Mishná
Mishná

Talmud sobre Guitín 1:6

הָאוֹמֵר, תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן, יַחֲזֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, רַשַּׁאי. וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶם, וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָנוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר, תְּנוּ גֵט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, וּמֵת, לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מָנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וּמֵת, יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה:

Si uno dice: Entregue esto a mi esposa, o este escrito de manumisión a mi siervo, si desea retractarse con ambos, [antes de que lleguen a la mano de la mujer o del siervo], puede hacerlo [y el messenger no puede adquirir la orden judicial en su nombre; porque es una responsabilidad para ellos porque les priva de su sustento.] Estas son las palabras de R. Meir. Los sabios dicen: [Puede retractarse] con la gittina de las mujeres, pero no con las manumisiones de los lazos. [Y la halajá está de acuerdo con los sabios.] Porque a un hombre se le otorga un beneficio incluso no en su presencia, pero la responsabilidad se le impone solo en su presencia. Porque si no quisiera alimentar a su esclavo, podría hacerlo, [para que cuando lo libere no le haga perder el sustento]; pero no se le permite no alimentar a su esposa, [de modo que cuando se divorcia de ella, hace que pierda su sustento.] Él (R. Meir) les dijo: Pero descalifica a su esclavo de terumah, así como descalifica ¡su esposa! Ellos respondieron: Eso es porque él es su adquisición. [Es decir, la razón por la cual el fiador de un Cohein come terumah es porque él es su adquisición—así como la bestia de un Cohein come terzah veza, y no hay ascendencia en esto. Por lo tanto, si lo libera, a pesar de que lo descalifica de comer terumah, esto no es responsabilidad para el fiador.] Si uno dice: Dale esto a mi esposa, o (dale) este mandato de manumisión a mi fiador, y él murió, no se deben dar después de su muerte. [Porque no es una trampa hasta que llega a su mano, y cuando llega a su mano, él está muerto; y no hay nada después de la muerte. Y con la orden de manumisión, también, cuando llega a su mano (la del esclavo), él (el propietario) está muerto y no tiene autoridad sobre él.] (Si uno dice :) Dale un manah a este y este hombre, y él muere, se debe dar después de su muerte [incluso si no dijo: "este manah", porque las palabras de un shechiv mera (una en el punto de la muerte) son como "escrito y dado"].

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity11This is the unanimous opinion of the Babli.? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.12This is an obligation independent of the wishes of the deceased.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate13Since usually a ketubah is payable in real estate.. As it was stated14A similar text in Tosephta 9:3.: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody15Anybody with a claim sustainable in court, the widow for her ketubah or a creditor. who takes them first acquires them and16If nothing is left of his estate. he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first17If the estate already had disappeared before the burial.. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me18If the deceased had requested a burial before he died, the burial expenses are privileged.. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses19In this case, time is of the essence since any one of the witnesses could die anytime. But real estate can be foreclosed only by a regular court procedure.. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not20It seems that this is a scribal error and one should read: מוציאין “one does remove”. Since the claim is documented, there is no need for the creditor to resort to self-help. remove from their hands. For21This is an unnecessary word; R. Abba explains general principles about the legal standing of death-bed requests. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said22In the Babli (Baba batra 152a, 175a; Giṭṭin 13a, 15a) this is an undisputed statement of Rav Naḥman.: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered23The legal forms of a valid gift.. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y24It seems that one has to read: Give field X to Y and Z. It is understood that each one gets half a field but the method of subdivision of the field was not indicated.? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half?25No answer is given since it is clear that the bequest cannot be enforced against the legal heirs; the burden of proof being on the claimants, who would have to prove in court that the method of division is that intended by the donor; this is impossible after the latter’s death. Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give?26Since the first half of the request is clearly illegal, can the second half be legal? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway27Since daughters’ right to sustenance is a standard condition of the ketubah (Mishnah 4:11), what did the mention of the daughters add to their rights?? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables28At places where the ketubah could be taken only in real estate, the daughters could be supported only by real estate.? Rebbi Yudan [ ]29The words בָּרַח לְנוֹי “he fled to beauty” do not make sense here. there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold30By bodily possession.. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated31Tosephta Qiddušin 1:7.: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. 32This last sentence is not in the Tosephta or in the Babli (Baba batra76a); R. Yose’s ruling is rejected by Rav Naḥman (Note 22) who validates the transfer of documents by death-bed declaration. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versículo anteriorCapítulo completoVersículo siguiente