Previous daf

1) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that a betrothed woman is permitted to sell or give away property that she inherited before she was betrothed (Nechsei mi'Lug). According to Beis Shamai, the same applies to property that she inherited after the betrothal. According to Beis Hillel there ...

1. ... Lechatchilah - she is not permitted to sell.
2. ... Bedi'eved (if she did go ahead and sell) - her sale is valid.

(a) The Mishnah says that if a woman sold property that she inherited after she married - both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that her husband may reclaim the property from the buyer.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah quotes the Chachamim, who asked Raban Gamliel that, if the Chasan acquired the woman, why should he not acquire her property (this will be explained later in the Sugya). Raban Gamliel replied - that it is embarrassing enough for us that the husband is permitted to reclaim the Nichsei mi'Lug that she inherited *after the marriage*, and they should not add to the embarrassment by incorporating property which she inherited *beforehand* in this Halachah.

(c) We just saw that, in the opinion of Raban Gamliel, if after she is marriage, a woman sold property that she inherited beforehand, the sale is valid. Rebbi Chanina ben Akavya asked him - that if he acquired the woman, why should he not acquire her property?

(d) Raban Gamliel relied - that it is embarrassing enough that the husband is permitted to reclaim the Nichsei mi'Lug that she inherited *after the marriage* ... (as we just explained).

(a) Rebbi Shimon makes a distinction between a woman who sells property of which her husband is aware - in which case her sale is invalid, and property of which he is not - in which case it is valid (though in both cases she is forbidden to sell Lechatchilah). This case will be explained later in the Sugya.

(b) We initially contend that, in the Reisha, the woman is permitted to sell property that she inherited *before* her betrothal, because she is not yet in her husband's domain, whereas in the Seifa, she is not permitted to sell property that she inherited *after* her betrothal, because she has already entered his domain. We reject this contention however - on the grounds that, if the property belongs to her husband, why, in the Seifa, is the sale valid Bedieved?

(c) We therefore ascribe the Din in the Seifa, not to the fact that, when a Chasan betroths a woman, he *definitely acquired his Kalah*, but because it is a *Safek* (maybe he will marry her, maybe he won't). Consequently, Lechatchilah she is not permitted to sell (in case the property belongs to him), but Bedieved, her sale is valid (in case it belongs to her).

(a) We ask whether Rebbi Yehudah (who quotes the Rabbanan as saying that if a Chasan acquires the woman once they are betrothed, surely he should acquire her property) is referring to Lechatchilah or Bedieved - means whether they are referring to Beis Shamai, querying the Din that she is permitted to sell even Lechatchilah (though they would agree with Beis Hillel, that Bedieved, the sale would be valid); or whether they are even querying Beis Hillel (why the sale should be valid at all, even Bedieved).

(b) We resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, where he specifically uses the expression 'Af Zu Michrah Bateil', confirming the latter side of the She'eilah.

5)

(a) According to Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya in a Beraisa, when the Rabbanan asked Raban Gamliel why the sale of an Arusah should be valid, he did not give the response that the Tana of our Mishnah states ('we are already embarrassed with the first ones ... '), because he had a better answer. The response that he gave them was - granted, one can argue that a married man acquires his wife, because he does indeed acquire her as regards her findings, the work of her hands and nullifying her vows (without the participation of her father), but how can one present such an argument in the case of an Arusah, where the Chasan does not acquire his Kalah in these three regards.

(b) Raban Gamliel gave the response quoted by the Tana of our Mishnah (according to Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya) - in the Seifa, with regard to property that she inherited before the marriage and came to sell after the marriage.

(c) In view of Raban Gamliel in the Beraisa, where he says 'Mocheres ve'Nosenes ve'Kayam' - Rav Z'vid changes the text in our Mishnah to read likewise.

(a) Rav Papa maintains that Raban Gamliel's opinion is actually a Machlokes Tana'im: According to Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya in the Beraisa, Raban Gamliel holds 'Mocheres ve'Nosenes ve'Kayam', whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, he holds 'Im Machrah ve'Nasnah, Kayam'. This does not mean that Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya follows the opinion of Beis Shamai (in the Reisha of our Mishnah) - because he maintains that this opinion is also the opinion of Beis Hillel.

(b) The fact that the opinion of Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya is quoted in our Mishnah - does not mean that he agrees with Rebbi Yehudah's interpretation of Raban Gamliel's opinion. In fact, Rebbi cites his opinion briefly, leaving the Tana of the Beraisa to fill in the details.

(c) Rav and Shmuel both agree that even if a married woman sold the Nechsei mi'Lug which she inherited before or after the betrothal, her husband can reclaim it from the buyers. Now the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya concerns a married woman who sold property that she inherited *after she was betrothed*. Both agree however, that if she sold property that she inherited *before her betrothal*, the sale is valid. So like whom do Rav and Shmuel hold?

(d) We establish Rav and Shmuel like Raboseinu in the Beraisa, who maintain that, once a woman is married, any sale of her Nechsei mi'Lug, irrespective of when she received it, is invalid.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina cites Takanas Usha - that if a married woman sells Nechsei mi'Lug, her husband may reclaim them from the buyer.

(b) We do not know for sure whether or not, Takanas Usha is mentioned in the Mishnah (or whether it is cited for the first time by the Amora, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina). There is no proof for Takanas Usha from our Mishnah, which explicitly states that if a married woman sold the Nechsei mi'Lug that she received after her betrothal, the husband can reclaim it from the buyers - because our Mishnah speaks during the woman's lifetime and with regard to the Peiros (as far as the actual property is concerned, even after the woman's death, the Tana could hold that the sale is final, and the husband cannot claim it from the buyer); The Chachamim in Usha added that the husband inherits the actual property, even after his wife's death.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Rebbi Shimon differentiates between property which the husband knows about (which is *not sold*) and property which he does not know about (which *is*). Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina classifies the former as Karka, and the latter, as Metaltelin - because when the man married his wife, he married her with the Karka in mind (but not the Metaltelin).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan considers both of these to be 'known' property. Unknown property - is property which his wife inherited overseas, and which he literally knows nothing about.