Bava Batra 50A

ואחת שיחד לה בכתובתה, ואחת שהכניסה לו שום משלה.

and one that he specified to her as payment for her marriage contract, even though it was not stipulated explicitly in the contract; and one in a case where she brought into the marriage an appraisal of a field from her own property that she owned prior to the marriage, which took on the status of guaranteed property, meaning that she will receive it if her husband dies or divorces her. If a field of one of these 3 types is sold with her approval, she can claim that she did not truly consent to this sale, but stated her consent only in order to please her husband.

למעוטי מאי? אילימא למעוטי שאר נכסים ⁠– כל שכן דהויא ליה איבה, דאמר לה: עיניך נתת בגירושין ובמיתה!

The Talmud clarifies: To exclude what type of property did Rabba specify these 3 types of fields? If we say that he intends to exclude the rest of the husband’s property secured to pay her marriage contract, it is all the more so the case that he will bear her enmity if she does not agree to the sale, as he will say to her: You have placed your eyes on divorce or on my death, i.e., you will not allow me to sell my property because you are expecting and planning for my death or our divorce. Therefore, she should be able to claim that she consented to the sale only in order to please her husband with regard to other property as well.

אלא למעוטי נכסי מלוג ⁠– האמר אמימר: איש ואשה שמכרו בנכסי מלוג ⁠– לא עשו ולא כלום!

Rather, these 3 types of fields were specified in order to exclude usufruct property, i.e., property that belongs to the wife and remains in her possession while the husband has the right to enjoy the profits, in which case if the wife consents to the sale, it is valid. The Talmud asks: But doesn’t Ameimar say that if there was a man or a woman, i.e., a husband or a wife, who sold the wife’s usufruct property, they did not accomplish anything, as the sale does not take effect?