Talmud sobre Behorot 1:10

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed⁹²To ever work again.. They told him, may they not bring a male to her, she is fertilized and gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a female to him, he fertilizes her and she gives birth? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen⁹³Since the argument of the rabbis has nothing to do with Sabbath prohibitions.
The Babli, Avodah zarah 16a and Bekhorot2b, disagrees and reports that R. Jehudah denies that a disabled cow will accept a male.. There⁹⁴Mishnah Bekhorot 1:1., we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Haggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this⁹⁵The note that one is not authorized to sell a pregnant animal to a Gentile. not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with (slaves) [fetuses]⁹⁶The word עבדים “slaves” in the Leiden ms. is a scribal error for עוּבָּרִין “fetuses” in G and Avodah zarah.? He said to them, Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you, since Rebbi Abun said in the name of the rabbis there, this implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed¹⁸⁴To ever work again.. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one]¹⁸⁵The text in parentheses is from the text here, the (correct) one in brackets from Pesaḥim. which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses¹⁸⁶Since the argument of the rabbis has nothing to do with Sabbath prohibitions. The Babli, 16a and Bekhorot2b, disagrees and reports that R. Jehudah denies that a disabled cow will accept a male.. There¹⁸⁷Mishnah Bekhorot1:1., we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this¹⁸⁸The note that one is not authorized to sell a pregnant animal to a Gentile. not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah¹⁴⁰Mishnah Bekhorot 1:7: “The obligation of levirate has precedence over ḥalîṣah. That was in earlier times, when people had the intent to fulfill the commandment, but now, when people do not have the intent to fulfill the commandment (but to enjoy the marriage) they said, the obligation of ḥalîṣah has precedence over levirate.”. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.¹¹⁷Deut. 25:9.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them¹⁴¹Gen. 48:16. This verse is a blessing.”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is there also a disagreement about large cattle? May one sell for the purpose of slaughter? It was found stated: Also large cattle is in dispute; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of slaughtering²¹⁷Babli 20a. This is not dependent on the Land; it applies everywhere. The Babli defines R. Jehudah’s adversary as R. Meïr..

Following Rebbi Eliezer²¹²who in the Mishnah held the wife of a sailor to one sex act every six months. If she refuses sex with her husband, does she lose 7 denars every week or every six months?, how far can he deduct? Let us hear from the following²¹³In a somewhat different formulation, Tosephta 5:7, Babli 63a, 64a.: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion for the husband²¹⁴The expression על בעלה is uncommon. Although it can be explained as “for her husband’s benefit”, probably it is a copyist’s error for על כתובתה mentioned in the quote of the Tosephta later in this paragraph. of a preliminarily married woman²¹⁵Who now is forbidden to sleep with her husband but who made it clear that she will refuse sex with him when definitely married. The Babli, 63a, explains that she is inflicting pain on the husband since “one cannot compare one who has bread in his basket to one who has no bread in his basket”, i. e., one who is assured of a sexual partner after time. The same argument is to be assumed for the woman being temporarily disabled by her period., or a sick one, a menstruating woman or one who is waiting for her levir. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him when she was having her period, the Torah made her rebel against him²¹⁶Since sexual relations with her are forbidden, Lev. 18:19.! But we must hold that she rebelled against him before she had her period and now she has it. At that moment she would not be able to rebel but you say one writes, therefore one also deducts²¹⁷Therefore, the sailor’s wife loses money every week, not every three months.. From where does one deduct? From the additions to her ketubah²¹⁸Greek τά παράφερνα, “additions to the dowry which the bride brings”. This corresponds to תּוֹסֶפֶת כְּתוּבָּה, the amounts the husband promises his wife for her dowry over and above the legal minimum of 200/100 zuz (cf. Mishnah 6:3). In this opinion, one forces the husband to divorce his wife after the additions to the dowry were written down.. Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, he continues to reduce, for maybe an inheritance will come to her from outside and he would be able to collect from it.” He mentioned only inheritance, which is infrequent. That means he deducts from the additions to he ketubah. ²¹⁹From here on, a parallel but different text is in the Babli, 64a. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Samuel: One writes a bill of rebellion for a preliminarily married woman, but one does not write a bill of rebellion for one who is waiting for her levir²²⁰Since she always can receive ḥalîṣah and leave the family.. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that one writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married woman or one who is waiting for her levir? There, according to the first Mishnah, here according to the later Mishnah²²¹Mishnah Bekhorot 1:7, that in earlier times levirate marriage was preferred over ḥalîṣah, so that the woman refusing her levir was inflicting pain on him, but today ḥalîṣah is preferred and in refusing her levir the woman is acting correctly. Cf. Yebamot12:7, Note 140.. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even if you say according to the later Mishnah, ²²²Different formulations in Tosephta 5:6, Babli 63b.”the later Court [instituted that] one warns her for four weeks, then she writes a receipt for her ketubah and leaves²²³I e., she confirms in writing that her former husband does not owe her any money; then she can claim a bill of divorce from him..”

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. ¹³³The entire Halakhah refers to Mishnah 15, not Mishnah 16. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption¹³⁴The court must believe that they had no sexual relations and that she never became the levir’s wife while living in his house.. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah¹³⁵Bekhorot 1:7 stating that in early times, levirate was preferred, but today ḥalîṣah is preferred., we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces¹³⁶Deut. 25:5–9 makes it clear that the levir can be compelled to appear in court but not that he can be compelled to do anything against his will.? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand¹³⁷In the Babli, 112a, this is the answer of Rav to the question why one does coerce him to perform ḥalîṣah if she already lives in his house, why does one not coerce him to sleep with her? Note that the colleagues prevented this question to be asked by referring to the later Mishnah.. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law¹³⁸As was determined earlier, in order to remarry she needs a bill of divorce for his “bespeaking” and ḥalîṣah for her candidacy of levirate.. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces¹³⁹The only difference between the colleagues and R. Yose is the formulation of the question. Since after 30 days the presumption is that she became his wife, why should he be asked to perform a useless ḥalîṣah? The answer is that he already gave the bill of divorce but that might not be enough to let the sister-in-law remarry.? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her¹⁴⁰He obligated himself since he asserts that she is his wife by biblical standards.. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her¹⁴¹She asserts that she is not his wife.. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property¹⁴²If there are potential co-heirs, he inherits only if he is married to the widow.. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her¹⁴³If he asserts that he did not copulate, it is obvious that there are no eyewitnesses to back up her claim for support as a wife. Since in money matters the proof is on the claimant, she cannot enforce her claim.. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property¹⁴⁴This is not obvious. In fact, all classical commentators amend the text to read “he does not inherit” and the editor of the Leiden ms. here notes a corruption. Their reason is that the coheirs can point to his denial of acquisition. There is little reason to accept the argument and the correction since Deut. 25:5–6 makes it quite clear that the transfer of property is an automatic consequence of the transfer of the wife and her word is the only one that should carry weight in his family.. The problem is whether he inherits from her¹⁴⁵One the one hand, she asserts that he inherits from her. On the other hand, he renounces all his rights in any settlement with her family. No answers are given to the questions that never apply in practice..