Bava Batra 98

נחלה הבאה לו לאדם ממקום אחר אדם מתנה עליה שלא יירשנה וכדרבא דאמר רבא כל האומר אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים כגון זאת שומעין לו

that a man is at liberty to renounce beforehand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to stipulate'. ');">¹</span> an inheritance which is likely to accrue to him from another place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from a distant relative, to whom he becomes next-of-kin according to the regulations of the Rabbis. But inheritance from a next-of-kin mentioned in the Torah cannot be so renounced. ');">²</span>

מאי כגון זאת כדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה איני ניזונת ואיני עושה

and this rule again is based on the dictum of Raba, that if anyone says, I do not desire to avail myself of a regulation of the Rabbis of this kind, we comply with his desire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The regulation that a man should become heir to a distant relative in certain cases was made for his own benefit, and therefore he is at liberty to reject it. The statement of R. Kahana is adduced to show that the formula 'I have no right or claim to this property' is effective when applied to property which will hereafter accrue to a person but is not yet in his hands, e.g., the produce of the field of the betrothed woman, which will only accrue to the husband after marriage. ');">³</span> To what was Raba referring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what subject was being discussed in the Beth Hamidrash. ');">⁴</span>

הא ראיה יש תימא נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי

when he said 'of this kind'? — He was referring to the statement made by R. Huna in the name of Rab: A woman is at liberty to say to her husband, You need not keep me and I will not work for you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was a regulation of the Rabbis that a husband should maintain his wife in return for her labour. As this regulation was made on behalf of the wife, she was not bound to accept it. ');">⁵</span> [Since the Mishnah says that a husband has no <i>hazakah</i> in the property of his wife, we infer that] if he has proof [that she sold it to him],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a document or witnesses. ');">⁶</span>

מי לא תנן לקח מן האיש וחזר ולקח מן האשה מקחו בטל אלמא אמרה נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי הכא נמי תימא נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי

the sale is effective. [Yet why should this be?] Cannot she say [in this case also], I merely wished to oblige my husband?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By consenting to the sale, but I did not really wish to part with the field. ');">⁷</span> Have we not learnt: If a man buys [a field] from the husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to release himself from the lien which the wife has on all her husband's property for the recovery of her kethubah. ');">⁸</span>

הא איתמר עלה אמר רבה בר רב הונא לא נצרכה אלא באותן שלש שדות אחת שכתב לה בכתובתה

and then buys it again from the wife, the purchase [from the wife] Is void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 55b. ');">⁹</span> This shows that she can say: I merely consented in order to oblige my husband, and cannot she say here also that she merely wished to oblige her husband? — The truth is that this [Mishnah] has been qualified by the gloss of Rabbah son of R. Huna: The rule really required to be stated in reference to those three fields [that are specially allotted to her]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she refuses to sell these, the husband cannot reasonably take offence, and therefore but for the rule just stated we might think that if she does give her consent the sale is valid. — The argument runs on, and the reply to the question comes at the end. ');">¹⁰</span> — one that the husband inserted In the <i>kethubah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a special security for her kethubah, apart from the general security effected on the whole of his property. ');">¹¹</span>