Talmud sobre Sheviit 10:12

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold¹⁶Tosaphot in Giṭṭin 41a, s. v. אשה, are of the opinion that the Babli concurs.. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold¹⁷If the wife is not from a priestly family, then her slaves can eat only because he made her his wife. He cannot sell them since nobody can sell what is not his; Tosephta 9:1.. From your own they¹⁸The developers of rabbinic doctrine. gave to you. It would be logical that one¹⁹A paraphernalia slave who is not property of a Cohen. should not eat heave. But they said that he eats²⁰As if he were the property of a Cohen., and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye”²¹If a slave loses a body part through his owner’s fault, he gains his freedom (Ex. 21:26). Paraphernalia slaves are property of the wife but not the husband. This part of the baraita is quoted in the Babli. Baba Qama 89a. from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves²²This baraita holds that they are the husband’s property; therefore, he must have the absolute power to sell them, against R. Joḥanan. are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit²³The Babli agrees without a dissenting opinion., as we have stated²⁴Quoted as tannaitic text also in Giṭṭin 4:4 (fol. 45b), as amoraic in the Babli, Baba Qama 11b. 33b; Baba Meṣi‘a 44b.: If somebody mortgages²⁵Greek ὑποθήκη “mortgage”. a slave and later sold him, he is not sold²⁶The creditor can foreclose on the slave in the hands of the buyer.; if he freed him, he is freed²⁷The creditor has to sue the borrower for damages; he cannot put his hand on the ex-slave.. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days”²⁸Ex. 21:20. The exemption for the owner who hits his slave which provided that he is not prosecutable if the slave survives for two days is not available to either wife or husband. This baraita defines “owner” as a person who has both the right to and disposition of his property.
This text is also in the Babli Baba Qama 89b. and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time²⁹“Selling temporarily” is not selling the property but leasing the use of the property for a limited period.? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: ³⁰Ševi‘it 10:1 (Notes 22–24), in a slightly different version Babli Giṭṭin41a. If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself³¹The buyer has to insure himself against the possibility that the creditor or the wife at the dissolution of her marriage will foreclose the property and he will have to sue the seller for restitution of the sale price.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman³²Without a male protector. Then the law has to protect her. should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel³³Since the wife has a lien on the mortmain slaves, the husband cannot alienate them without her consent, just as he cannot alienate real estate put up as collateral for her ketubah.
Rosh (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel) in his commentary on this Yerushalmi (Yebamot 7 #1) holds that the husband is prevented even from leasing the property without his wife’s consent. Rif (R. Isaac Fasi), Giṭṭin #472 holds that the husband may not sell but may lease for a limited time.. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.

³³Ševi‘it 10:2, explained there in Notes 75–77, variant readings noted ש. The Mishnah notes that court judgments are not subject to the rules of the Sabbatical. This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed]³⁴By judgment of the court. loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality.

MISHNAH: “We testify against this man that he owes another 1’000 denars payable within 30 days” but he says, within ten years²⁴The witnesses found to be plotting wanted to deprive their victim of the use of 1’000 denars for almost ten years.. One estimates how much a person would be willing to pay to have 1’000 denars at his disposal to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days.
“We testify against this man that he owes another 200 denars” and they are found to be plotting, they are flogged and have to pay since the title which brings him to flogging is not the one which brings him to restitution²⁵They are flogged for false testimony and have to pay restitution as plotters., the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, anybody who pays is not flogged⁹As a general principle, no crime can be punished by more than one punishment. There never can be separate penalties for testifying falsely (Ex.20:13) and plotting (Deut. 19:19). This justifies the alternative presented in the preceding paragraph.
The text is copied from Terumot 7:1 Note 14; also Bava qamma 7:2, Note 30..
“We testify against this man that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes” and they are found plotting, they are whipped 80 because of do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness and because of do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, they only are flogged 40 times⁹As a general principle, no crime can be punished by more than one punishment. There never can be separate penalties for testifying falsely (Ex.20:13) and plotting (Deut. 19:19). This justifies the alternative presented in the preceding paragraph.
The text is copied from Terumot 7:1 Note 14; also Bava qamma 7:2, Note 30..
One distributes money but one does not distribute floggings. How? If they testified that he owes another person 200 denars and were found plotting, one distributes between them²⁶There must be at least 2 witnesses for their testimony to be heard. If there were n witnesses, each one has to pay 200/n denars.. If they testified that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes and were found plotting, each one of them is flogged 40 lashes.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A ring does not have the status of a pledge⁴⁴Since it has to be returned as is, it is only a reminder without legal consequences. Cf. Ševi‘t 10:9, Note 131; Babli 48b.. Nobody dealing in words onlymay one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”⁴⁵Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a, Tosephta 3:14. As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one promised a gift to another and wanted to renege on it, he may renege.⁴⁶Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 133–142; Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:7 Note 129 Babli 49a. [Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is that “true no, true yes⁴⁷Lev. 19:36.”?]⁴⁸Text added from E. Since the answer is given in L, the question must have been in the original text. For the duty to be honest in monetary matters as a biblical command, cf. Ševi‘it 10:9, Note 134; Giṭṭin 6:1, Note 39. He said, at the moment when he said it, he had to speak with full deliberation⁴⁹The obligation to be honest does not imply a prohibition to change one’s mind. In the Giṭṭin text, it is R. Jacob bar Zavdi who gives the answer to R. Yose [Babli 49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Bekhorot Pereq 8(7)].. After that, if he changes his mind, he cannot change it, that is, if [the recipient] is poor⁵⁰Giving alms is not a gift to the poor but a gift to God and as such is final upon being promised (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6.
Kaftor waPeraḥ Chapter 44 reads: “If somebody promised to give a gift and wants to change his mind, he may change his mind. But if he said, I am speaking with full deliberation, he cannot change his mind. That is, for a rich recipient. But for a poor recipient it becomes a vow.” This seems to be more of a paraphrase than an exact quote.. But for a rich person, is that a vow? Rav commanded his servant: If I tell you to give a gift to a person, if he is poor, give it to him immediately. But if he is rich, take counsel with me a second time⁵¹This contradicts the statement in Ševi‘t 10:9 that Rav never changed his mind once he had promised a gift..

