Ketubot 78B

תא שמע, דתניא, אמר רבי יהודה: אמרו לפני רבן גמליאל: הואיל וזו אשתו וזו אשתו ⁠— זו מכרה בטל, אף זו מכרה בטל! אמר להן: על החדשים אנו בושים, אלא שאתם מגלגלים עלינו את הישנים? שמע מינה דיעבד קאמר: שמע מינה.

The Talmud replies: Come and hear an answer to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: R' Yehuda said that they said before Rabban Gamliel: Since this one, when she is fully married, is legally his wife, and that one, when she is merely betrothed, is legally his wife, therefore, just as for this married one her sale is void, so too, for this betrothed one her sale should be void. Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property, which she inherited after marriage, we are ashamed of this ruling, while you seek to impose upon us the same ruling even with regard to the old property that she owned beforehand? Learn from this that R' Yehuda stated his question with regard to the halakha of a case brought after the fact, as they claim that the sale should be void. The Talmud concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

תניא, אמר רבי חנינא בן עקביא: לא כך השיבן רבן גמליאל לחכמים, אלא כך השיבן: לא אם אמרתם בנשואה ⁠— שכן בעלה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה, תאמרו בארוסה שאין בעלה זכאי לא במציאתה ולא במעשה ידיה ולא בהפרת נדריה!

It is taught in a baraita: R' Ḥanina ben Akavya said that Rabban Gamliel did not respond to the rabbis in that manner. Rather, this is what he replied to them: No, if you said that the sale is void with regard to a married woman, concerning whom the husband has many rights, as her husband is entitled to items she has found and to her earnings and to the right to nullify her vows, will you say the same with regard to a betrothed woman, whose husband is not entitled to items she has found, nor to her earnings, nor to the right of nullification of her vows?