Mishnah 1. This mishnah, and most of the chapter before us, deals with property that a woman inherits and its halachic status: which property she may do with as she pleases, and in which the husband has rights. The distinction is drawn according to the timing of when the property came to her - before the betrothal, after the betrothal, or after the marriage.
Property that came to her before the betrothal:
A woman to whom property "naflu lah" - who inherited property while she was still completely unattached, and only afterward became betrothed: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that she may sell it and give it away as a gift, and the sale and the gift stand. Even though she now has the bond of betrothal, which is the first stage of marriage, since the property came into her hands beforehand, she retains full authority to sell it and to give it as a gift.
Property that came to her after the betrothal:
Here Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree:
Beis Shammai: Its law is like that of property that came to her before the betrothal - she may sell, and the sale is valid.
Beis Hillel: She should not sell. The property came to her after she was already betrothed, and betrothal creates something of a doubtful marriage - a doubt as to whether she is already considered married, since this betrothal is destined to culminate in marriage. For this reason it is possible that the husband already has a certain right in the property, and therefore she should not sell it.
Nevertheless, "eilu va'eilu modim" - Beis Hillel agrees with Beis Shammai that after the fact, "im macherah venatnah - kayam": although she should not do so at the outset, if she already sold it or gave it as a gift, the act takes effect.
The question of the Sages and Rabban Gamliel's answer:
Rabbi Yehudah said: The Sages said before Rabban Gamliel, "ho'il vezachah ba'ishah - lo yizkeh banechasim?". That is, since the husband has acquired his wife (even though there is here only a betrothal), should he not acquire her property as well? And if so, why do even Beis Hillel agree that after the fact her sale stands, and why do we not say that the husband can annul it and claim that he did not want this property sold?
Rabban Gamliel answered them: "al hachadashim anu boshim" - regarding the new property, that which came to her after the marriage, where the law is that the husband annuls the sale and turns to the buyers with the claim that she had no right to sell, even about that we are embarrassed; that is, it is difficult for us to plumb the depths of this halachah and accept it at face value.
"ela she'atem megalgelin aleinu et hayeshanim" - and you wish to include even the old property, that which she sold while she was betrothed, before the marriage, and to say that in that case too the husband can annul the sale. It is enough that we have difficulty accepting the law regarding property that came after the marriage, and we have no intention of extending it to property that came to her after the betrothal.
Property that came to her after she married:
Now the mishnah turns to the final case: "naflu lah mishenisses" - that she inherited property after she was already married. In this case "eilu va'eilu modim", Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel alike, that "im macherah venatnah - haba'al motzi miyad halakochos": the husband takes the property from the buyers, since it came to her after the marriage.
The Gemara clarifies what exactly he has the power to take, for he cannot take the property itself from the buyers:
During her lifetime: The status of this property is that the husband consumes its produce, and therefore all he can take from the buyers is the produce, the yield that comes from the property, since that alone is what he has a right to.
If she died in his lifetime: In this case he inherits the property itself, and therefore he can take from those buyers the body of the property, since it is truly his.
Property that came to her after she was betrothed and she afterward married:
"ad shelo nisses" - she inherited property after the betrothal but before the marriage, and afterward she married. Concerning this Rabban Gamliel says: "im macherah venatnah - kayam", the sale is valid and the husband cannot annul it.
"Amar Rabbi Chanina ben Akavia": They said before Rabban Gamliel, similar to what was cited above in the name of the Sages, "ho'il vezachah ba'ishah - lo yizkeh banechasim?". Since he has acquired his wife, and here she has already married, should he not acquire the property and be able to take it from the buyers? You, Rabban Gamliel, say that her sale stands, whereas in our view, once a marriage has taken place, he ought to be able to annul that sale.
"Amar lahem" that very same answer: "bosheni midivreichem" - even regarding property that came to her after the marriage it is difficult for us to understand and accept the law that he may annul the sale, and yet you wish to include even the old property, that which came to her before the marriage, and to permit him to annul that sale as well. I do admit that when it came to her after the marriage he has the power to annul the sale, but I am not prepared to agree that he may annul the sale of property that came to her before the marriage.
In summary: This mishnah explains three times at which property comes to a woman through inheritance: it came to her before the betrothal - she may sell and give according to all opinions; it came to her after the betrothal - Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree whether she may sell at the outset, but they agree that after the fact the sale stands; it came to her after she married - the husband takes it from the buyers, the produce during her lifetime and the body of the property if she died in his lifetime. We also learned the question of the Sages - "since he has acquired his wife, should he not acquire the property?" - and Rabban Gamliel's answer, that the right of annulment that applies to the new property is not to be extended to the old property that came to her before the marriage.