Talmud for Ketubot 156:15

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She¹⁶She inherited real estate before her definitive wedding. may sell or give away and it is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid. ¹⁷Tosephta 8:1, Babli 78b. In both of these sources the text seems to be more correct: The argument is inverted. If the husband has property rights after the definitive marriage, what does this prove for the preliminary?”Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows¹⁸He has joint rights to dissolve the vows of the adolescent preliminarily married girl; Mishnah Nedarim 10:1. He has no rights to dissolve the vows of his adult preliminarily married wife., what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who [inherited] before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him¹⁹Rabban Gamliel. The argument of R. Immi is faulty but his conclusion correct. and disagrees with him: ²⁰Tosephta 7:1, Babli 78b.”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees²¹With Rabban Gamliel. that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him²²In his time, Rabban Gamliel represented the majority opinion; his rule was invalidated by a later generation..