Talmud sur Ketoubot 9:2

מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב וְיוֹרְשִׁין, וְהָיָה לוֹ פִקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִלְוֶה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִנָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין, אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁין, שֶׁכֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה:

Si l'un décède et laisse une femme, un créancier et des héritiers, et qu'il a un gage ou un prêt (lui dû) entre les mains d'autrui, R. Tarfon dit: Il doit être donné aux «plus faibles» d'entre eux . [Certains expliquent: à celui dont l'acte est le plus récent, il est le «plus faible» de tous, ne pouvant pas saisir les biens qui avaient été vendus avant lui (c'est-à-dire avant la date de l'acte.) D'autres expliquent: au ( kethubah de la) femme. Elle est appelée «la plus faible», il n'est pas convenable pour une femme, comme pour un homme, de rechercher la propriété d'un mort et de se renseigner sur où il a des terres. Et même si les biens des orphelins ne sont pas liés au créancier ou à la kethubah de la femme, ici, où ils ne sont pas de leur domaine, R. Tarfon soutient qu'il est pris de la main du débiteur ou de la main du celui qui a le gage, et donné au créancier ou à la (femme pour elle) kethubah.] R. Akiva dit: "Il n'y a pas de miséricorde dans le jugement", et il est donné aux héritiers [et saisie (par les autres ) n'est d'aucune utilité.] Car tous exigent un serment, mais les héritiers n'ont pas besoin d'un serment. [Car si quelqu'un vient chercher sur la propriété des orphelins, il ne peut le faire que sous serment. Et tant qu'ils (les demandeurs) ne jurent pas, nous ne savons pas s'ils leur doivent quoi que ce soit. Par conséquent, lorsque le père décède, les héritiers en héritent (le prêt ou le gage), et c'est dans leur domaine.]

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

Samuel said, if two men acted as judges, their judgment stands, but they are called an insolent court³⁶Babli 3a,5b,30a,87b; Ketubot 22a. Cf. Berakhot 7:1, Note 18.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are instructing: Even³⁷Even if the parties accepted them as judges. if two men acted as judges, their judgment is no judgment³⁸In the Babli, this opinion is represented by Rava (5b) and R. Abbahu (87b), the student of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.. There, we have stated³⁹Mishnah Bekhorot 4:4. The Mishnah refers to a person who did not pass the required examinations and was not formally qualified as a judge.: “If he rendered judgment, acquitted the guilty and condemned the innocent, declared the pure impure or the impure pure, what he did is done but he has to pay from his own pocket.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were two⁴⁰Since R. Abbahu follows his teachers and holds that any judgment passed by a court of two judges is void, as well as from the following quote, it is clear that one has to read “three” in place of “two”.. What are we dealing with? If his error was that he judged them on his discretion⁴¹If there exists no clear precedent for the case; different schools promulgate different rules and he followed a minority opinion because it seemed to him to be the correct one, his judgment is valid but there is no reason why he should have to pay. The Babli, 33a, declares a judgment against a clear majority of opinions as an error in law., then what he did is done. If his error was that he judged them by Torah law⁴²If his judgment contradicted a Mishnah or a clear precedent, in Israel a judgment of the Patriarch’s court or in Babylonia a concurrent judgment of both Yeshivot, his judgment is void (cf. Ketubot 9:2, Note 100). If any money changed hands as a consequence of the erroneous judgment, it has to be returned., why should he pay from his own pocket? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were three on condition that you judge us by Torah law. He erred and judged them on his discretion. What he did is done, but since he erred and judged them on his discretion, he has to pay from his own pocket⁴³As a fine. because he was presumptuous to judge alone by Torah law, as we have stated⁴⁴Mishnah Avot 4:8.: “Do not judge sitting alone, for only One judges sitting alone.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant