תלמוד על יבמות 15:3

If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following²⁴Tosephta 3:3, Babli 33a. Did Rabban Gamliel the Elder decree that any annulment not in the presence of agent or wife was null and void?: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly²⁵It seems that the names of Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel are switched here and in the next sentence. The Babli, 33b, decides practice following Rebbi.. What is the reason of Rebbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul²⁶The biblical text decrees that the husband has to hand his wife a bill of divorce if he has decided to divorce her. The text contains no hints to any restriction as to the exercise of his free will. but they²⁷In this case, the rabbinic authorities of the first half of the first century C. E. said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But is it not from the Torah that one may [give as heave] olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe²⁸Terumot 1:4, Mishnah and Note 137. Biblical heave is due only for “grain, cider, and oil”. The prohibition to satisfy the tithing duty with unprocessed grapes and olives is strict only according to the House of Hillel; they hold that if olives were given as heave for olive oil then both the olives and the oil remain ṭevel, untithed, by rabbinic decree and their consumption is a deadly sin. they said not only that one may not give heave [in this way] but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rebbi Oshaia bar Abba said to Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor²⁹In modern Hebrew, סבא means “grandfather”. In the Talmudim, generally it means “old man”; since “grandfather” usually is formulated as ,אֲבִי אַבָּא סַבָּא can also mean “great-grandfather”. The interpretation of the word depends on the reading of the names in this discussion. meant?

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited money; real estate should be bought,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s opinion since Rebbi Meïr considers standing [produce] as if it were cut³⁰This refers to Mishnah Ševuot 6:6. In rabbinic interpretation, Ex. 22:8 defines when an oath is required by the court: “About any criminal matter, about an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or anything lost, if he agrees that this is it, the suit shall be heard by the judges …” This is read to mean that an oath is needed if the defendant agrees that the plaintiff has a case but that he owes less than what is being claimed (cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15). The part of the claim in dispute is what the claimant considers criminal withholding of his property by the defendant. If the defendant rejects the entire claim, the claimant has to prove his case by witnesses or documents; if the defendant admits part of the claim the claimant can request that he swear not to owe more. But since the examples given in the verse are all about movables, it is concluded that claims of real estate cannot be resolved by an oath (Mishnah Ševuot6:5). On that, R. Meïr states that “some things are on the ground but are not real estate”. The example given is that the claim is “I handed over to you (to harvest and make wine from) ten vines full of fruit” but the defendant claims “there were ony five.” In that case, R. Meïr requires the defendant to swear but the Sages hold that anything connected to the ground is like real estate.
Since the produce on the field is considered as the wife’s capital, not the husband’s produce, R. Jeremiah infers that the Mishnah does not represent practice since it follows R. Meïr in a case in which the majority disagrees.. Rebbi Yose said, he did not hear that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, Rebbi Meïr said this only for standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested; therefore not unripe produce³¹Cf. Yebamot 15:3, Note 79; Babli Ševuot 43a.. But here³²The case of the wife’s inheritance is not restricted to ripe produce., even unripe produce. Rebbi Jeremiah³³This attribution is impossible. Rebbi Jeremiah cannot ask a question answered by his teacher’s teacher’s teacher R. Joḥanan. It might be Rav Jeremiah, one generation before R. Joḥanan. asked, are not the arguments of Rebbi Meïr contradictory? There³⁴In Mishnah Ševuot 6:6., he did not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut, but here³²The case of the wife’s inheritance is not restricted to ripe produce. he considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Meïr does not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut. But if you see cut grain, you empower the woman³⁵Cut grain is as good as coin for an inheritance.; if you see an unseeded field³⁶This has to be tended; the husband will reap the fruits., you empower the man. In case of doubt you estimate how much it is worth unseeded and how much seeded. If before it was seeded it was worth (two denars)³⁷Obviously, the numbers have to be switched since 1 < 2. and when it was seeded (one denar), with that denar real estate should be bought and he reaps its yield.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥaninah: They voted in Usha that one who insults an Elder or hits him has to indemnify him fully for his shame. It happened, that somebody who insulted an Elder and hit him had to indemnify him fully for his shame. They said, it happened to Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina²⁰²It is explained in Baba Qama 8:6 (6c) that the “full payment for shame” is one Roman libra of gold..