Se la proprietà ricadeva su una donna prima che fosse promessa sposa (e poi fosse promessa sposa), Beth Shammai e Beth Hillel concordano sul fatto che potrebbe venderla o regalarla, e la transazione (vale). Se toccasse a lei dopo essere stata promessa sposa, Beth Shammai avrebbe detto: potrebbe venderlo [mentre è ancora fidanzata, ma non dopo essersi sposata], e Beth Hillel dire: potrebbe non venderlo. Entrambi concordano sul fatto che se lo ha venduto o dato in regalo, lo è. R. Yehudah ha detto: Hanno detto prima a R. Gamliel: Se acquisisce la donna, [la donna che diventa la sua promessa sposa], non dovrebbe acquisire la proprietà! Egli rispose: "Ci vergogniamo del nuovo [che è caduto in lei dopo che si è sposata. Perché i saggi hanno ritenuto opportuno dire che se lo ha venduto o lo ha dato in dono, suo marito può prenderlo dal destinatario], e "rotoleresti" il vecchio su di noi! " [proprietà che le è caduta mentre era ancora promessa sposa, dicendo che se la vendeva la vendita era nulla, suo marito l'aveva acquisita.] Se le fosse toccata dopo essersi sposata, entrambi concordano sul fatto che se l'ha venduta o l'ha data come regalo, suo marito può prenderlo dal ricevitore. (Se le toccava) prima che si sposasse e poi si sposasse, R. Gamliel dice: Se lo ha venduto o lo ha regalato, lo è. R. Chanina b. Akiva ha detto: Hanno detto prima di R. Gamliel: Se acquisisce la donna, non dovrebbe acquisire la proprietà! Egli rispose: "Siamo vergognati del nuovo e tu faresti rotolare il vecchio su di noi!"
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
האשה. עד שלא תתארס – and she became betrothed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Introduction
Chapter eight discusses a wife’s ability to own money independently of her husband. Possessions that come into her hands while married belong to her, but her husband has usufruct on them. Therefore, since he too has rights, she cannot sell them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
ב"ש אומרים תמכור – while she is betrothed, but not from when she gets married.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If a woman came into the possession of property before she was betrothed, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that she may sell it or give it away and her act is legally valid. He replied, “We are embarrassed with regard to her new possessions and you wish to roll over on us her old ones as well?” He replied, “We are embarrassed with regard to her new possessions and do you wish to roll over on us her old ones as well?” Money that a woman receives before she is betrothed is hers. She may give it away or sell it, even after she has been betrothed. However, as we will learn later, once she is married she no longer can do so.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
הואיל וזכה באשה – that she is his betrothed,
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If she came into the possession of property after she was betrothed, Bet Shammai says: she may sell it, and Beth Hillel says: she may not sell it. Both agree that if she had sold it or given it away her act is legally valid. Rabbi Judah said: they argued before Rabban Gamaliel, “Since the man acquires the woman does he not also acquire her property?” If she comes into possession of property after betrothal, but before marriage, Beth Shammai maintains that she may still sell or give away the property. However, Beth Hillel says that a priori she does not have the right to do so. The reason is that once she is betrothed she will likely be married, and at the point of marriage her husband will have the rights to the usufruct from her property. Therefore, already at betrothal Beth Hillel says she may not sell her property. However, both Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai agree that if she goes ahead and sells her property anyway, the sale is valid. Rabbi Judah presents an argument against this previous line, an argument that had been presented in front of Rabban Gamaliel a generation earlier. The Sages argued that since the husband has already, at the point of betrothal, acquired the woman as his wife, should he not also, at that point, acquire her property. In other words, even if she had sold it, these Sages believe that the sale should be annulled. Rabban Gamaliel says that he is distressed enough that according to the halakhah, if a woman came into possession of property after marriage and then sold it, the sale is annulled. This halakhah does not seem reasonable to Rabban Gamaliel, but he evidently does not have the ability to change it. However, he argues that what these Sages want to do is expand the same halakhah and apply it to the point of betrothal as well. This statement, which also appears at the end of this mishnah, provides an interesting glimpse of rabbinic authority to modify Judaism versus their acceptance of tradition. The rabbis in the mishnah are receivers of traditions which certainly predate them. While these traditions are in their minds authoritative, this does not mean that they blindly accept them. As much as they do accept these traditions, they also, at least occasionally, limit their applicability and recognize the problematic aspects to the tradition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
should he not take possession of her property, in astonishment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If she came into the possession of property after she was married, both agree that, even if she had sold it or given it away, the husband may seize it from the buyers. If she comes into possession of property after marriage, everyone agrees that she may not sell or give the property away and that even if she does the sale is invalid. The husband can then go to the purchaser and reclaim that which his wife sold. You can imagine that this halakhah would make it difficult for women to sell things in their society.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
על החדשים – [inheritance] that fell/came to her from when she got married, we are confounded: What did the Sages see to state that if she sold them or gave them away, the husband removes [them] from the hand of those who bought the property, but rather, that you burden us with property that fell/came to her while she was still betrothed meaning to say, that if she sold it, her sale is void, because the husband took possession of them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
[If she came into possession] before she married and then she married, Rabban Gamaliel says: if she sold it or gave it away her act is legally valid. Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya said: they argued before Rabban Gamaliel, “Since the man acquires the woman does he not also gain acquires her property?” If she came into possession of property before the marriage and then got married, she may not a priori sell the property, but according to Rabban Gamaliel, if she nevertheless does, the sale is valid. According to Rabbi Hanina ben Akavya, the argument brought in front of Rabban Gamaliel mentioned above, was actually in connection to this case, and not in connection to the case of a woman who sold property after betrothal but before marriage.
