Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 8.2

משנה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלְּקוּחוֹת. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת וְנִשֵּׂאת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן עֲקִיבָה אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוֹאִיל וְזָכָה בָאִשָּׁה לֹא זָכָה בַנְּכָסִים. אָמַר לָהֶן עַל הַחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁים אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַיְשָׁנִים.

MISHNAH: If she inherited property after she was definitively married, both agree that if she sold or gave away the husband retrieves from the hand of the buyers. [If she interited] before she was definitively married and [sold] after she was definitively married, Rabban Gamliel said if she sold or gave away it is valid. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, they said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, did he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties], and you want to burden us with the old ones?

הלכה: נָפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן. וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה קַיָים. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן עֲקִיבָה. לֹא כֵן הֵשִׁיבָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֶלָּא כֵן הֵשִׁיבָן. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתֶּם בָּאֲרוּסָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זַכַּאי לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. תֹּאמַר בִּנְשׂוּאָה שֶׁהוּא זַכַּאי בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. הֲרֵי עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת וְנִשֵּׂאת תּוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא זַכַּאי בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. וְאַתְּ מוֹדֶה לָנוּ שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן. אָמַר לָהֵן. כָּךְ אֲנִי מוֹדֶה לָכֶם שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְלֹא תִתֵּן וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה מִכְרָהּ קַיָים. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי. אָמַר. לֹא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל יְחִידִי הוּא. לֹא סָמְכוֹן עֲלוֹי. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ וּפְלִיג עֲלוֹי. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חָזְרוּ נִמְנוּ וְהוֹרוּ בִנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת וְנִישֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא תִמְכּוֹר וְשֶׁלֹּא תִתֵּן. וְאַם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. פְּלִיגָא עֲלוֹי מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ חָזְרוּ הוֹרוּ וְנִמְנוּ. שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְנוּ לֹא הָיוּ חוֹלְקִין עֲלוֹי.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She 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. ”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 vows, 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 him and disagrees with him: ”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 disagrees 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 him.