the transaction stands] after the fact . And we answer:

They stated [their ruling] in accordance with our Masters .

As it was taught: “Our Masters reconsidered the matter and reached a decision,”

and the halakha was established in this manner—

whether it fell to her before she became betrothed, or whether it fell to her after she became betrothed, and she married,

if she sold [it]—

the husband removes it from the purchasers.

We learned in the Mishna:

After she married—

both of these and those agree

that if she sold or gave [the property], the husband removes it from the purchaser”:.

And the Gemara asks:

Can we say that we learned the ordinance of Usha

[is it possible to say that our Mishna taught the ordinance of Usha] ?!

And what is the ordinance of Usha?

For Rav Yosef son of Rabbi Hanina said: In Usha they instituted—

a woman who sold usufruct property during her husband’s lifetime and died, the husband removes it from the purchasers.

And if this ordinance was 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

remove 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 substance of the land, and

they instituted that even

after 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, and if she sold or gave [it], the transaction is void; property not known to the husband—she may not sell, but if she sold or gave [it], the transaction stands .

And the Gemara explains:

What are

property

known

whose sale is void,

and what are

property

not known?

Rabbi Yosef son of Rabbi Hanina said: “Known”—

land.

It has publicity, and surely the husband knew about it. And he married her with this in mind. Therefore, if she sold [it], the sale is void.

“Not known”—

movable property.

It has no publicity, and he does not know about it. Therefore, if she sold or gave [it], the transaction stands.

And Rabbi Yohanan said—

both of these are known .

And what is [property] not known—

anything where she is sitting here and property fell to her in an overseas country .

It was also taught so

[and so we learned in a baraita]—

what is [property] not known? Anything where she is sitting here and property fell to her in an overseas country:

There was a certain woman who wanted to conceal her property from her husband

[an incident involving a widow who came to marry a second time and wanted her new husband not to acquire rights to her property, both with regard to consuming its produce during her lifetime and to inheriting it after her death],

What did she do?

She wrote it to her daughter

[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, and she was divorced.

[she married, and she was divorced].