MISHNAH: A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only by an oath⁵⁵If the widow continued to live in her husband’s house, she is suspected to have taken from her husband’s property more than was necessary for her guaranteed support and, therefore, if she decides to leave that house she cannot collect her ketubah without swearing that nothing of her ketubah already came into her hand, similar to a woman who had received a down payment on her ketubah, cf. Ketubot 9:8,9.. When they avoided letting her swear⁵⁶The rabbis became worried that the widow while caring for the orphans took things which she thought were payment for her work but which legally should be counted as part payment of the ketubah; if she then swore that she had received nothing, the widow involuntarily transgressed the prohibition of false oaths and the rabbis the prohibition of “putting a stone in the path of the blind.”, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should make a vow⁵⁷A vow that she would prohibit on herself the use of anything (food, vessel, place) chosen by the orphans if she had received any down payment for her ketubah. For these “vows of mortification”, see Introduction to Tractate Nedarim. on the instruction of the orphans for anything they would decide on and collect her ketubah, and that witnesses sign the bill of divorce because of the public good. Hillel instituted prozbol for the public good⁵⁸Prozbol is a document which turns a private debt (subject to the laws of revocation in the Sabbatical year) into a public debt (exempt from these laws) in order to maintain an operating banking system; cf. Ševi‘it 10:3 ff..

Rav Huna said, why did they require a date on the bill of divorce? Because of an actual case. It so happened that a man was married to his sister’s daughter who committed adultery when she was still married. He predated the bill of divorce and said, it is better she should be judged as single rather than as a married woman⁶⁴In the Babli, 17a/b, R. Joḥanan refers to this story; the editors of the Babli assumed that this Yerushalmi was generally known..

Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here: ¹⁰⁷This is from Ševiˋit 10:3, Note 91 where prozbol is explained. The text there and in the Babli, Ketubot 22a, is in the name of the earlier Amora R. Abba. If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents he inferred from the rules of prozbol.

¹³¹From G, a quote from Mishnah 13. The discussion refers to Mishnah 14 which also is Mishnah Ševiˋit 10:8 (Note 67), viz., the case that a homicide is honored.[If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain.] [Rebbi]¹³²From G. In Ševiˋit 10:8 the speaker is R. Yose (the Amora). Abbai said, a scholar has to make his qualifications known. ¹³³Halakhah Ševiˋit 10:8, Note 123. He has memorized and completely mastered one collection of Tannaitic statements. If he knows one collection and he comes to a place where they honor him as if he knew two, he has to tell them, I know one collection. ¹³⁴This does not belong here; it has been copied from Ševiˋit 10:7. If a lender is offered repayment of a loan in a Sabbatical, when it should be forgiven, he may say softly that he observes the Sabbatical, implying that he will not urge repayment while at the same time accepting the voluntary liquidation of the debt.(Rav Huna said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to receive.)

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba says: Any real estate¹¹⁸Even if its area is a fraction of a square inch. is subject to peah and first fruits¹¹⁹If it is used for agriculture., to write a prozbol¹²⁰Greek προσβολή, ή, "falling upon, application." As a legal term, "in an auction, document recording the knocking down of a lot to a purchaser" (L. & S.). Only in the Babli does the word appear with ס instead of ז; the etymology proposed would require s and not ζ but this may be a matter of local dialect. Prozbol was instituted by Hillel as a way to circumvent the annulment of debts in the Seventh Year in cases when that annulment would only be a rabbinic ordinance. Since only debts due to real persons are annulled by the Seventh Year, the creditor may deliver the debt to the court to be collected. Since the court is not a real person, the debt is not subject to annulment. The document may be written only as a lien on real estate. The details of prozbol are given in tractate Gittin. based on it, and to acquire simultaneously non-guaranteed property¹²¹Real estate is always sold with a title guarantee unless explicitly disclaimed. If the buyer loses the land he bought, either for lack of a valid title or because of a foreclosure of a pre-existing mortgage, he has regress on all other real estate owned by the seller. [The technical term אחריות “warranty” is אַחֵרָיוּת, corresponding to Latin alienatio “transfer of property to another person.”] with money or contract or possession¹²²Movable property can be acquired only by some act of taking possession, either actual or symbolic. This is necessary in order to determine the exact moment when responsibility for the article is transferred, to avoid situations in which the seller takes the money and then claims that the article was lost in an accident, leaving the buyer without any chance to prove that it was lost when the responsibility was the seller’s. However, since buying real estate is a stronger form of contract, a contract or understanding to buy real estate can be extended to include movables. In that case, the moment of transfer of property rights to the real estate is determining also for the movables. The ways of acquiring real estate are either a contract witnessed by two witnesses, or payment of cash in front of witnesses, or a court ruling confirming squatters’ rights. The general theory of these matters is discussed in tractate Qiddušin; the exact and restrictive definition of enforceable squatters’ rights is one of the topics of tractate Baba Batra..
If someone signs over his properties¹⁴⁸In a gift document. when bedridden and reserved for himself any real estate, his gift is permanent¹⁴⁹Since he reserved property, the document is a gift and not a will, on condition that it was executed under all conditions of a valid gift.; if he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent¹⁵⁰If he did not reserve anything for himself, it is clear that he did not expect to survive. If he survives nevertheless, the entire document becomes void.. If he signs over his properties to his sons and signs over some real estate for his wife, she lost her ketubah¹⁵¹The ketubah is a mortgage on the husband’s entire property, to be paid to the wife at the termination of the marriage, after divorce or after the husband’s death. It represents the financial obligation of the husband to his wife; without such an obligation, any sexual relations between man and wife are considered illicit. The value of the obligation was fixed at 200 zuz(800 silver denars) for a virgin and 100 zuz (400 silver denars) for a previously married woman. A measure of the intended value of these sums is found in Mishnah 8:8,9, viz., that anyone with 200 zuz investment capital or 50 zuz business capital is living above the poverty line and barred from receiving charity.
The Halakhah explains the circumstances under which the wife may agree to be co-heir to the sons. The Mishnah appears in the context of the power of contracts involving real estate; the first part belongs to the matters treated in Baba Batra and Giṭṭin, the second part to Ketubot.. Rebbi Yose¹⁵²The Tanna, ben Ḥalaphta. says, if she accepted it, even if it was not in a written document, she lost her ketubah.

HALAKHAH: ¹³⁹The text in brackets is from G. Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 15. The text in parentheses is from the Leiden ms. The correct quote of the Mishnah is in G.[They⁶⁸The feminine form of the verb is confirmed by the readings of Maimonides and Rashi, as well as the Munich ms. of the Babli. In the Babli, the question is raised whether the homicide (reading מעלים) pays rent or his hometown (reading מעלות) pays indemnity to the Levites in either the city of refuge or the 42 additional Levitic cities which also serve as cities of asylum. Since neither Sifry nor the Yerushalmi mention this, it seems that the Yerushalmi recognizes only the six cities of refuge as proper places of asylum. were paying rent to the Levites.] ¹⁴⁰Maˋaser Šeni 5:8, Notes 165–167. The question is whether individual houses in Levitic cities were private or tribal property, as explained there. Even though three sources (the Leiden ms. here and in Maˋaser Šeni and G here) confirm the text “R. Yose said, they were given as dwellings” one must read “R. Meïr”, as shown. R. Yose holds with R. Jehudah in Mishnah Maˋaser Šeni 5:9. In the Babli (13a) it is held that the six cities of refuge were tribal property; for the other 42 Levitic cities the dispute is not resolved. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they were given to be distributed. Rebbi Yose said, they were given as dwellings. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Meïr follows his own opinion as we have stated: “They⁶⁸The feminine form of the verb is confirmed by the readings of Maimonides and Rashi, as well as the Munich ms. of the Babli. In the Babli, the question is raised whether the homicide (reading מעלים) pays rent or his hometown (reading מעלות) pays indemnity to the Levites in either the city of refuge or the 42 additional Levitic cities which also serve as cities of asylum. Since neither Sifry nor the Yerushalmi mention this, it seems that the Yerushalmi recognizes only the six cities of refuge as proper places of asylum. were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi (Meïr) [Jehudah]. Rebbi (Jehudah) [Meïr] said, they were not paying rent to the Levites.”

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. ⁹⁶Ševi`it 10:9 Notes 133–134; Giṭtin 6:1 Note 39, Bava meṣi`a 4:2 Note 49; Babli Bava meṣi`a49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7). Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did He not say “a true yes”⁹⁷Lev. 19:36. The pun identifies the measure הִין with the Aramaic equivalent הֵן of the Hebrew כֵּן “yes”. It shows that -ֵ was pronounced like -ִי (Itacistic η = ῖ). The verse is read as exhortation to be honest in business dealings.? At the moment when he said it, it was a true yes.