Talmud sobre Nedarim 11:4

קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּי אַבָּא, וְעַל פִּי אָבִיךָ, וְעַל פִּי אָחִי, וְעַל פִּי אָחִיךָ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּיךָ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַעְדִּיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה וּתְהִי אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו:

(Si ella dijo :) "Konam que no trabajo para la boca de mi padre", o "para la boca de tu padre", o "para la boca de mi hermano" o "para la boca de tu hermano". No puede anularlo. [es decir, si ella dijo: "Hekdesh (" dedicado ") será todo mi trabajo de llegar a la boca de mi padre"; es decir, que mi padre no pueda beneficiarse de mi trabajo, no puede anularlo; porque estas no son "cosas entre él y ella". Y en todo esto está de acuerdo, que si ella prohíbe que otros se beneficien de ella, su esposo no puede anularlo.] (Si ella dijo: "Konam,) que no trabajo para tu boca", él no necesita anularlo. [Porque ella está obligada a él. Y a pesar de que Hekdesh disuelve las obligaciones, los sabios fortalecieron su obligación con su esposo, y el vower no pudo disolver esa obligación.] R. Akiva dice: Él debería anularlo, porque ella podría ganar además de lo que le corresponde a él [y "hekdesh" surte efecto sobre esa adición, no volviendo a él. Debe, por lo tanto, anularlo; y la anulación es en vano, el voto implica "cosas entre él y ella", siendo imposible que la adición no se entremezcle con lo que vuelve a su marido.] R. Yochanan b. Nuri dice: Él debería anularlo, para que no se divorcie de ella y se le prohíba regresar con él. [Y su trabajo básico requiere anulación, para que él no se divorcie de ella y se disuelva su obligación con su esposo, en cuyo momento el voto entrará en vigencia, y se le prohibirá volver a él. La halajá está de acuerdo con R. Yochanan b. Nuri (Y estamos hablando de un caso en el que ella dice: "Que mis manos sean hekdesh para su Hacedor", las manos están "en el mundo" (para que ella no se comprometa a "algo que no está en el mundo" ), y Hekdesh "toma" sobre ellos.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property¹⁰⁵Rebbi Meïr holds that a man means what he says (Nazir 2:1, 51d 1. 16; Babli Arakhin 5a). Since he must agree with R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian and everybody else that nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control, he will interpret the husband’s vow not that he dedicates the future earnings of his wife but he dedicates her hands for what they will produce in the future. Since the hands do exist and the wife is required to work for him, the vow is valid.. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property¹⁰⁶Nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control; the husband can appropriate his wife’s work for himself as profane property.. ¹⁰⁷The following text is from Nedarim 11:4, Notes 50–53. In the Babli, 57b, different but similarly sounding explanations are given in the names of the Babylonians Rav and Samuel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs⁵¹Since a woman divorced after the definitive marriage but before sexual relations can claim only a ketubah of a mina, it is at the end. But since she still is a virgin, it is the beginning. The definition of R. Ze‘ira leads to the construction of a self-contradictory case; it should be rejected., as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated.¹⁰⁸End of the parallel in Nedarim. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, what one states there¹⁰⁹In Babylonia. The baraita is not in the Babli. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield¹¹⁰In the absence of a written contract to the contrary, the husband is the administrator of the wife’s property; he is paid for his efforts by the cash yield of the property (Mishnah 6:1). Therefore, while he has no property rights to his wife’s excess earnings, by the ketubah he has a contractual interest in the increase of property generated by these earnings since such an increase could increase the cash yield which will be his. Therefore, he should be an interested party and his vow should be recognized by both R. Meïr and R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian without restrictions. This argument is too far-fetched to merit an answer.?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versículo anterior Capítulo completo Versículo siguiente