Yerushalmi Ketubot 8:2 ירושלמי כתובות ח׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: If she inherited property⁹This word is in the text of the Mishnah, not in the quote in the Halakhah nor in any other known Mishnah or Talmud ms. This supports S. Lieberman’s opinion that the copyist of the Leiden ms. took the Mishnah text from a ms. different from the Talmud ms. before him. after she was definitively married, both agree¹⁰The Houses of Shammai and Hillel. that if she sold or gave away the husband retrieves from the hand of the buyers¹¹In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the husband has the administration of the wife’s paraphernalia and receives their yield. This means that at the moment the wife acquires title to the property, the husband acquires title to its yield. Therefore, he can go to court and invalidate the real estate transaction which was done without his concurrence.. [If she interited] before she was definitively married¹²Even after she was preliminarily married; therefore this property does not become part of her dowry proper (mortmain) but remains the wife’s separate property as paraphernalia (Yebamot 7, Note 1). and [sold] after she was definitively married, Rabban Gamliel said if she sold or gave away it is valid¹³Since she could have sold before the final marriage, as staled in Mishnah 1, the husband has no acquired rights in the property.. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba¹⁴This name appears also in the Munich ms. and the Soncino print of the Babli. In most other sources: Aqabia. said, they said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, did he not also acquire the right to the property¹⁵Since with the act of definitive marriage he acquires his wife’s mortmain properties, why are his rights over her paraphernalia properties not likewise absolute?? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties]⁴Properties she inherits after the final wedding ceremony, of which Mishnah 2 decrees that the husband can veto her sale. It seems not reasonable that the secondary interest of the husband in the yield of the properties should override the primary property rights of the wife in her inheritance., and you want to burden us with the old ones⁵The properties inherited before the final wedding date?

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She¹⁶She inherited real estate before her definitive wedding. 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. ¹⁷Tosephta 8:1, Babli 78b. In both of these sources the text seems to be more correct: The argument is inverted. If the husband has property rights after the definitive marriage, what does this prove for the preliminary?”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 vows¹⁸He has joint rights to dissolve the vows of the adolescent preliminarily married girl; Mishnah Nedarim 10:1. He has no rights to dissolve the vows of his adult preliminarily married wife., 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 him¹⁹Rabban Gamliel. The argument of R. Immi is faulty but his conclusion correct. and disagrees with him: ²⁰Tosephta 7:1, Babli 78b.”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 disagrees²¹With Rabban Gamliel. 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 him²²In his time, Rabban Gamliel represented the majority opinion; his rule was invalidated by a later generation..