Talmud sur Guittin 3:7
הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן, מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּמִין, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא מֵת הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ הַלֵּוִי אוֹ הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי. מֵתוּ, צָרִיךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. אִם הִלְוָן בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁים:
Si l'on prête de l'argent à un Cohein, un Lévite ou un pauvre, pour déduire le montant de leur part de (la dîme), il le déduit en supposant qu'ils sont vivants; et il n'a pas besoin d'appréhender que le Cohein ou le Lévite sont morts ou que le pauvre est devenu riche. [Lorsqu'il sépare la terumah, il la vend et garde l'argent pour lui-même pour son prêt au Cohein; et il garde la première dîme et la dîme des pauvres et la mange pour son prêt au Lévite et au pauvre (mais de la première dîme, il sépare terumath-ma'aser pour le Cohein.) Et s'il est habitué à donnez son terumoth et son ma'aseroth à ce Cohein, ou Lévite, ou pauvre auquel il a emprunté, il n'a pas besoin de les investir de son ma'aseroth et de son terumoth par un autre, mais il les prend pour lui aussitôt après les avoir versés. Mais s'il a coutume de donner son terumoth et sa ma'aseroth à d'autres, il ne peut pas les garder pour ses emprunts jusqu'à ce qu'il en investisse d'abord un autre avec eux, puis les reprend pour son prêt.] S'ils (le Cohein, le Lévite, ou pauvre) décédé, il doit recevoir la permission des héritiers [qui ont hérité de la terre sur laquelle le créancier a une créance. Il doit recevoir leur permission pour recouvrer cette dette par l'intermédiaire de ces terumoth et ma'aseroth. Car ils pourraient désirer recevoir leurs dons et rembourser la dette de leur testateur d'ailleurs.] S'il les a prêtés avant Beth-Din, il n'a pas besoin de recevoir la permission des héritiers.
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma
“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items11The Babli, 113a, quotes this in the name of Rebbi; E reads “Joḥanan” instead of Jonathan.. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs12Giṭṭin 3:8 (Note 146), 8:7 (Note 104), Bava meṣi‘a 1:6; Babli 111b (in the name of Rami bar Ḥama). A loan executed without a public document is not subject to a title search; the loan cannot be collected either from mortgaged property or from the innocent buyer of property pledged for the oral loan.. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed13Babli 111b, in the name of Rava. Since the loan made before witnesses can be collected from unencumbered property, it can be collected from unencumbered property of the estate.
In the Babli, Bava batra 175b, Samuel agrees with Rav that an undocumented loan cannot be collected from the heirs; the opinion expressed here, that it can be enforced against the heirs but not against buyers of the property, is attributed there (176a) to Rav Pappa and declared judicial practice.. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs14But the Mishnah requires robbed real estate to be paid for. The question makes sense only in the formulation of the Mishnah, not the quote at the beginning of the present paragraph since both R. Jonathan and R. Simeon ben Laqish agree that originally robbed real estate available after the robber’s death must be returned to its original owners.. Explain it if he left them real estate15There is no question of “paying for it”, only of “returning it.”. But might it16The Mishnah. not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items17Which has to be returned according to everybody, for reasons other than the rules of foreclosure..
In the Babli, Bava batra 175b, Samuel agrees with Rav that an undocumented loan cannot be collected from the heirs; the opinion expressed here, that it can be enforced against the heirs but not against buyers of the property, is attributed there (176a) to Rav Pappa and declared judicial practice.. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs14But the Mishnah requires robbed real estate to be paid for. The question makes sense only in the formulation of the Mishnah, not the quote at the beginning of the present paragraph since both R. Jonathan and R. Simeon ben Laqish agree that originally robbed real estate available after the robber’s death must be returned to its original owners.. Explain it if he left them real estate15There is no question of “paying for it”, only of “returning it.”. But might it16The Mishnah. not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items17Which has to be returned according to everybody, for reasons other than the rules of foreclosure..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
As the following: Ganiba was lead out to be executed104It seems, by the Persian government as a political trouble maker. (Babli 7a).. He said, One should give money105In the Babli, 65b, 400 zuz. It seems that R. Abuna was Ganiba’s only student (Ḥulin 44a,50b). He also was Rav Huna’s student. to Rebbi Abuna from the wine of Kefar Panaya107In the Babli, 66a, the heirs were forced to pay by Rav Huna.. They did not give him107In the Babli, 66a, the heirs were forced to pay by Rav Huna.; they were considering what Rav said, “an heir is like the buyer of encumbered property.” Just as a loan before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs108Cf. Chapter 3, Note 146. The opinion ascribed here [and in 3:7, Baba qama 10:1 (7b 1. 39), Baba meṣi‘a 1:6 (8a 1.26)] to Rav is quoted as common to Rav and Samuel (i. e., established Babylonian practice) in Baba batra 175b.. If they did not give it as payment of a debt, they should have given as a gift! They were considering what Rebbi Eleazar said, for Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person98Some formal rules of gifts are waived for a person on his deathbed. If a sick person directs that gifts should be given and he dies, the gifts are valid even though no act of acquisition was performed for the benefit of the recipients. But if he recovers, his instructions are void in the absence of a formal act of acquisition; cf. Peah 3:9; Babli Baba batra 146b ff.? Rebbi Ze‘ira109In the Babli, he counsels R. Abina to appeal to Rav Huna. brought Rebbi Isaac from Atosha who stated for him: A gift is like a bill of divorce110Which is valid without formality if ordered by a person sentenced to death.. Rebbi Abba said to him, perhaps like bills of divorce which one cannot deliver if not delivered during his lifetime, so a gift is not called a gift if not delivered during his lifetime? He said to him, here comes the rabbi with sophistication to let Rebbi Abuna lose money! You cannot, for we have stated there111Mishnah 1:6.: “Give a mina to X; then he died. One shall give after death.” Following Rebbi Simeon. For Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, they should give him, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan before witnesses can be collected from the heirs112Quoted as opinion shared by R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish (i. e., common Galilean practice) in Baba batra 175b. on condition that they inherited real estate. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if somebody was with him until the moment of his death113Who can testify that from the moment of the gift to the donor’s death nothing was given to the recipient of the gift.. But if he goes in and out, I am saying that already he gave him. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it114Ganiba’s gift. was not given since Rebbi Ḥanina reported this fact: Levi Parisa115In Šabbat 3:4 (6a 1. 63), he is called Levi Sarisa. He may be Levi ben Sisi, known as a commuter between Galilee and Babylonia. was going from place to place when Ganiba’s relatives came to eat with him. He said, the money should be given to Rebbi Abuna; they started quarelling with him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia
HALAKHAH: “One who found documents of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from unincumbered property80Property which is in the debtor’s possession without being subject to any third party lien. In this version of R. Meïr’s position, a creditor who wants to be secure has to write a contract which forbids the debtor to either sell his property or to mortgage it to another person.. Following this opinion of Rebbi Meïr, to what purpose does he return it? To cover the mouth of his pitcher81In this context, the remark is a non sequitur. It seems to refer to another tradition of R. Meïr’s, quoted in the Babli, 13a, by Samuel: A contract containing no alienation clause cannot be used to foreclose. This means that such a contract is hardly worth the paper it is written on.
E has a different text with an additional sentence:
תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בֵּין שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין וּבֵין שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים. וַחֲכָמִים אומ׳ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין אֵנוֹ גוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים.
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from incumbered property. But the Sages say, he collects from incumbered property based on a document containing an alienation clause, but based on a document containing no alienation clause, he cannot collect from incumbered property.
S. Lieberman suggests to read תַּמָּן אוֹמְרִים “there (in Babylonia), they say” instead of “but the Sages say.” This then properly refers the entire discussion to positions of R. Meïr quoted in the Halakhah. One could also suggest to read אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים “others say,” and refer to the opinion stated as R. Meïr’s in Ketubot 4:9, Note 217, which is identical with that quoted here in the name of the “Sages”.. 82The following two sentences are from Bava Qamma 10:1, Notes 12–13. Rav’s statement is a reformulation, Samuel’s a copy. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected83Unencumbered property can be foreclosed on basis of an IOU missing an alienation clause. The property of the recipient of a gift cannot be foreclosed.. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien.
E has a different text with an additional sentence:
תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בֵּין שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין וּבֵין שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים. וַחֲכָמִים אומ׳ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין אֵנוֹ גוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים.
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from incumbered property. But the Sages say, he collects from incumbered property based on a document containing an alienation clause, but based on a document containing no alienation clause, he cannot collect from incumbered property.
S. Lieberman suggests to read תַּמָּן אוֹמְרִים “there (in Babylonia), they say” instead of “but the Sages say.” This then properly refers the entire discussion to positions of R. Meïr quoted in the Halakhah. One could also suggest to read אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים “others say,” and refer to the opinion stated as R. Meïr’s in Ketubot 4:9, Note 217, which is identical with that quoted here in the name of the “Sages”.. 82The following two sentences are from Bava Qamma 10:1, Notes 12–13. Rav’s statement is a reformulation, Samuel’s a copy. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected83Unencumbered property can be foreclosed on basis of an IOU missing an alienation clause. The property of the recipient of a gift cannot be foreclosed.. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy