Talmud sur Nedarim 11:4

קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּי אַבָּא, וְעַל פִּי אָבִיךָ, וְעַל פִּי אָחִי, וְעַל פִּי אָחִיךָ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּיךָ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַעְדִּיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה וּתְהִי אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו:

(Si elle a dit :) "Konam que je ne travaille pas pour la bouche de mon père", ou "pour la bouche de ton père", ou "pour la bouche de mon frère" ou "pour la bouche de ton frère", il ne peut pas l'annuler. [c'est-à-dire, si elle a dit: "Hekdesh (" dédié ") sera tout mon travail de venir à la bouche de mon père"; c'est-à-dire que mon père ne puisse pas bénéficier de mon travail, il ne peut pas l'annuler; car ce ne sont pas des «choses entre elle et lui». Et en cela tous conviennent que si elle interdit aux autres de profiter d'elle, son mari ne peut pas l'annuler.] (Si elle a dit: «Konam,) que je ne travaille pas pour ta bouche», il n'a pas besoin de l'annuler. [Car elle lui est obligée. Et même si hekdesh dissout les obligations, les sages ont renforcé son obligation envers son mari, le vower n'ayant pas la possibilité de dissoudre cette obligation.] R. Akiva dit: Il devrait l'annuler, car elle pourrait gagner en plus de ce qui lui revient [et "hekdesh" prend effet sur cet ajout, il ne lui revient pas. Il doit donc l'annuler; et l'annulation est valable, le vœu entraînant «des choses entre elle et elle», il est impossible que l'addition ne se mêle pas à ce qui revient à son mari.] R. Yochanan b. Nuri dit: Il devrait l'annuler, de peur qu'il ne divorce d'elle et qu'on lui interdise de revenir vers lui. [Et son travail de base exige l'annulation, de peur qu'il ne divorce d'elle et que son obligation envers son mari ne soit dissoute, à quel point le vœu prendra effet, et il lui sera interdit de revenir vers lui. La halakha est conforme à R. Yochanan b. Nuri. (Et nous parlons d'un exemple où elle dit: "Que mes mains soient hekdesh à leur Créateur", les mains étant "dans le monde" (de sorte qu'elle ne jure pas par rapport à "quelque chose qui n'est pas dans le monde" ), et hekdesh "prend" sur eux.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property¹⁰⁵Rebbi Meïr holds that a man means what he says (Nazir 2:1, 51d 1. 16; Babli Arakhin 5a). Since he must agree with R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian and everybody else that nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control, he will interpret the husband’s vow not that he dedicates the future earnings of his wife but he dedicates her hands for what they will produce in the future. Since the hands do exist and the wife is required to work for him, the vow is valid.. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property¹⁰⁶Nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control; the husband can appropriate his wife’s work for himself as profane property.. ¹⁰⁷The following text is from Nedarim 11:4, Notes 50–53. In the Babli, 57b, different but similarly sounding explanations are given in the names of the Babylonians Rav and Samuel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs⁵¹Since a woman divorced after the definitive marriage but before sexual relations can claim only a ketubah of a mina, it is at the end. But since she still is a virgin, it is the beginning. The definition of R. Ze‘ira leads to the construction of a self-contradictory case; it should be rejected., as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated.¹⁰⁸End of the parallel in Nedarim. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, what one states there¹⁰⁹In Babylonia. The baraita is not in the Babli. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield¹¹⁰In the absence of a written contract to the contrary, the husband is the administrator of the wife’s property; he is paid for his efforts by the cash yield of the property (Mishnah 6:1). Therefore, while he has no property rights to his wife’s excess earnings, by the ketubah he has a contractual interest in the increase of property generated by these earnings since such an increase could increase the cash yield which will be his. Therefore, he should be an interested party and his vow should be recognized by both R. Meïr and R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian without restrictions. This argument is too far-fetched to merit an answer.?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant