כתובות ח׳Ketubot 8

Mishnah

משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִתְאָרֵס מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁאִם מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת קַיָים. נָפלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים תִּמְכּוֹר וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים לֹא תִמְכּוֹר. אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הוֹאִיל וְזָכָה בָאִשָּׁה לֹא יִזְכֶּה בַנְּכָסִים. אָמַר לָהֶם עַל הַחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁין אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַיְשָׁנִים.

MISHNAH: If a woman inherited property before she became preliminarily married, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel agree that if she sells or gives it away it is valid. If she inherited after she became preliminarily married, the House of Shammai say she may sell, the House of Hillel say she should not sell, but both of them agree that if she sold or gave it away it is valid. Rebbi Jehudah said: They said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, should he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties] and you want to burden us with the old ones?

Halakhah

הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים כול׳. כִּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה. מַה בֵין עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה מַה בֵין מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה לִזְכוּתָהּ נָפְלוּ. מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לִזְכוּתָהּ וְלִזְכוּתוֹ נָפְלוּ.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman inherited property,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Before she was preliminarily married. What is the difference between before she was preliminarily married and after she was preliminarily married? Before she was preliminarily married, it fell to her; after she was preliminarily married it fell to her and him.

רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּיתָהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא דָּבָר חָמוּר מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין וְקַל מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין. בְּרַם הָכָא חוֹמֶר הוּא מִצַּד אֶחָד וְקַל מִצַּד אֶחָד. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִין. הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִיִים. הֲרֵי הוּא קַל לָעֲנִיִים וְחוֹמֶר הוּא לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. וְתַנִּיתָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. קַל הוּא לָעֲנִיִים וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. שֶׁמִּדַּעְתּוֹ הֶבְקִירוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְגָפָה וּלְגָדִישׁ וּלְבָקָר וּלְכֵלִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ. הֲרֵי הוּא קַל לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְחוֹמֶר הוּא לָעֲנִיִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. קַל הוּא לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לָעֲנִיִים. שֶׁאַדָּיִין לֹא זָכוּ בוֹ. וֶאֱמוֹר אוּף הָכָא. קַל הוּא לָאִשָּׁה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לְבַעַל. שֶׁאַדָּיִין לֹא זָכָה בָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ לִזְכוּתָהּ וְלִזְכוּתוֹ נָפְלוּ.

Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot apply only to circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor [is abandoned]?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָא. אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הוֹאִיל וְהָאֲרוּסָה אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא וְהַנְּשׂוּאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא. מַה זֶה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל אַף זֶה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. אָמַר לָהֶן בַּחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁים אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין חֲדָשִׁים עַל הַיְּשָׁנִים. אֵילּוּ הֵן חֲדָשִׁים. מִשֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת. וְאֵילוּ הֵן יְשָׁנִים. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת וְנִישֵּׂאת.

Rebbi Jehudah said, they argued before Rabban Gamliel: Because preliminarily married she is his wife and definitively married she is his wife; just as the sale by the latter is void, the sale by the former also should be void. He said to them, we are ashamed of the new ones, now you want to roll the new on over the old ones! The new ones, after the definitive marriage; the old ones before the definitive marriage, when she was married in the second ceremony.

Mishnah

משנה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלְּקוּחוֹת. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת וְנִשֵּׂאת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן עֲקִיבָה אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוֹאִיל וְזָכָה בָאִשָּׁה לֹא זָכָה בַנְּכָסִים. אָמַר לָהֶן עַל הַחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁים אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַיְשָׁנִים.

MISHNAH: If she inherited property after she was definitively married, both agree that if she sold or gave away the husband retrieves from the hand of the buyers. [If she interited] before she was definitively married and [sold] after she was definitively married, Rabban Gamliel said if she sold or gave away it is valid. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, they said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, did he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties], and you want to burden us with the old ones?

Halakhah

הלכה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן. וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן עֲקִיבָה. לֹא כֵן הֵשִׁיבָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֶלָּא כֵן הֵשִׁיבָן. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתֶּם בָּאֲרוּסָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זַכַּאי לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. תֹּאמַר בִּנְשׂוּאָה שֶׁהוּא זַכַּאי בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. הֲרֵי עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת וְנִשֵּׂאת תּוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא זַכַּאי בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. וְאַתְּ מוֹדֶה לָנוּ שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן. אָמַר לָהֵן. כָּךְ אֲנִי מוֹדֶה לָכֶם שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה מִכְרָהּ קַיָים. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי. אָמַר. לֹא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל יְחִידִי הוּא. לֹא סָמְכוֹן עֲלוֹי. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ וּפְלִיג עֲלוֹי. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חָזְרוּ נִמְנוּ וְהוֹרוּ בִנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת וְנִישֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְשֶׁלֹּא תִתֵּן. וְאַם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. פְּלִיגָא עֲלוֹי מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חָזְרוּ הוֹרוּ וְנִמְנוּ. שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְנוּ לֹא הָיוּ חוֹלְקִין עֲלוֹי.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She may sell or give away and it is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid.”Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows, what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who [inherited] before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him and disagrees with him:”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him.