(Mishnah): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that an Arusah may sell or give for a gift property that fell to her before Kidushin.

If [property] fell to her after Kidushin, Beis Shamai say, she may sell;

Beis Hillel say, she may not sell.

They agree that if she sold or gave it, the sale or gift stands.

R. Yehudah: Chachamim said in front of R. Gamliel 'Since her husband acquires her, he should acquire the property!'

R. Gamliel (to Chachamim): We are embarrassed about the new property (we say that if she sold after Nisu'in, the husband takes it from the buyers). Do you suggest to say the same about the old property?!

(Gemara): Our Mishnah means [property that fell to her] before she became Mekudeshes, and she became Mekudeshes. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Question: What is the difference between before she became Mekudeshes, and after she became Mekudeshes?

Answer: Before she became Mekudeshes, [the property] fell to her rights. After she became Mekudeshes, it fell to her rights and to his rights.

Question (R. Pinchas, to R. Yosi): Why was this not taught (in Maseches Eduyos) among leniencies of Beis Shamai and stringencies of Beis Hillel?

Answer (R. Yosi): We taught [there] only something that is stringent from both sides (according to Beis Hillel) and lenient from both sides (according to Beis Shamai). However, here (like every monetary law), it is a stringency from one side, and a leniency from the other!

Question (Mishnah): Beis Shamai say, Hefker for Aniyim [is Hefker]. This is lenient for Aniyim, and stringent for the owner [and it was taught among leniencies of Beis Shamai]!

Answer (R. Yosi): It is lenient for Aniyim, but it is not stringent for the landowner, for he willingly made it Hefker.

Question (R. Pinchas, to R. Yosi - Mishnah): A sheaf near the fence, stack, cattle or Kelim, and he forgot it [Beis Shamai say that it is not Shichechah. This is lenient for the landowner, and stringent for the Aniyim!

Answer (R. Yosi): It is lenient for landowner, but it is not stringent for the Aniyim, for they did not acquire it yet.

Question: Also here, we should say that it is lenient for the woman, but it is not stringent for the husband, for he did not acquire it yet!

Answer (R. Yosi): Since he was Mekadesh her, it fell to her rights and to his rights.

(R. Yehudah) Question: They said in front of R. Gamliel, since an Arusah is his wife, and a Nesu'ah is his wife, just like this (a Nesu'ah) her sale is Batel, also this (an Arusah) her sale should be Batel!

Response (R. Gamliel): We are embarrassed about the new property (we say that if she sold after Nisu'in, the husband takes it from the buyers). Do you arouse [to put the law of] the new on the old?!

This is new [property] - after she had Nisu'in. This is old - before she had Nisu'in, and [after it fell to her] she had Nisu'in.

(Mishnah): If property fell to her after Nisu'in, both [Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel] agree that if she sold it, the husband takes it from the buyers.

R. Gamliel says, if property fell to her before Nisu'in, and she sold or gave it after Nisu'in, it stands.

R. Chanina ben Akavya: Chachamim said in front of R. Gamliel: Since the husband acquires the woman, doesn't he acquire the property?!

R. Gamliel: We are embarrassed about the new property. Do you arouse [to put the law of] the new on the old?!

(Gemara - Mishnah): She sells and gives, and it stands.

(R. Chiyah - Beraisa): She may not sell or give. If she sold or gave, it stands.

R. Chananyah ben Akiva says, R. Gamliel did not answer so. Rather, he said 'No. If you will say about a Nesu'ah (her sale is Batel), for he receives her Metzi'os and earnings and he can annul her vows [alone], will you say so about an Arusah, that he does not receive her Metzi'os and earnings and he cannot annul her vows [alone]?!'

Chachamim: [Property that fell to her] before Nisu'in, and she made Nisu'in, disproves this - he merits her Metzi'os and earnings and he can annul her vows, and you agree to us that then she may not sell or give!

R. Gamliel: I agree to you that she may not sell or give, but if she sold or gave, it stands.

A case came in front of R. Ami. He said, is not R. Gamliel an individual? We do not rely on him.

A Beraisa supports him and argues with him;

Rabboseinu retracted and voted and ruled that if property fell to her before Nisu'in, and she made Nisu'in, she may not sell or give. If she sold or gave, it is Batel;

This supports him, that her sale is Batel. It argues with him, for it says that Rabboseinu retracted, voted and ruled. This teaches that beforehand, they did not argue with him.

Note: It is not clear to me how this is unlike R. Ami. Perhaps he means that after Chachamim retracted, R. Gamliel is an individual! (PF)

(Mishnah): R. Shimon distinguishes between different types of property. Property that the husband knew about it, she may not sell it. If she sold or gave, it is Batel;

If the husband did not know about it, she may not sell it. If she sold or gave, it stands.

(Gemara): Property that the husband knew about it, it is land. What he did not know about is Metaltelim.

(R. Yosi ben Chaninah): Property that the husband knew about it, it is what fell in the husband's Reshus. What he did not know about is what fell to her, and her husband was overseas.

Support (for R. Yosi ben Chaninah - Beraisa): Property that the husband did not know about is what fell to her, and her husband was overseas.