Ketubot 83a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who writes to his wife —

“I have no legal claim or involvement in your property,”

that is, the husband,

may consume the produce

of her property

during her lifetime, but if she dies—

he inherits her .

Perhaps you might say:

If so, why did he write to her, “I have no legal claim or involvement in your property,”

when his words accomplished nothing?

One can say that this accomplished the following:

If she sold

the property, or

gave

it to someone else as a gift, her sale or gift would be

valid .

And if

he wrote to her—

“I have no legal claim or involvement in your property or its produce,” then

he may not consume the produce

during her lifetime,

because he withdrew from the right to consume the produce.

But if she dies, he inherits her,

because he did not withdraw from his right of inheritance.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In every case,

even if he wrote to his wife, “I have no legal claim or involvement in your property or its produce,” he withdrew only from consuming the produce itself, but he still

consumes the produce of the produce,

until he writes to her—

“I have no legal claim or involvement in your property or its produce, or in the produce of its produce, forever.”

And if

he wrote to her—

“I have no legal claim or involvement in your property or its produce, or in the produce of its produce

during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not consume the produce during her lifetime, and

likewise

if she dies—

he does not inherit her.

But

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

even if he wrote to her “during your lifetime and after your death,” in any event

if she dies, he inherits her

. Because

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the husband’s inheritance is mandated by Torah law, and therefore he

is stipulating

against that which is written in the Torah, and whenever one stipulates against that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.

But regarding the consumption of produce, since that right was established by the Sages, the condition is effective.

Gemara:

Rabbi Hiyya taught

at the beginning of our Mishna

“One who says to his wife,”

and not “One who writes to his wife.” This teaches us that he can withdraw merely by making a verbal statement, without any act of acquisition or written document. The Gemara asks:

And if he wrote this to her,

and certainly if he merely said to her the words “I have no legal claim or involvement,”

what is accomplished?

This wording is not effective.

And

the proof is from the following source, where it is

taught

regarding a field owned by partners partner

who says to his fellow, “I have no legal claim or involvement in

that is, I will have no claim

to this field

in which we are partners,

and I have no business in it, and my hand is withdrawn from it—he has said nothing.”

If so, here too, how can saying “I have no legal claim or involvement” be effective to remove the husband’s right to consume the produce?

The Gemara answers:

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai say:

Our Mishna deals with

a

case in which the husband

was writing to her “I have no legal claim or involvement, etc.,”

прав и так далее»,

while she was still betrothed .

In this case, his withdrawal is effective, because he has not yet acquired rights in the property until the marriage. As long as he has not acquired rights in the property, he can withdraw from it.

This is

the law of

Rav Kahana. For Rav Kahana said:

With regard to an inheritance that comes to a person from another source,

meaning that it is not an inheritance from his ancestors , but is destined to come to him through his own actions, such as his wife’s property, which comes into his possession through the marriage,

a person may stipulate regarding it that he will not inherit it;

that is, he may withdraw from it and say, “I have no legal claim or involvement in it.” Therefore, in our Mishna, since he has not yet acquired rights in the property, the wording “I have no legal claim or involvement” is effective to remove his rights from it.

And this is

the law of

Rava. For Rava said:

One who says, “I do not wish to accept a rabbinic enactment,” as in this case, is heeded.

The Gemara explains:

What is meant by “as in this case”?

As in the statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav. For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman may say to her husband, “I will not be sustained

by you,

and I will not perform work

for you, but only for myself.”

Here too, since the husband’s acquisition of rights in his wife’s property derives from a rabbinic enactment established for his benefit, he can stipulate against it and say, “I do not wish to accept a rabbinic enactment.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

if it is indeed the case that a person can say, “I do not wish to accept a rabbinic enactment,”

even after the marriage as well

he should be able to withdraw by saying, “I do not wish to accept the rabbinic enactment established for my benefit, which grants me the right to consume the produce.” Why, then, did we need to establish the Mishna as dealing with a husband who wrote this to her while she was still betrothed?

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

After the

marriage,

he cannot withdraw even by saying, “I do not wish to accept a rabbinic enactment,” because

his hand is like her hand,

and he has already acquired rights in the property with regard to its produce. In such a case, withdrawal is not effective; only a complete act of acquisition is effective.

This is unlike the enactment concerning sustenance, because the woman has not yet acquired the sustenance, and she can say, “I will not be sustained by you, and I will not perform work for you.”

In passing, the Gemara cites Rava’s statement, in which he disagrees with Abaye regarding the nature of the husband’s acquisition of rights in his wife’s property:

Rava said: The husband’s hand

is

stronger than the woman’s hand.

And the practical difference is in the case of

a woman awaiting levirate marriage .

It was asked of them:

The students in the beit-midrash were uncertain: If one says to his fellow, “I have no claim or dealings concerning this field,” and

he had him acquire it from him

through a kinyan sudar concerning his words.

What is [the ruling]?

Did he intend to transfer the substance of the land through the kinyan, in which case the land is indeed acquired? Or perhaps his intention in the kinyan was only to uphold his words, which he said, “I have no claim or dealings,” and since this expression is ineffective, the kinyan was likewise ineffective.

Rav Yosef said:

In this case, certainly

from

the wording

“I have no claim or dealings,” they had him acquire it from him.

And this expression is ineffective.

But

Rav Naḥman said:

Certainly, if they performed a kinyan, then

they had him acquire from him the substance of the land.

And the kinyan is effective.

Abaye said: Rav Yosef’s statement stands to reason

that he said that the kinyan is ineffective—