Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sur Nedarim 11:2

וְאֵלּוּ הֵם נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אָמְרָה, קוֹנָם פֵּרוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלָי, הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. פֵּרוֹת מְדִינָה עָלָי, יָבִיא לָהּ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. פֵּרוֹת חֶנְוָנִי זֶה עָלָי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה פַרְנָסָתוֹ אֶלָּא מִמֶּנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי:

Et ce sont des vœux d'affliction: Si elle a dit: "Konam, (que je ne mange pas) les fruits du monde", il peut l'annuler. (Si elle disait: "Konam, que je ne mange pas) les fruits de ce pays", il peut lui apporter des fruits d'un autre pays. «les fruits de ce commerçant», il ne peut pas l'annuler. Et si son gagne-pain (celui du mari) venait uniquement de lui (ce commerçant) [le commerçant donnant le crédit au mari jusqu'à ce qu'il le gagne et le rembourse], il peut l'annuler. Ce sont les paroles de R. Yossi. [R. Yossi est cohérent avec son point de vue selon lequel le mari n'annule pas tous les vœux d'affliction, faisant la distinction entre une grande affliction et une affliction modérée, et entre une affliction à long terme et à court terme. Et tous les mishnayoth de ce chapitre sont selon lui et ne sont pas la halakha. Mais le mari peut annuler tout vœu d'affliction, qu'il s'agisse d'un vœu d'un jour, d'un vœu d'une heure ou d'un vœu à long terme; si cela entraîne une grande affliction ou une affliction modérée. De même, il peut annuler les vœux et les serments dans les choses «entre elle et lui» même si cela n'entraîne aucune affliction, comme lorsqu'elle a juré ou juré de ne pas se peindre les yeux ou de ne pas se parer. De même, si elle a juré de ne pas manger les fruits de ce pays, le mari peut l'annuler, les faisant venir d'un autre pays entraînant un effort. Ce sont des choses qui sont «entre elle et lui». Et quelle est la différence entre les vœux et les serments qui sont entre lui et elle et les vœux et les serments d'affliction? Il annule les vœux et les serments d'affliction tant pour lui-même que pour les autres, par exemple, si elle a juré de ne pas manger de viande ou de boire du vin, il l'annule et elle est autorisée à manger et à boire, même après qu'elle est veuve ou divorcée et mariée à un autre . Et les vœux et les serments «entre lui et elle», par exemple, si elle s'interdit de cohabiter avec tous les hommes pour toujours ou de se peindre ou de se parer pour toujours, il annule ce qui lui appartient, et elle cohabite avec lui et se peint et se pare aussi longtemps que elle est sa femme. Et quand elle est veuve ou divorcée, il lui est interdit de cohabiter avec un homme, ainsi que la peinture et la parure; et, de même, dans des cas similaires.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

For whom is it needed9The clause in the Mishnah that the husband has only the usufruct of any inheritance coming to his wife during the marriage.? For Rebbi Meïr! Even though for Rebbi Meïr the hand of the slave is his master’s hand10Similarly, R. Meïr holds that a wife cannot act legally except as her husband’s representative. It would seem reasonable that a wife can retain separate property by prenuptial agreement (cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1), but for R. Meïr one would expect that a wife can only acquire an inheritance as representative for her husband. Therefore, it is essential that the Mishnah state that an inheritance becomes the wife’s sole property for which the husband has to act as administrator. Cf. Nedarim 11:8, Note 70; Ma‘aser Šeni 4:4, Note 95; Babli Nedarim 88b, Qiddušin 23b. and if the wife acquired title the husband should have acquired it; he agrees that his rights over it11The inheritance. are restricted to the use of the yield. There, we have stated12Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5.: “The finds of his underage son and daughter or of his Canaanite slave13It is not required that the slave be Phoenician. Any non-Jewish slave who became semi-Jewish by circumcision (for a male) and immersion in a miqweh is called “Canaanite slave”. In the theory of the Babli, the Canaanite slave’s body is the property of his master; therefore, if the slave lifts a find to acquire it, it is legally his master whose hand took it. or slave-girl as well as his wife’s find belong to him,” for he can direct them to do other work. Why do we say: “The finds of his adult son and daughter or of his Hebrew slave14While the rules for the treatment of Hebrew slaves (Ex. 21:1–11) are a frequent topic in the Talmudim, the subject is purely theoretical since the institution of Hebrew slavery disappeared with the end of the First Commonwealth. It is asserted that only the working capability of the slave is the master’s, not his body. Therefore, if he lifts a find to acquire it, it is not the master’s hand which lifts the find. or slave-girl belong to them,” because he cannot direct them to do other work15Obviously, the master can direct the Hebrew slave to perform any task he asks of him; but he cannot direct him not to use his hands for anything else.. But his wife he cannot direct to do other work16In Chapter 5, an exhaustive list was given of work the husband can demand from his wife. The wife’s body certainly is not her husband’s property. Therefore, one does not understand why her find should be her husband’s. and you say that her find belongs to him! Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is another reason for his wife. What is the other reason for his wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai says, because of quarrel17One has such a poor opinion of Jewish husbands that one is afraid he would be offended if the wife would not share her find with him [mentioned also in Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1. 15)]. This is the only explanation offered in the Babli, 96a; it is called “because of jealousy”.. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but that she should not smuggle away18Meaning: stealing. any of her husband’s property and say, I found it. Think of it, if another person gave it to her as a gift19The gift can be given on condition that the husband have no right to it. Should the wife not be believed if she says she received a gift?! A gift is public knowledge, a find is not public knowledge. Think of it, if she found it in the presence of witnesses! This because of that20R. Yose will agree that in the case of a find in the presence of other people his reason is invalid. He holds that, nevertheless, the rabbinic decree giving the find to the husband stands because ịt would be impractical to admit exceptions.. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, if they21This refers to the adult children to whom the Mishnah in Baba Meṣi‘a assigns their finds. This is qualified; the Mishnah applies only if the children are financially independent. In the Babli, this is formulated that “they are not dependent on their father’s table.” Cf. Peah 4:6, Note 107; Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1.3); Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 12b. are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant