Talmud sobre Sotá 4:6

If there was ḥalîṣah during these three months, does she need another one after three months? Let us hear from the following⁹Mishnah 12:5.: “A minor who performed ḥalîṣah should perform ḥalîṣah after she grows up; if she performed [only one] ḥalîṣah, the ḥalîṣah she performed is valid¹⁰In a plurality of mss. of the Babylonian Mishnah, “not valid”. A minor cannot perform acts that are legally valid, but the essence of ḥalîṣah is the declaration of the levir, by necessity an adult, that he refuses to marry the widow..” Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya brought it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹¹In the parallel in Chapter 12, R. Jonah instead of R. Joḥanan.; this is Rebbi Meïr‘s, since Rebbi Meïr says one does neither perform ḥalîṣah nor levirate with a minor: maybe she would turn out to be a she-ram¹²R. Meïr is known in many cases to require attention to possibilities that are seldom realities. For a she-ram, levirate is forbidden and ḥalîṣah unnecessary. The same argument in Babli Bekhorot 19b; a detailed discussion in Tosaphot ad. loc., s. v. איש.. As you say there, even though she already performed ḥalîṣah, she again performs ḥalîṣah; so here also though she did perform ḥalîṣah, she performs ḥalîṣah¹³If ḥalîṣah was performed early, against the rules, it has to be performed again after the three months have passed but, in case this was not done, the first ḥalîṣah is valid..

When Rav descended there⁷⁸“There” always means Babylonia; going to Babylonia is “descending,” going to the Land of Israel is “ascending.” The story appears in the same context in Babli Sotah 45a, the actor being Abbaie, three generations after Rav; the Yerushalmi version is also in Sota 9:2., he declared: I am this place’s Ben Azai⁷⁹Ben Azai, one of the most outstanding students of Rebbi Aqiba, was a walking encyclopedia and used to stroll through the markets of Tiberias, ready to immediately answer any question of Jewish learning. He died during mystical studies before he could marry R. Aqiba’s daughter. In the Talmudim, several sages are reported to have tried to imitate Ben Azai but all of them were quickly confronted with a question for which they gave the wrong answer or did not know any answer at all. The story is inserted here because a few paragraphs down hidden sheaves will be discussed.. There came an old man and asked him, two slain people, one on top of the other⁸⁰This refers to Deut. 21:1–9, about the purification ceremony when a person is found murdered and the murderer is not found. Then a calf’s neck is broken in a ravine not used for agriculture.? Rav was of the opinion that one breaks the neck. He told him, one does not break the neck. He asked him, why? He said to him, not the lower one for he is hidden⁸¹The relevant verse is Deut. 21:1: “If a corpse is found on the land the Eternal, your God, gives to you.…” The lower body is not “found”; he is only discovered when the other body is removed. The upper body is not found on the land., not the upper one because he floats. When he ascended here, he came to Rebbi, who told him: He told you correctly, “if he is found,” and not “if they are found.”

MISHNAH: If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted¹⁰⁵If he is poor at harvest time. but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him¹⁰⁶And for this pay him smaller wages, since he is paying his debts with the money of the poor.. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary¹⁰⁷The implication is from the second part of the verse: “Nor intrude on the land of orphans.” On Prov.22:28, Rashi comments: “Do not displace an eternal boundary,” do not change established usage; our teachers said: He who puts a basket under the vine at harvest time so that the single berries fall into it, on him it is said, do not displace an eternal boundary. On Prov. 24:10, Rashi writes, “Nor intrude on the land of orphans,” the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah which belong to them..”

HALAKHAH: “If he escaped before sentence was passed,” etc. ⁶²This paragraph is quoted in Sotah 4:3, Notes 39–41. This is one of the few cases where the Leiden ms. does not copy the text but simply refers to it by “etc.” The parallel quotes in the Babli are Sotah 25a, Sanhedrin88a. Rebbi Joshia said, Zeˋira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the deviant son, and the Elder rebelling against the [Supreme] Court.

It was stated¹⁴⁷Tosephta Niddah 2:3, Babli 60a. In both these texts, one reads: If he stopped after24months, one does not return him. A parallel text in Yerushalmi Niddah 1:5, with a different tradition of names.: A baby suckles continuously until 24 months; after that he is as if an unclean creature would suckle, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Joshua says, he suckles continuously even four or five years. If he stopped, one does not return him. How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁴⁸This reading is impossible since R. Jacob bar Aḥa is one generation before R. Jeremiah. One must read “Rav Jeremiah”, the colleague and student of Rav. in the name of Rav: From hour to hour¹⁴⁹From a certain hour one day to the same hour the next day, i. e., 24 hours.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Three days from hour to hour¹⁵⁰In the Babli, 60a, this is attributed to the school of Samuel.. It was stated: From hour to hour. Rebbi Hizqiyah, Rav: When has this been said? If he stopped while being healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one does return him. When there was no danger. But if it was because of danger, one returns him even after a number of days¹⁵¹This argument is not mentioned in the Babli which, therefore, can be
assumed to agree..

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a compromised promissory note, the son collects without swearing¹⁷⁴If the father had indicated that a certain part of the note was paid, and both the lender and the borrower had died, the lender’s son collects the remainder from the borrower’s son without swearing that no more than the sum indicated had been paid (assuming that the borrower’s son cannot produce a document or witnesses that more had been paid than was claimed), since he could not collect if he had to swear that he was 100% sure that his claim was in the correct amount.. In that the son’s power is greater than the father’s, since the son collects without swearing while the father can collect only by swearing¹⁷⁵If the borrower had died.. Rebbi Eleazar said¹⁷⁶The same statement in the Babli, Šebuot 48a. It is in the heirs’ power to swear that according to their best knowledge the claim is justified., nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.¹⁷⁷Mishnah Šebuot 7:7.” Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita¹⁷⁸The one mentioned at the start of this paragraph, and also the Mishnah (cf. Note 166). follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.”¹⁷⁹Mishnah Soṭah 4:3, about a woman whose husband, having no witnesses, formally accused her of adultery but died before he could bring her to the Temple for the cleansing ceremony. Since the verse requires the presence of the husband at the Temple ceremony (Yerushalmi Soṭah, p. 180, Note 14), the woman is prevented from clearing her name. The House of Hillel hold that she cannot collect her ketubah since she cannot prove her innocence to the heirs (loc. cit. p. 185, Note 38) based on the general principle that “the burden of proof is on the claimant.” Since the House of Shammai also agree to that principle, it must follow that for them the ketubah is as good as paid and the heirs are the claimants who want to have the money back but who cannot prove their case. This shows that for the House of Shammai the ketubah is the widow’s property from the moment of the husband’s death. Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: Bring my husband and I shall drink¹⁸⁰The preceding argument is invalid. The House of Shammai may not hold that the ketubah is the widow’s property from the moment of the husband’s death, but they hold that if the woman was ready to clear her name, any impediment which is not her fault cannot be held against her. The House of Hillel hold that the heirs do not have to pay her ketubah; since she brought the problem on herself by being seen with another man after having been duly warned by her husband in front of two witnesses; she cannot collect except by successfully clearing her name. The problem is discussed in similar terms in Soṭah 4:1, Notes 13–16.! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear¹⁸¹His oath is a purely rabbinic institution for the prevention of fraud. Since it is rabbinic, it cannot be enforced if it would prevent anybody from collecting what is rightfully his.. They instituted that for him, but not for his son¹⁸²Meaning, it could not be instituted as a burden on his son.. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.