Mi vami - Graph Database of the Talmud 1.0
Previous | Next | Ketubot 78a


מתני׳ האשה שנפלו לה נכסים עד שלא תתארס מודים בית שמאי ובית הלל שמוכרת ונותנת וקיים נפלו לה משנתארסה בית שמאי אומרים תמכור ובית הלל אומרים לא תמכור אלו ואלו מודים שאם מכרה ונתנה קיים

MISHNA: With regard to a woman to whom property was bequeathed before she was betrothed, and she was then betrothed, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give the property as a gift, and the transaction is valid. However, if the property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed, Beit Shammai say: She may sell it as long as she is betrothed, and Beit Hillel say: She may not sell it. Both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold it or gave it away as a gift, the transaction is valid.

אמר רבי יהודה אמרו חכמים לפני רבן גמליאל הואיל וזכה באשה לא יזכה בנכסים אמר להם על החדשים אנו בושים אלא שאתם מגלגלין עלינו את הישנים

Rabbi Yehuda said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman herself through betrothal, will he not acquire the property from the moment of their betrothal? Why, then, is her transaction valid? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property that she inherited after marriage, we are ashamed, because it is unclear why she cannot sell it, as it is hers; and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property that she owned beforehand?

נפלו לה משנשאת אלו ואלו מודים שאם מכרה ונתנה שהבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות עד שלא נשאת ונשאת רבן גמליאל אומר אם מכרה ונתנה קיים אמר רבי חנינא בן עקביא אמרו לפני רבן גמליאל הואיל וזכה באשה לא יזכה בנכסים אמר להם על החדשים אנו בושים אלא שאתם מגלגלין עלינו הישנים

If the property was bequeathed to her after she was married, both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold the property or gave it away, the husband may repossess it from the purchasers. If she inherited the property before she was married and then was married, Rabban Gamliel says: If she sold or gave the property away, the transaction is valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman through marriage, will he not acquire the property? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property we are ashamed, and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property?

רבי שמעון חולק בין נכסים לנכסים נכסים הידועין לבעל לא תמכור ואם מכרה ונתנה בטל שאינן ידועין לבעל לא תמכור ואם מכרה ונתנה קיים

Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between one type of property and another type of property: Property that is known to the husband she may not sell once she is married, and if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is void. Property that is unknown to the husband she may not sell, but if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is valid.

גמ׳ מאי שנא רישא דלא פליגי ומאי שנא סיפא דפליגי

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, when she inherited property before she was betrothed, such that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree, and what is different in the latter clause, when she inherited property after betrothal, such that they disagree? If the dispute concerns the right to her property after she is betrothed, what difference does it make whether her ownership began before or after the betrothal?

אמרי דבי רבי ינאי רישא בזכותה נפלו סיפא בזכותו נפלו

The Gemara answers that the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: In the first clause, where she inherited the property before her betrothal, the inheritance was bequeathed to her during a period when she had rights to her property, whereas in the latter clause, the inheritance was bequeathed to her during a period when he had rights to her property.

אם בזכותו נפלו כי מכרה ונתנה אמאי קיים אלא רישא ודאי בזכותה נפלו סיפא אימר בזכותה אימר בזכותו לכתחלה לא תמכור אם מכרה ונתנה קיים

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If, in the latter clause the property was bequeathed to her when he had rights to it, why is the transaction valid when she sold it or gave it away? Rather, in the first clause, where she inherited the property before her betrothal, it certainly was bequeathed to her when she had rights to it and it therefore fully belongs to her. However, in the latter clause, where she inherited it after her betrothal, one can say that perhaps during this time she has rights to it, or say that perhaps during this time he has rights to it. Since the ownership of the property is a matter of uncertainty, Beit Hillel rule that she may not sell ab initio, but if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is valid.


אמר רבי יהודה אמרו לפני רבן גמליאל איבעיא להו רבי יהודה אלכתחלה או אדיעבד

§ The mishna states that Rabbi Yehuda said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman herself through betrothal, will he not acquire the property from the moment of their betrothal? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda cited this question of the Sages, was he referring to her selling the property ab initio, which is permitted only according to Beit Shammai, or was he referring to the sale after the fact, which is valid even according to Beit Hillel?