Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sur Erouvin 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:

Tout peut être utilisé comme un lechi, même un être vivant. R. Yossi l'interdit, [craignant qu'il ne meure et n'ait plus dix tefachim de haut, et les gens, ne le remarquant pas, continuent à s'en remettre.] Et il (une chose vivante) le rend impur en raison du golel ("top -calcul"). [S'il en a fait le golel d'une tombe, il est toujours impur s'il est touché par un homme ou des vaisseaux, comme une tente sur un cadavre, même s'il en a été enlevé, il est écrit (Nombres 19:16): " Et tout ce qui touche à la face du champ tué par l'épée, etc. ", qui est exposé pour inclure le golel et le dofek (cadre de la tombe). "Golel" est la couverture de la tombe.] R. Meir la juge propre. [Le raisonnement de R. Meir: Toute partition qui se tient en vertu d'un esprit vivant n'est pas une partition. Ce n'est pas la halakha.] Et les divorces peuvent être écrits dessus (un animal). R. Yossi Haglili la juge inapte, [étant écrit (Deutéronome 24: 1): "Alors il lui écrira un rouleau de divorce." Tout comme un rouleau n'a pas d'esprit vivant, de même, tout ce qui n'a pas d'esprit vivant (vaut comme divorce). Et les rabbins? (Ils diraient :) S'il était écrit: «Et il lui écrira dans un rouleau», ce serait comme vous dites. Mais maintenant qu'il est écrit: «Il lui écrira un sefer», sippur devarim, «rapport de mots» (de divorce) est ce qui est prévu. La halakha est conforme au premier tanna. Et s'il lui a écrit un divorce sur la corne d'une vache et lui a donné la vache, auquel cas il n'est pas nécessaire de la couper après avoir été écrite, c'est kasher. Mais s'il ne lui a pas donné la vache, mais seulement la corne, puisqu'il doit la couper, elle n'en a pas divorcé.]

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
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant