1)

(a)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel discuss a woman selling the property that she inherited at various stages - (otherwise known as Nichsei Milug), after her betrothal or after her marriage.

(b)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.

(c)According to Beis Shamai, the same applies to property that she inherited after the betrothal. Beis Hillel maintain that although ...

1. ... l'Chatchilah - she is not permitted to sell it ...

2. ... b'Di'eved (if she did) - her sale is valid.

2)

(a)The Mishnah rules 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 purchaser.

(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); to which Raban Gamliel replied - that it is embarrassing enough for us that the husband is permitted to reclaim the Nichsei Milug that she inherited after the marriage, and they should not add to the embarrassment by incorporating property that she inherited beforehand in this Halachah.

(c)We just learned that, in the opinion of Raban Gamliel, if after she is married, 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 Milug that she inherited after the marriage ... (as we just explained).

3)

(a)Rebbi Shimon draws 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 l'Chatchilah). 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 has not yet entered her husband's domain, whereas in the Seifa, she is not permitted to sell property that she inherited after her betrothal, because she has. We reject this contention however - on the grounds that, if the property belongs to her husband, why, in the Seifa, is the sale valid b'Di'eved?

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

4)

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

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

5)

(a)According to Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya in a Beraisa, when the Rabanan 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 there was that - whereas their argument is applicable to a married man who does indeed acquire his wife as regards her findings, the work of her hands and nullifying her vows (without the participation of her father), it does not apply to an Arusah, whose Chasan does not acquire her 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 v'Nosenes v'Kayam' - Rav Zevid changes the text in our Mishnah to read likewise.

6)

(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 v'Nosenes v'Kayam', whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, he holds 'Im Machrah v'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 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, relying on the Tana of the Beraisa to fill in the details.

(c)Rav and Shmuel both agree that even if a married woman sold the Nichsei Milug which she inherited before or after the betrothal, her husband may reclaim them from the buyers. The problem with this ruling is - that the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya concerns a married woman who sold property that she inherited after she is betrothed. Both agree however, that if she sold property that she inherited before that, the sale is valid. So like whom do Rav and Shmuel hold?

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

7)

(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina cites Takanas Usha - that if a married woman sells Nichsei Milug, her husband may reclaim them from the buyer.

(b)We are not sure whether or not, Takanas Usha is mentioned in the Mishnah (or whether it is cited for the first time by Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who is an Amora).

(c)There is no proof for Takanas Usha from our Mishnah, which explicitly states that if a married woman sold the Nichsei Milug 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 back from the purchaser); whereas in Usha they added that the husband inherits the actual property, even after his wife's death.

8)

(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 Yosi 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, in his opinion - is property which his wife inherited overseas, and which he literally knows nothing about.