תלמוד על כתובות 9:3

MISHNAH: If a woman inherited property before she became preliminarily married, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel agree that if she sells or gives it away it is valid¹If she is an unmarried adult, she is fully capable of acting and does not need any male guardian or representative. “Properties” without further qualifications are real estate.. If she inherited after she became preliminarily married, the House of Shammai say she may sell²Up to the time of the definitive marriage. At the definitive marriage the husband becomes the administrator of the properties and receives their yield; he has no say in the matter before that date. Everybody agrees that after the definitive marriage the wife can sell only through her husband (unless a separation of property was stipulated before the definitive marriage. Since these are money matters, they are all subject to modification by the contracting parties.), the House of Hillel say she should not sell, but both of them agree that if she sold or gave it away it is valid. Rebbi Jehudah said: They said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman³Since the preliminary marriage makes the bride a married woman in all aspects of criminal law, should the husband not also have acquired a say in her properties., should he not also acquire the right to the property? 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?

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of realestate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there³⁴⁷Mishnah Baba batra 3:1. The Mishnah discusses how to establish title in the absence of a deed.: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave^30,His proof that arguments de minore ad majus are inappropriate here is explained at length in Ketubot5:5, Note 100.
As a legal term, חֲזָקָה may have two very different meanings. What seems to be intended here is that ownerless property can be acquired by active actual possession (i. e., possession combined with use.) The idea seems to be that a woman, performing a wife’s duty in a man’s house, by this act should become his wife. The comparison is to a slave woman who belonged to a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family and dies without heirs. Any Jew who gets hold of her and lets her perform a servile job for himself has acquired her in law.
A second meaning of חֲזָקָה is “permanence of the status quo ante,” cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,89; Nazir 9:2, Note 90. This meaning is referred to, somewhat incongruously, in the verse quoted at the end; property is inherited by the permanence of the state of “belonging to”.
A subcategory of “permanence of the status quo ante” is the validation of squatter’s rights after three years of undisturbed possession, if accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition.³⁴⁸Babli 22b; Tosephta 1:5. Movables are acquired by actually taking them. Similarly, ownerless slaves are acquired by having them carry the new master's property.? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rebbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rebbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift³⁴⁹This statement has no connection with the remainder of the text. If real estate is sold, the seller accepts responsibility to indemnify the buyer if the latter should lose the real estate because of foreclosure of a pre-existing lien, whether or not this is spelled out in the sale contract. For a gift of real estate, the donor accepts responsibility only if this is so stated in the deed. In the Babli, Baba batra 128a, this is a matter in dispute; the ultimate authority Rav Naḥman agrees with the ruling of the Yerushalmi.; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate³⁵⁰While slaves can be given in chattel mortgage, they are not subject to blanket liens which cover all the debtor’s real estate. In particular, at places where a woman’s ketubah is a lien only on her husband’s real estate, the ketubah cannot be collected by the widow or divorcee by taking slave girls from the estate.. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. ³⁵¹Ketubot 9:3, Notes 111–112. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves³⁵²Like Ptolemaic and Roman laws, rabbinic civil law is based on the distinction between ownership and possession. Paying for an acquisition conveys ownership but the transfer of property rights and liabilities requires an act of possession (cf. Halakhot 4,5). Taking possession by use (cf. Note 30) of a piece of real estate establishes possession of all real estate and movables included in one sale contract. Similarly, movables are taken into possession by moving one piece; this simultaneously gives possession of all items included in the sale. Since taking possession of slaves is by individual action only, in this respect they follow neither the rules of real estate nor those of movables. Taking possession of slaves does not induce possession of either real estate or movables covered by the same sales contract; Babli Baba qama 12a.; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired³⁵³. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possessionof the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed³⁵⁴I. e., movables which have no title guarantee. will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.³⁵⁵Mishnah 1:5; Šebuot 6:5. Property claims about real estate and slaves, in contrast to movables, cannot be adjudicated by having the parties swear about ownership and responsibility.”

There, we have stated⁹³Mishnah Ketubot 9:9.: “If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. How is this? If her ketubah was a thousand denars and he says to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received only one mina, she cannot collect without an oath.” It was stated, one who had compromised, not one who had diminished⁹⁴Ketubot 9:7 Note 167, Sanhedrin 8:6 Note 69; Babli Ketubot87b.. ⁹⁵This is a fragment from Ketubot9:7 (Note 185) Sanhedrin8:6 (Note 72): “Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?” It refers to a statement by R. Abin (or Ba) not quoted here and not related to the topics of the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, because he went two steps … Because he compromised it in court you say, he cannot collect?