Talmud sobre Eruvin 1:7

בַּכֹּל עוֹשִׂין לְחָיַיִן, אֲפִלּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. וּמְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם גּוֹלֵל, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר. וְכוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּטֵּי נָשִׁים, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי פוֹסֵל:

Cualquier cosa se puede usar como lechi, incluso un ser vivo. R. Yossi lo prohíbe, [temiendo que pueda morir y que ya no tenga diez tefachim de altura, y las personas, sin darse cuenta, continúan confiando en él.] Y (un ser vivo) se vuelve impuro por razón de golel ("top -Roca"). [Si lo convirtió en el golel de una tumba, siempre se vuelve inmundo si es tocado por un hombre o vasos, como una tienda de campaña sobre un cadáver, incluso si fue tomado de allí, está escrito (Números 19:16): " Y todo ese toque en la cara del campo fue asesinado por la espada, etc. ", que se expone para incluir golel y dofek (marco de la tumba). "Golel" es la cubierta de la tumba.] R. Meir lo gobierna. [La justificación de R. Meir: Cualquier partición que se mantenga en virtud de un espíritu vivo no es una partición. Esta no es la halajá.] Y se pueden escribir divorcios en ella (un animal). R. Yossi Haglili lo declara inadecuado, [está escrito (Deuteronomio 24: 1): "Entonces él le escribirá un pergamino de divorcio". Así como un pergamino no tiene espíritu viviente, todo lo que no tiene espíritu viviente (es válido como un divorcio). ¿Y los rabinos? (Dirían :) Si estuviera escrito: "Y él le escribirá en un pergamino", sería como usted dice. Pero ahora que está escrito: "Le escribirá un sefer", sippur devarim, "relación de palabras" (de divorcio) es lo que se pretende. La halajá está de acuerdo con el primer tanna. Y si él le escribió un divorcio en el cuerno de una vaca y le dio la vaca, en cuyo caso no requiere corte después de ser escrita, es kasher. Pero si él no le dio la vaca, sino solo la bocina, ya que debe cortarla, no se divorcia de ella.]

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

“On a cow’s horn.” The Mishnah⁷⁷Which requires that the cow be delivered to the wife as bill of divorce. in case he says to her, here is your bill of divorce. But if he says to her, here is your bill of divorce and the remainder is for your ketubah, her bill of divorce and the payment of her ketubah were received together⁷⁸The moment she accepts the horns carrying the bill of divorce, she acquires the animal as part payment of the ketubah. There is a small problem here which is not mentioned in either Talmud: A bill of divorce can be given to a wife against her will but the ketubah can be delivered in merchandise, instead of coin, only with her consent. Since transfer of property of an animal always requires an act of acquisition, the husband who writes the bill of divorce on the horns of a cow gives up his right to unilateral divorce.. If he said to her, here is your bill of divorce and the payment of your ketubah together⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Rebbi Ezra⁸⁰Reading of the Geniza. The reading of the Leiden ms., R. Ze‘ira, cannot refer to R. Ze‘ira, the head of the Academy of Tiberias, who lived in the second generation after R. Mana I and two generations before R. Mana II. A R. זְעוּרָה, student of R. Mana I, is quoted a few times in other places in the Yerushalmi. asked before Rebbi Mana: If he delivered the halter to her, what⁸¹A bridled animal can be acquired by the buyer by taking the halter in his hand and causing the animal to walk one step at his command.? In commercial law, the buy is acquired, do you say so here⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Or is it a difference since it is written: “he shall deliver into her hand,” until it is completely in her hand⁸²The bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand by being delivered by the husband, not by an active act of acquisition on her part. The formulation of this paragraph implies that this delivery of a bill of divorce is classified as invalid.!

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versículo anterior Capítulo completo Versículo siguiente