KESUVOS – 78a-112a 25d The Soncino Babylonian Talmud KKEETTHHUUBBOOTTHH Book IV Folios 78a-112a CHAPTERS VIII-XIII TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH NOTES BY R A B B I D R . S A M U E L DAICHES Barrister at Law AND R E V . D R . I S R A E L W. SLOTKI, M.A., Litt.D. UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF R A B B I D R I. EPSTEIN B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit. Reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana 5772 www.613etc.com 1 KESUVOS – 78a-112a Kethuboth 78a VOID; [PROPERTY, HOWEVER,] WHICH IS UNKNOWN TO THE HUSBAND SHE MAY CHAPTER VIII NOT SELL, BUT IF SHE HAS SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY MISHNAH . IF A WOMAN CAME INTO THE VALID. POSSESSION 1 OF PROPERTY BEFORE SHE WAS BETROTHED, BETH SHAMMAI AND GEMARA . What is the essential difference BETH HILLEL AGREE THAT SHE MAY 2 between the first clause 14 in which they 15 do SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY AND HER ACT IS not differ and the succeeding clause 16 in LEGALLY VALID. IF SHE CAME INTO THE which they differ? 17 — The school of R. POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AFTER Jannai replied: In the first clause it was into SHE WAS BETROTHED, BETH SHAMMAI her possession that the property had come; 18 SAID: SHE MAY SELL IT, 2 AND BETH in the succeeding clause 16 the property came HILLEL SAID: SHE MAY NOT SELL IT; 2 BUT into his possession. 19 If, however, [it is BOTH AGREE THAT IF SHE HAD SOLD IT maintained] that the property 'came into his OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY possession' why is HER ACT LEGALLY VALID. R. JUDAH STATED: THE SAGES VALID when SHE HAD SOLD [THE ARGUED BEFORE R. GAMALIEL, 'SINCE PROPERTY] OR GIVEN IT AWAY? — THE MAN 3 GAINS POSSESSION OF THE This then [is the explanation:] In the first WOMAN DOES HE NOT ALSO GAIN clause the property has beyond all doubt POSSESSION OF HER PROPERTY?' 4 HE come into her possession. 18 In the succeeding REPLIED, 'WE ARE EMBARRASSED 5 WITH clause, [however, the property] might be said REGARD TO [THE PROBLEM OF] HER NEW [to have come either] into her, or into his POSSESSIONS 6 AND DO YOU WISH TO possession; 20 [hence,] 21 she may not properly INVOLVE US [IN THE PROBLEM OF] HER sell [the property, but] IF SHE HAD SOLD OLD ONES 7 ALSO?' IF SHE CAME INTO THE IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS POSSESSION OF PROPERTY AFTER SHE LEGALLY VALID. WAS MARRIED, BOTH 8 AGREE THAT, EVEN IF SHE HAD SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY, R. JUDAH STATED: [THE SAGES] THE HUSBAND MAY SEIZE IT FROM THE ARGUED BEFORE R. GAMALIEL. The BUYERS. [IF SHE CAME INTO POSSESSION] question was raised: Does R. Judah 22 refer to BEFORE SHE MARRIED. 9 AND the case of direct permissibility 23 or also to SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED, R. GAMALIEL one of ex post facto? 24 SAID: IF SHE 10 HAD SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. R. 1. Lit., 'to whom there fell'. HANINA B. AKABIA STATED: THEY 2. After her betrothal and before her marriage. V. infra . ARGUED BEFORE R. GAMALIEL, SINCE THE 3. Through betrothal. MAN 11 GAINED POSSESSION OF THE 4. The application of this argument is explained WOMAN SHOULD HE NOT ALSO GAIN in the Gemara. POSSESSION OF HER PROPERTY?' HE 5. Lit., 'ashamed'. REPLIED, 'WE ARE EMBARRASSED WITH 6. In failing to discover a reason why a husband (as stated infra ) is entitled to seize the REGARD TO [THE PROBLEM OF] HER NEW property which his wife had sold or given POSSESSIONS AND DO YOU WISH TO away even though she obtained it after INVOLVE US [IN THE PROBLEM OF] HER marriage. OLD ONES ALSO? 12 R. SIMEON DRAWS A 7. Property into the possession of which she DISTINCTION BETWEEN ONE KIND OF came while she was only betrothed. 8. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. PROPERTY AND ANOTHER: PROPERTY 9. [I.e., either before or after she was betrothed THAT IS KNOWN 13 TO THE HUSBAND [THE (Rashi), v. Tosaf.]. WIFE] MAY NOT SELL, AND IF SHE HAS 10. After her marriage. SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT IS 11. By marriage. 2 KESUVOS – 78a-112a 12. Cf. supra p. 490, on. 5-7. annulment of her vows?' 11 'Master', they said 13. This is explained in the Gemara. to him, '[this is quite feasible if] she effected a 14. Of our MISHNAH. 12 15. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, sale before she married; what, [however, 16. Property obtained AFTER SHE WAS will be your ruling where] she was married BETROTHED. and effected the sale 13 subsequently?' — 17. In both cases surely, she sells or gives away 'This woman also', he replied, 'may sell or after betrothal when her property presumably give away, and her act is valid'. 'Since, belongs to the man who betrothed her. Cf. 14 infra note 10. however', they argued, 'he gained 15 18. Before betrothal she is the legal possessor of possession of the woman should he not also whatever is given to her. gain possession of her property?' 16 — 'We 19. Because, as it is assumed at present, after are quite embarrassed', he replied, 'about betrothal the man is the legal owner of all that [the problem of] her new possessions and you the woman may have. 20. The Kinyan of betrothal being regarded as wish to involve us [in the problem of] her old 17 that of a doubtful marriage, since it is ones also!' uncertain whether marriage will follow. 21. According to Beth Hillel. But, surely, we learned, [IF SHE CAME 22. In the argument he reported in the name of INTO POSSESSION] BEFORE SHE the Sages to invalidate her sale. 23. I.e., the ruling of Beth Shammai that if she MARRIED, AND SUBSEQUENTLY obtained property after she was betrothed she MARRIED, R. GAMALIEL SAID: IF SHE is fully entitled to sell it or to give it away. HAD SOLD IT OR GAVE IT AWAY 18 HER 24. Where it is the unanimous opinion of Beth ACT IS LEGALLY VALID! 19 — R. Zebid Shammai and Beth Hillel THAT IF SHE HAD replied, Read: She may sell or give away, and SOLD IT OR GIVEN IT AWAY HER ACT 20 IS LEGALLY VALID. her act is valid. R. Papa replied: There is no difficulty, 21 for one 22 is the view of R. Judah Kethuboth 78b on R. Gamaliel's opinion 23 whilst the other 24 is the view of R. Hanina b. Akabia on R. Gamaliel's opinion. 25 Come and hear what was taught in the following. R. Judah stated: They argued Is R. Hanina b. Akabia then in agreement before R. Gamaliel, 'Since the one woman 1 is with Beth Shammai? 26 — It is this that he his wife and the other 2 is his wife, just as a meant: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did sale by the former 3 is invalid so also should a not differ at all on this point. 27 sale by the latter 4 be invalid'. He replied, 'We are in an embarrassed condition with regard Both Rab and Samuel stated: Whether a to [the problem of] her new possessions and woman came into the possession of property you wish to involve us [in the problem of] her before she was betrothed or whether she old ones also?' 5 Thus 6 it may be inferred that came into possession after she was betrothed he referred to a case of ex post facto also. her husband may, [if she sold it] after she This is conclusive. 7 married, take it away from the buyers. In agreement with whose view [is this ruling], It was taught: R. Hanina b. Akabia said, It which is neither in agreement with that of R. was not such a reply 8 that R. Gamaliel gave Judah nor with that of R. Hanina b. Akabia? to the Sages, 9 but it was this that he replied, — They adopted the ruling of our Masters; '[There is] no [comparison]; if you say [the for it was taught: Our Masters took a recount ruling] 10 is to apply to a married woman [of votes, and decided that] whether a woman whose husband is entitled to her finds, to her came into the possession [of property] before handiwork and to the annulment of her vows, she was betrothed or whether she came into will you say it also applies to a betrothed its possession after she was betrothed, her woman whose husband is not entitled either husband may, [if she sold it] after she to her finds or to her handiwork or to the married, take it away from the buyers. 28 3 KESUVOS – 78a-112a AFTER SHE WAS MARRIED, BOTH 12. While she was only betrothed. AGREE. May it be suggested that here we 13. Of property that came into her possession 29 before her marriage. are learning Of the enactment of Usha, for 14. By the Kinyan of marriage. R. Jose the son of R. Hanina stated: It was 15. I.e., the right to her finds and handiwork and enacted at Usha that if a woman sold during to the invalidation of her vows. the lifetime of her husband Melog 30 16. To the usufruct of which a husband is entitled property, 31 and died, the husband 32 may seize during her lifetime. If her sale is valid her 33 husband would inevitably be deprived of his it from the buyers! — Our Mishnah [deals right to the usufruct.