Talmud zu Ketubot 6:6

יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאַתָּה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הִשִּׂיא אֶת הַבַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ:

Wenn eine Waise von ihrer Mutter oder ihren Brüdern mit ihrer Zustimmung verheiratet wurde und sie ihr (eine Mitgift von) hundert oder fünfzig zuz schrieb, kann sie ihnen, wenn sie volljährig ist, das abnehmen, was zu Recht ihr gehörte [a Zehntel der Erbschaft]. R. Yehudah sagt: Wenn er [der Vater] die erste Tochter [zu Lebzeiten] geheiratet hat, wird der zweiten gegeben, was der ersten gegeben wurde [ob weniger oder mehr als ein Zehntel. Die Halacha entspricht R. Yehudah, dass wir dem Urteil des Vaters folgen. Und wenn wir nicht feststellen können, was dieses Urteil war, erhält sie ein Zehntel des zum Zeitpunkt ihrer Heirat noch vorhandenen Eigentums—vom Land, aber nicht vom Eigentum. (Es gibt Leute, die der Meinung sind, dass ihr heute auch ein Zehntel der Sachen gegeben wird.) Und wenn sie es zum Zeitpunkt ihrer Ehe nicht von den Erben beansprucht hat, kann sie es nach ihrer Ehe beanspruchen, und das sagen wir nicht sie verzichtet darauf. Und das gilt nur, wenn sie vom Eigentum ihres Vaters gefüttert wird; aber wenn die Erben aufhörten, sie zu füttern (es wird angenommen, dass), verzichtete sie darauf, sofern sie nichts anderes angab. Und wenn sie eine Bogereth wäre, die nicht von ihnen gefüttert wird, und sie heiratete, ohne zu behaupten, was ihr als Mitgift vom Eigentum ihres Vaters zusteht, (es wird angenommen, dass), verzichtete sie auf die Erben, und sie kann nicht länger behaupten es, selbst wenn sie von ihrem Eigentum gefüttert wurde.] Die Weisen sagen: Manchmal wird ein armer Mann reich und ein reicher Mann wird arm. Vielmehr wird die Immobilie bewertet und (ihr Anteil) wird ihr gegeben.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, and he⁶⁶“He” seems to be Simeon, who has to go to court and obtain a document which gives him the right to take the field from Levi. did not have time to write the foreclosure document before he died: whose is it⁶⁷It should be obvious that the field is Simeon’s and after him his heirs. The paragraph is difficult to understand; the commentators all emend the text to fit their explanations, which can be disregarded. It seems that the question is to whom do the heirs have to address their foreclosure document.
The problem is an old one; Meïri, after Rashi the second most important Medieval commentator, asked Rashba for an explanation (cf. Note 64). Meïri’s text read טרפו “his forclosure document,” Rashba’s read תרפו “his sales document.” This is Rashba’s anwer:
“It is my opinion that our text is defective and it should be as follows: Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, then Reuben bought it from Simeon but before he could write the sales contract, he died. That is the case about which Samuel asked Rav in (Babli) Baba Meṣi‘a (15b), viz., if it turns out that the field was not his, but he went and bought it from the original owners, what are the rules? He told him, the first (the robber) sold to the second (the buyer) any present and future rights to the parcel.… And this is the explanation of this text according to my understanding: Reuben had robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi who did not realize that it was robbed. Afterwards, Reuben bought the parcel from Simeon, but Simeon had not yet written the sales contract when Reuben died: who is the owner? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav: One says if the document was first, if the sale was completed before he died, the sale was final and Reuben did not transfer [the field] to Levi; this shows that Reuben did not intend to leave the field in Levi’s hands, ostensibly to leave it to his heirs. He does not spell this out since the sales document was not yet written. The other one said, there is no difference between written and not written, he wants the field to be Levi’s since he did not dispose of the field in a will. (The same Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav disagree in the Babli Baba Meṣi‘a (16a) about the time available to the robber to act to protect his credit.) Rebbi Mana has a different explanation: He says that in any case the field belongs to Reuben, following Rami bar Ḥama (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a) who said that Levi’s contract was not worth the paper it was written on. But Rebbi Yose bar Abun is of the opposite opinion, since Levi can tell him, is the field not now before you that you can turn the sale into a valid one. This follows Rava (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a) who told Rami bar Ḥama that Levi acquired the property by the trust he put in Reuben.
But following your reading, since you read טרפו with ט, it is possible that this refers to a foreclosure document which Levi obtained against the robber after he had lost the field to Simeon, and that is the same disagreement we find there (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a); how long does a person have credit, Rav says until the start of court proceedings, Ḥiyya bar Rav says, until the foreclosure document was signed, and Rav Papa said, until the public sale.”? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya the son of Rav: One said, if he wrote the foreclosure document, it is Reuben’s, if not, it is Levi’s. The other one said, whether he wrote or did not write, it belongs to Levi. Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable that it does not belong to Reuben since he can say to him, I sold you something which was not mine. Rebbi Yose said, it is not reasonable that it should not be Levi’s, since Reuben⁶⁸Rashba reads "Levi" as text, not as correction. can tell him, is this not before you? You are good to confirm the sale.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Vorheriger Vers Ganzes Kapitel Nächster Vers