💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2078b captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:49:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] The Gemara replies: **Come** and **hear** an answer to this question, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda said** that **they said before Rabban Gamliel: Since this** one, when she is fully married, is legally **his wife, and that one,** when she is merely betrothed, is legally **his wife,** therefore, just as for **this** married one **her sale is void, so** too, for **this** betrothed one **her sale** should be **void.** Rabban Gamliel **said to them: With regard to the new** property, which she inherited after marriage, **we are ashamed** of this ruling, **while you** seek to **impose upon us** the same ruling even with regard to **the old** property that she owned beforehand? **Learn from this** that Rabbi Yehuda **stated** his question with regard to the *halakha* of a case brought **after the fact,** as they claim that the sale should be void. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from this** that it is so.
‎[2] **It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya said** that **Rabban Gamliel did not respond to the Sages in that** manner. **Rather, this** is what **he replied to them: No, if you said** that the sale is void **with regard to a married** woman, concerning whom the husband has many rights, **as her husband is entitled to** items she has **found and to her earnings and to** the right to **nullify her vows, will you say** the same **with regard to a betrothed woman, whose husband is not entitled to** items she has **found, nor** to **her earnings, nor** to the right of **nullification of her vows?**
‎[3] The Sages **said to him: My teacher,** this reasoning is accepted if **she sold** it **for herself before she was married,** but if **she was married and afterward sold** the property she had earlier inherited, **what is** the *halakha*? Rabban Gamliel **said to them: Even this one may sell** the property **and give** it away, **and** her action is **valid. They said to him: Since he acquired the woman, will he not acquire the property? He said to them: With regard to the new** property she inherited later **we are ashamed, and** now **you impose upon us the old** property?
‎[4] The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: If she inherited property **before she was married and was** later **married, Rabban Gamliel says: If she sold** it **or gave** the property away, the transaction is **valid.** The wording of the *baraita*, in contrast, indicates that she may sell or give the property away *ab initio*.
‎[5] **Rav Zevid said: Teach** the text of the mishna as follows: **She may sell and give** away the property, **and** her transaction is **valid. Rav Pappa stated** another answer: This is **not difficult,** as **this** mishna is consistent with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda according to** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel,** but **that** *baraita* is consistent with the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya according to** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel.** The Gemara poses a question: If so, then apparently **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya** agrees **with Beit Shammai,** as Beit Hillel maintain that she may not sell the property *ab initio* even while she is betrothed; yet it is well known that the *halakha* is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: **This is what** Rabbi Ḥanina **is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter** of property that a woman inherited before marriage, as they agree she may sell it *ab initio*.
‎[6] The Gemara cites the opinions of **Rav and Shmuel, who both say: Whether property was bequeathed to her before she was betrothed,** or **whether property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed and she was** then **married,** and after her marriage she sold it or gave it away, **the husband may repossess** the property **from the purchasers.**
‎[7] The Gemara asks: **According to whose** opinion was this stated? It is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya,** who both maintain that the sale is valid. The Gemara answers: **They,** i.e., Rav and Shmuel, **say** so, **in accordance with** the opinion of **our Rabbis. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Our Rabbis returned and voted** after discussing this issue and decided that **whether property was bequeathed to her before she was betrothed,** or **whether property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed and she was** subsequently **married, the husband may repossess** it **from the purchasers.**
‎[8] § It was taught in the mishna that if she inherited the property **after she was married,** both **these,** Beit Shammai, **and those,** Beit Hillel, **agree** that the husband may repossess it from the buyers. The Gemara comments: **Let us say** that **we** already **learned** in the mishna about **the** rabbinic **ordinance** instituted in **Usha.** As **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: In Usha they instituted** an ordinance that in the case of **a woman who sold her usufruct property,** i.e., property that she alone owns and her husband benefits only from the dividends, **in her husband’s lifetime and** then **died, the husband repossesses** it **from the purchasers.** This appears to be the same *halakha* stated by the mishna.
‎[9] The Gemara responds: This is not so, as **the mishna** is discussing the husband’s claim **during her lifetime, and** it is referring only **to** the value of **the produce** that the husband collects from the purchasers if she sold the land during their marriage, as the produce of usufruct property belongs to him but the land itself remains fully in the possession of the buyer. **The ordinance of Usha,** in contrast, applies even **to the land itself, and** even **after** the **death** of his wife he may repossess it because he inherits it.
‎[10] § The mishna further taught that **Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between property** that is known to the husband and property that is unknown to him. The Gemara asks: **Which** properties **are** deemed **known and which** properties **are** deemed **unknown? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:** Property that is **known** is referring to **land,** which cannot be concealed. The husband knew that she would inherit it, and he married her with the intention of using its produce. Property **that is unknown** is referring to **movable property. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Both **these,** land, **and those,** movable property, **are** deemed **known** property. **And these are unknown** properties: They are properties in **any** case **where she resides here and property was bequeathed to her overseas.** Since the husband did not consider this property when marrying her, the sale is binding after the fact.
‎[11] The Gemara comments: **That** opinion **is also taught** in a *baraita*. The *baraita* states: **These are unknown** properties: They are properties in **any** case **where she resides here and property was bequeathed to her overseas.**
‎[12] The Gemara relates: There was **a certain woman** who was about to remarry after she was divorced or widowed, **who sought to distance** the rights to **her property from her** future **husband. She** therefore **wrote** a document stipulating that her property be given as a gift **to her daughter** before marriage. Ultimately, the mother **was married and** then **divorced.** She wanted her daughter to return the property, and her daughter claimed that it was given to her as a gift.
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC