Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 22, 2022 | ื›ืดื• ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 78

Today’s daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham. ” Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle and the entire Hadran community. Shana Tova!”

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel both agree that if a woman received usufruct property before she was betrothed, she had the rights to sell it. But they disagree regarding the usufruct property of a woman that comes to her possession when she is betrothed. Can she sell it? And if the answer is no, if she does it anyway, is the sale a valid sale? According to Rabbi Yehuda, a discussion ensued between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel debating whether the husband during the betrothal should or should not be able to prevent his wife from being able to sell her property. In the case where she receives usufruct property during the marriage, all agree that if she were to sell it, the sale is not valid. However, Rabban Gamliel holds that if she received the property during or before the betrothal and sold it after she was married, the sale is valid. Rabbi Chanina ben Akavia holds explained that a discussion ensued between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel debating whether the husband during the marriage should have full rights to the property she inherited before or not. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between property the husband knew of (sale is not valid) and property he did not know of (sale is valid, even though ideally, she should not sell it). Why do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree in the case before the betrothal but disagree after the betrothal? Was Rabbi Yehuda’s description of the discussion between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis referring to her ability to sell the property ab initio (Beit Shamai) or post facto (where both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree)? To answer the question they quote the Tosefta Ketubot 8:1. In that source Rabbi Chanina is quoted there with a different version of the line of argumentation of Rabban Gamliel against the rabbis. Also there, he has a different opinion regarding the sale of property received before the wedding but sold during the marriage – he says it can be done ab initio. This contradicts our Mishna that says the sale is valid only after the fact, but ideally, she can’t sell it. The contradiction is resolved by explaining that Rabbi Yehuda (the Mishna) and Rabbi Chanina (the Tosefta) disagree about what Rabban Gamliel held in this case. Rav and Shmuel have a third approach that in this case, the sale would be invalid. As this corresponds with no opinion we have seen thus far, how can they say that? Once she is married and inherits property, all agree that the sale is not valid. Is this the same as the takana they instituted in Usha? What did Rabbi Shimon mean by “property he knew about” and “property he did not know about”? Two explanations are brought.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชืชืืจืก ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ื ื•ืชื ืช ื•ืงื™ื™ื ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืžืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืฉืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

MISHNA: With regard to a woman to whom property was bequeathed before she was betrothed, and she was then betrothed, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give the property as a gift, and the transaction is valid. However, if the property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed, Beit Shammai say: She may sell it as long as she is betrothed, and Beit Hillel say: She may not sell it. Both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold it or gave it away as a gift, the transaction is valid.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ืืฉื” ืœื ื™ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื ื• ืืช ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื

Rabbi Yehuda said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman herself through betrothal, will he not acquire the property from the moment of their betrothal? Why, then, is her transaction valid? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property that she inherited after marriage, we are ashamed, because it is unclear why she cannot sell it, as it is hers; and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property that she owned beforehand?

ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืžืฉื ืฉืืช ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืฉืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืฉืืช ื•ื ืฉืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ืืฉื” ืœื ื™ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื ื• ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื

If the property was bequeathed to her after she was married, both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold the property or gave it away, the husband may repossess it from the purchasers. If she inherited the property before she was married and then was married, Rabban Gamliel says: If she sold or gave the property away, the transaction is valid. Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman through marriage, will he not acquire the property? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property we are ashamed, and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property?

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื›ืกื™ื ืœื ื›ืกื™ื ื ื›ืกื™ื ื”ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between one type of property and another type of property: Property that is known to the husband she may not sell once she is married, and if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is void. Property that is unknown to the husband she may not sell, but if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is valid.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื“ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, when she inherited property before she was betrothed, such that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree, and what is different in the latter clause, when she inherited property after betrothal, such that they disagree? If the dispute concerns the right to her property after she is betrothed, what difference does it make whether her ownership began before or after the betrothal?

ืืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื” ื ืคืœื• ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื• ื ืคืœื•

The Gemara answers that the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: In the first clause, where she inherited the property before her betrothal, the inheritance was bequeathed to her during a period when she had rights to her property, whereas in the latter clause, the inheritance was bequeathed to her during a period when he had rights to her property.

ืื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื• ื ืคืœื• ื›ื™ ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืืžืื™ ืงื™ื™ื ืืœื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื” ื ืคืœื• ืกื™ืคื ืื™ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื” ืื™ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื• ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If, in the latter clause the property was bequeathed to her when he had rights to it, why is the transaction valid when she sold it or gave it away? Rather, in the first clause, where she inherited the property before her betrothal, it certainly was bequeathed to her when she had rights to it and it therefore fully belongs to her. However, in the latter clause, where she inherited it after her betrothal, one can say that perhaps during this time she has rights to it, or say that perhaps during this time he has rights to it. Since the ownership of the property is a matter of uncertainty, Beit Hillel rule that she may not sell ab initio, but if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is valid.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืื• ืื“ื™ืขื‘ื“

ยง The mishna states that Rabbi Yehuda said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman herself through betrothal, will he not acquire the property from the moment of their betrothal? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda cited this question of the Sages, was he referring to her selling the property ab initio, which is permitted only according to Beit Shammai, or was he referring to the sale after the fact, which is valid even according to Beit Hillel?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื• ืืฉืชื• ื•ื–ื• ืืฉืชื• ื–ื• ืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืืฃ ื–ื• ืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ื ืขืœื™ื ื• ืืช ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara replies: Come and hear an answer to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said that they said before Rabban Gamliel: Since this one, when she is fully married, is legally his wife, and that one, when she is merely betrothed, is legally his wife, therefore, just as for this married one her sale is void, so too, for this betrothed one her sale should be void. Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property, which she inherited after marriage, we are ashamed of this ruling, while you seek to impose upon us the same ruling even with regard to the old property that she owned beforehand? Learn from this that Rabbi Yehuda stated his question with regard to the halakha of a case brought after the fact, as they claim that the sale should be void. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืœื ื›ืš ื”ืฉื™ื‘ืŸ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืœื ื›ืš ื”ืฉื™ื‘ืŸ ืœื ืื ืืžืจืชื ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื” ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ื•ื‘ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืชืืžืจื• ื‘ืืจื•ืกื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื” ื–ื›ืื™ ืœื ื‘ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื”

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya said that Rabban Gamliel did not respond to the Sages in that manner. Rather, this is what he replied to them: No, if you said that the sale is void with regard to a married woman, concerning whom the husband has many rights, as her husband is entitled to items she has found and to her earnings and to the right to nullify her vows, will you say the same with regard to a betrothed woman, whose husband is not entitled to items she has found, nor to her earnings, nor to the right of nullification of her vows?

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžื›ืจื” ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืฉืืช ื ืฉืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžื›ืจื” ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืฃ ื–ื• ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ื ื•ืชื ืช ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ืืฉื” ืœื ื™ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื ื• ืืช ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื

The Sages said to him: My teacher, this reasoning is accepted if she sold it for herself before she was married, but if she was married and afterward sold the property she had earlier inherited, what is the halakha? Rabban Gamliel said to them: Even this one may sell the property and gives it away, and her action is valid. They said to him: Since he acquired the woman, will he not acquire the property? He said to them: With regard to the new property she inherited later we are ashamed, and now you impose upon us the old property?

ื•ื”ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืฉืืช ื•ื ืฉืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: If she inherited property before she was married and was later married, Rabban Gamliel says: If she sold it or gave the property away, the transaction is valid. The wording of the baraita, in contrast, indicates that she may sell or give the property away ab initio.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืชื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ื ื•ืชื ืช ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื”

Rav Zevid said: Teach the text of the mishna as follows: She may sell and give away the property, and her transaction is valid. Rav Pappa stated another answer: This is not difficult, as this mishna is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, but that baraita is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. The Gemara poses a question: If so, then apparently Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya agrees with Beit Shammai, as Beit Hillel maintain that she may not sell the property ab initio even while she is betrothed; yet it is well known that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi แธคanina is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter of property that a woman inherited before marriage, as they agree she may sell it ab initio.

ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ื™ืกืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara cites the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: Whether property was bequeathed to her before she was betrothed, or whether property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed and she was then married, and after her marriage she sold it or gave it away, the husband may repossess the property from the purchasers.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืื™ื ื”ื• ื“ืืžืจื™ ื›ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื—ื–ืจื• ื•ื ืžื ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชืชืืจืก ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืžืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ื™ืกืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion was this stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya, who both maintain that the sale is valid. The Gemara answers: They, i.e., Rav and Shmuel, say so, in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Our Rabbis returned and voted after discussing this issue and decided that whether property was bequeathed to her before she was betrothed, or whether property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed and she was subsequently married, the husband may repossess it from the purchasers.

ืžืฉื ื™ืกืช ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื™ืžื ืชื ื™ื ื ืœืชืงื ืช ืื•ืฉื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืื•ืฉื ื”ืชืงื™ื ื• ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ืžืชื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

ยง It was taught in the mishna that if she inherited the property after she was married, both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that the husband may repossess it from the buyers. The Gemara comments: Let us say that we already learned in the mishna about the rabbinic ordinance instituted in Usha. As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: In Usha they instituted an ordinance that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property, i.e., property that she alone owns and her husband benefits only from the dividends, in her husbandโ€™s lifetime and then died, the husband repossesses it from the purchasers. This appears to be the same halakha stated by the mishna.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื” ื•ืœืคื™ืจื•ืช ืชืงื ืช ืื•ืฉื ื‘ื’ื•ืคื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืงืข ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื”

The Gemara responds: This is not so, as the mishna is discussing the husbandโ€™s claim during her lifetime, and it is referring only to the value of the produce that the husband collects from the purchasers if she sold the land during their marriage, as the produce of usufruct property belongs to him but the land itself remains fully in the possession of the buyer. The ordinance of Usha, in contrast, applies even to the land itself, and even after the death of his wife he may repossess it because he inherits it.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืžืงืจืงืขื™ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื›ืืŸ ื•ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื

ยง The mishna further taught that Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between property that is known to the husband and property that is unknown to him. The Gemara asks: Which properties are deemed known and which properties are deemed unknown? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: Property that is known is referring to land, which cannot be concealed. The husband knew that she would inherit it, and he married her with the intention of using its produce. Property that is unknown is referring to movable property. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Both these, land, and those, movable property, are deemed known property. And these are unknown properties: They are properties in any case where she resides here and property was bequeathed to her overseas. Since the husband did not consider this property when marrying her, the sale is binding after the fact.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื›ืืŸ ื•ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita. The baraita states: These are unknown properties: They are properties in any case where she resides here and property was bequeathed to her overseas.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื“ืชื‘ืจื—ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื›ืกื” ืžื’ื‘ืจื” ื›ืชื‘ืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœื‘ืจืชื” ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ื’ืจืฉื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was about to remarry after she was divorced or widowed, who sought to distance the rights to her property from her future husband. She therefore wrote a document stipulating that her property be given as a gift to her daughter before marriage. Ultimately, the daughter was married and then divorced. She wanted her daughter to return the property, and her daughter claimed that it was given to her as a gift.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 77-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that the Sages can force a man to divorce his wife if he develops a...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 78: He Gets the Fruits of Her Property

Chapter 8! With a new mishnah, of course. On usufruct property that a wife brings into the marriage, and the...

Ketubot 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 78

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชืชืืจืก ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ื ื•ืชื ืช ื•ืงื™ื™ื ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืžืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืฉืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

MISHNA: With regard to a woman to whom property was bequeathed before she was betrothed, and she was then betrothed, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give the property as a gift, and the transaction is valid. However, if the property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed, Beit Shammai say: She may sell it as long as she is betrothed, and Beit Hillel say: She may not sell it. Both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold it or gave it away as a gift, the transaction is valid.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ืืฉื” ืœื ื™ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื ื• ืืช ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื

Rabbi Yehuda said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman herself through betrothal, will he not acquire the property from the moment of their betrothal? Why, then, is her transaction valid? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property that she inherited after marriage, we are ashamed, because it is unclear why she cannot sell it, as it is hers; and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property that she owned beforehand?

ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืžืฉื ืฉืืช ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืฉืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืฉืืช ื•ื ืฉืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ืืฉื” ืœื ื™ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื ื• ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื

If the property was bequeathed to her after she was married, both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold the property or gave it away, the husband may repossess it from the purchasers. If she inherited the property before she was married and then was married, Rabban Gamliel says: If she sold or gave the property away, the transaction is valid. Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman through marriage, will he not acquire the property? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property we are ashamed, and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property?

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื›ืกื™ื ืœื ื›ืกื™ื ื ื›ืกื™ื ื”ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between one type of property and another type of property: Property that is known to the husband she may not sell once she is married, and if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is void. Property that is unknown to the husband she may not sell, but if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is valid.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื“ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, when she inherited property before she was betrothed, such that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree, and what is different in the latter clause, when she inherited property after betrothal, such that they disagree? If the dispute concerns the right to her property after she is betrothed, what difference does it make whether her ownership began before or after the betrothal?

ืืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื” ื ืคืœื• ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื• ื ืคืœื•

The Gemara answers that the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: In the first clause, where she inherited the property before her betrothal, the inheritance was bequeathed to her during a period when she had rights to her property, whereas in the latter clause, the inheritance was bequeathed to her during a period when he had rights to her property.

ืื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื• ื ืคืœื• ื›ื™ ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืืžืื™ ืงื™ื™ื ืืœื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื” ื ืคืœื• ืกื™ืคื ืื™ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื” ืื™ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืชื• ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืชืžื›ื•ืจ ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If, in the latter clause the property was bequeathed to her when he had rights to it, why is the transaction valid when she sold it or gave it away? Rather, in the first clause, where she inherited the property before her betrothal, it certainly was bequeathed to her when she had rights to it and it therefore fully belongs to her. However, in the latter clause, where she inherited it after her betrothal, one can say that perhaps during this time she has rights to it, or say that perhaps during this time he has rights to it. Since the ownership of the property is a matter of uncertainty, Beit Hillel rule that she may not sell ab initio, but if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is valid.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืื• ืื“ื™ืขื‘ื“

ยง The mishna states that Rabbi Yehuda said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman herself through betrothal, will he not acquire the property from the moment of their betrothal? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda cited this question of the Sages, was he referring to her selling the property ab initio, which is permitted only according to Beit Shammai, or was he referring to the sale after the fact, which is valid even according to Beit Hillel?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื• ืืฉืชื• ื•ื–ื• ืืฉืชื• ื–ื• ืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืืฃ ื–ื• ืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ื ืขืœื™ื ื• ืืช ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara replies: Come and hear an answer to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said that they said before Rabban Gamliel: Since this one, when she is fully married, is legally his wife, and that one, when she is merely betrothed, is legally his wife, therefore, just as for this married one her sale is void, so too, for this betrothed one her sale should be void. Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property, which she inherited after marriage, we are ashamed of this ruling, while you seek to impose upon us the same ruling even with regard to the old property that she owned beforehand? Learn from this that Rabbi Yehuda stated his question with regard to the halakha of a case brought after the fact, as they claim that the sale should be void. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืœื ื›ืš ื”ืฉื™ื‘ืŸ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืœื ื›ืš ื”ืฉื™ื‘ืŸ ืœื ืื ืืžืจืชื ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื” ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ื•ื‘ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืชืืžืจื• ื‘ืืจื•ืกื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื” ื–ื›ืื™ ืœื ื‘ืžืฆื™ืืชื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืคืจืช ื ื“ืจื™ื”

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya said that Rabban Gamliel did not respond to the Sages in that manner. Rather, this is what he replied to them: No, if you said that the sale is void with regard to a married woman, concerning whom the husband has many rights, as her husband is entitled to items she has found and to her earnings and to the right to nullify her vows, will you say the same with regard to a betrothed woman, whose husband is not entitled to items she has found, nor to her earnings, nor to the right of nullification of her vows?

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžื›ืจื” ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืฉืืช ื ืฉืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžื›ืจื” ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืฃ ื–ื• ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ื ื•ืชื ืช ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ืืฉื” ืœื ื™ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื ื• ื‘ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืืชื ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื ื• ืืช ื”ื™ืฉื ื™ื

The Sages said to him: My teacher, this reasoning is accepted if she sold it for herself before she was married, but if she was married and afterward sold the property she had earlier inherited, what is the halakha? Rabban Gamliel said to them: Even this one may sell the property and gives it away, and her action is valid. They said to him: Since he acquired the woman, will he not acquire the property? He said to them: With regard to the new property she inherited later we are ashamed, and now you impose upon us the old property?

ื•ื”ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืฉืืช ื•ื ืฉืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืžื›ืจื” ื•ื ืชื ื” ืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: If she inherited property before she was married and was later married, Rabban Gamliel says: If she sold it or gave the property away, the transaction is valid. The wording of the baraita, in contrast, indicates that she may sell or give the property away ab initio.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืชื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื•ื ื•ืชื ืช ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื”

Rav Zevid said: Teach the text of the mishna as follows: She may sell and give away the property, and her transaction is valid. Rav Pappa stated another answer: This is not difficult, as this mishna is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, but that baraita is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. The Gemara poses a question: If so, then apparently Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya agrees with Beit Shammai, as Beit Hillel maintain that she may not sell the property ab initio even while she is betrothed; yet it is well known that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi แธคanina is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter of property that a woman inherited before marriage, as they agree she may sell it ab initio.

ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ื™ืกืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara cites the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: Whether property was bequeathed to her before she was betrothed, or whether property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed and she was then married, and after her marriage she sold it or gave it away, the husband may repossess the property from the purchasers.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื ืื™ื ื”ื• ื“ืืžืจื™ ื›ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื—ื–ืจื• ื•ื ืžื ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชืชืืจืก ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื” ืžืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ื™ืกืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion was this stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Akavya, who both maintain that the sale is valid. The Gemara answers: They, i.e., Rav and Shmuel, say so, in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Our Rabbis returned and voted after discussing this issue and decided that whether property was bequeathed to her before she was betrothed, or whether property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed and she was subsequently married, the husband may repossess it from the purchasers.

ืžืฉื ื™ืกืช ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื™ืžื ืชื ื™ื ื ืœืชืงื ืช ืื•ืฉื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืื•ืฉื ื”ืชืงื™ื ื• ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ืžืชื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

ยง It was taught in the mishna that if she inherited the property after she was married, both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that the husband may repossess it from the buyers. The Gemara comments: Let us say that we already learned in the mishna about the rabbinic ordinance instituted in Usha. As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: In Usha they instituted an ordinance that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property, i.e., property that she alone owns and her husband benefits only from the dividends, in her husbandโ€™s lifetime and then died, the husband repossesses it from the purchasers. This appears to be the same halakha stated by the mishna.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื” ื•ืœืคื™ืจื•ืช ืชืงื ืช ืื•ืฉื ื‘ื’ื•ืคื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืงืข ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื”

The Gemara responds: This is not so, as the mishna is discussing the husbandโ€™s claim during her lifetime, and it is referring only to the value of the produce that the husband collects from the purchasers if she sold the land during their marriage, as the produce of usufruct property belongs to him but the land itself remains fully in the possession of the buyer. The ordinance of Usha, in contrast, applies even to the land itself, and even after the death of his wife he may repossess it because he inherits it.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื›ืกื™ื ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืžืงืจืงืขื™ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื›ืืŸ ื•ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื

ยง The mishna further taught that Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between property that is known to the husband and property that is unknown to him. The Gemara asks: Which properties are deemed known and which properties are deemed unknown? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: Property that is known is referring to land, which cannot be concealed. The husband knew that she would inherit it, and he married her with the intention of using its produce. Property that is unknown is referring to movable property. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Both these, land, and those, movable property, are deemed known property. And these are unknown properties: They are properties in any case where she resides here and property was bequeathed to her overseas. Since the husband did not consider this property when marrying her, the sale is binding after the fact.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื›ืืŸ ื•ื ืคืœื• ืœื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita. The baraita states: These are unknown properties: They are properties in any case where she resides here and property was bequeathed to her overseas.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื“ืชื‘ืจื—ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ื›ืกื” ืžื’ื‘ืจื” ื›ืชื‘ืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœื‘ืจืชื” ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ื’ืจืฉื”

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was about to remarry after she was divorced or widowed, who sought to distance the rights to her property from her future husband. She therefore wrote a document stipulating that her property be given as a gift to her daughter before marriage. Ultimately, the daughter was married and then divorced. She wanted her daughter to return the property, and her daughter claimed that it was given to her as a gift.

Scroll To Top