Talmud for Sotah 4:3
מְעֻבֶּרֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּמֵינֶקֶת חֲבֵרוֹ, לֹא שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתֻבָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יָכוֹל הוּא לְהַפְרִישָׁהּ וּלְהַחֲזִירָהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן. אַיְלוֹנִית וּזְקֵנָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד, לֹא שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל הוּא לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת וְלִפְרוֹת וְלִרְבּוֹת הֵימֶנָּה. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנָּשִׁים, אוֹ שׁוֹתוֹת אוֹ לֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתֻבָּה:
One who is pregnant from a previous marriage and one who is nursing from a previous marriage, do not drink the waters or take their <i>Ketubah</i>. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say, he is able to separate from her and return to her after some time. A womb-less woman, an old woman, and one who is not able to give birth, do not drink or take their <i>Ketubah</i>. Rabbi Eliezer says, he is able to marry another wife and to procreate from her. All other women either drink or do not take their <i>Ketubah</i>.
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
MISHNAH: If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted105If he is poor at harvest time. but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him106And for this pay him smaller wages, since he is paying his debts with the money of the poor.. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary107The implication is from the second part of the verse: “Nor intrude on the land of orphans.” On Prov.22:28, Rashi comments: “Do not displace an eternal boundary,” do not change established usage; our teachers said: He who puts a basket under the vine at harvest time so that the single berries fall into it, on him it is said, do not displace an eternal boundary. On Prov. 24:10, Rashi writes, “Nor intrude on the land of orphans,” the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah which belong to them..”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
HALAKHAH: “If he escaped before sentence was passed,” etc. 62This paragraph is quoted in Sotah 4:3, Notes 39–41. This is one of the few cases where the Leiden ms. does not copy the text but simply refers to it by “etc.” The parallel quotes in the Babli are Sotah 25a, Sanhedrin88a. Rebbi Joshia said, Zeˋira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the deviant son, and the Elder rebelling against the [Supreme] Court.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot
It was stated: If an heir’s father held a compromised promissory note, the son collects without swearing174If the father had indicated that a certain part of the note was paid, and both the lender and the borrower had died, the lender’s son collects the remainder from the borrower’s son without swearing that no more than the sum indicated had been paid (assuming that the borrower’s son cannot produce a document or witnesses that more had been paid than was claimed), since he could not collect if he had to swear that he was 100% sure that his claim was in the correct amount.. In that the son’s power is greater than the father’s, since the son collects without swearing while the father can collect only by swearing175If the borrower had died.. Rebbi Eleazar said176The same statement in the Babli, Šebuot 48a. It is in the heirs’ power to swear that according to their best knowledge the claim is justified., nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.177Mishnah Šebuot 7:7.” Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita178The one mentioned at the start of this paragraph, and also the Mishnah (cf. Note 166). follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.”179Mishnah Soṭah 4:3, about a woman whose husband, having no witnesses, formally accused her of adultery but died before he could bring her to the Temple for the cleansing ceremony. Since the verse requires the presence of the husband at the Temple ceremony (Yerushalmi Soṭah, p. 180, Note 14), the woman is prevented from clearing her name. The House of Hillel hold that she cannot collect her ketubah since she cannot prove her innocence to the heirs (loc. cit. p. 185, Note 38) based on the general principle that “the burden of proof is on the claimant.” Since the House of Shammai also agree to that principle, it must follow that for them the ketubah is as good as paid and the heirs are the claimants who want to have the money back but who cannot prove their case. This shows that for the House of Shammai the ketubah is the widow’s property from the moment of the husband’s death. Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: Bring my husband and I shall drink180The preceding argument is invalid. The House of Shammai may not hold that the ketubah is the widow’s property from the moment of the husband’s death, but they hold that if the woman was ready to clear her name, any impediment which is not her fault cannot be held against her. The House of Hillel hold that the heirs do not have to pay her ketubah; since she brought the problem on herself by being seen with another man after having been duly warned by her husband in front of two witnesses; she cannot collect except by successfully clearing her name. The problem is discussed in similar terms in Soṭah 4:1, Notes 13–16.! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear181His oath is a purely rabbinic institution for the prevention of fraud. Since it is rabbinic, it cannot be enforced if it would prevent anybody from collecting what is rightfully his.. They instituted that for him, but not for his son182Meaning, it could not be instituted as a burden on his son.. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy