Talmud su 'Eruvin 1:7

בַּכֹּל עוֹשִׂין לְחָיַיִן, אֲפִלּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. וּמְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם גּוֹלֵל, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר. וְכוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּטֵּי נָשִׁים, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי פוֹסֵל:

Qualsiasi cosa può essere usata come un lechi, persino una cosa vivente. R. Yossi lo proibisce, [temendo che possa morire e non essere più alto di dieci tefachim, e la gente, senza accorgersene, continua a fare affidamento su di esso.] E (un essere vivente) diventa impuro a causa del golel ("top -calcolo"). [Se lo rendeva il golel di una tomba, diventa sempre impuro se toccato da un uomo o da una nave, come una tenda sopra un cadavere, anche se fosse stato prelevato da lì, scritto (Numeri 19:16): " E tutto quel tocco sulla faccia del campo viene ucciso da una spada, ecc. ", Che si espone includendo golel e dofek (grave-frame). "Golel" è la copertura grave.] R. Meir lo governa pulito. [La logica di R. Meir: Qualsiasi partizione che si regge in virtù di uno spirito vivente non è una partizione. Questa non è l'halachah.] E i divorzi possono essere scritti su di essa (un animale). R. Yossi Haglili lo giudica inadatto, [essendo scritto (Deuteronomio 24: 1): "Poi le scriverà una pergamena di divorzio." Proprio come una pergamena non ha uno spirito vivente, così, tutto ciò che non ha uno spirito vivente (è valido come divorzio). E i rabbini? (Direbbero :) Se fosse scritto: "E lui le scriverà in una pergamena", sarebbe come dici tu. Ma ora che è scritto: "Le scriverà un sefer", sippur devarim, "relazione delle parole" (del divorzio) è ciò che si intende. L'halachah è in accordo con il primo tanna. E se le ha scritto il divorzio sul corno di una mucca e le ha dato la mucca, nel qual caso non è necessario tagliarla dopo essere stata scritta, è kasher. Ma se non le ha dato la mucca, ma solo il corno, dato che deve tagliarlo via, lei non ha divorziato con esso.]

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

“On a cow’s horn.” The Mishnah⁷⁷Which requires that the cow be delivered to the wife as bill of divorce. in case he says to her, here is your bill of divorce. But if he says to her, here is your bill of divorce and the remainder is for your ketubah, her bill of divorce and the payment of her ketubah were received together⁷⁸The moment she accepts the horns carrying the bill of divorce, she acquires the animal as part payment of the ketubah. There is a small problem here which is not mentioned in either Talmud: A bill of divorce can be given to a wife against her will but the ketubah can be delivered in merchandise, instead of coin, only with her consent. Since transfer of property of an animal always requires an act of acquisition, the husband who writes the bill of divorce on the horns of a cow gives up his right to unilateral divorce.. If he said to her, here is your bill of divorce and the payment of your ketubah together⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Rebbi Ezra⁸⁰Reading of the Geniza. The reading of the Leiden ms., R. Ze‘ira, cannot refer to R. Ze‘ira, the head of the Academy of Tiberias, who lived in the second generation after R. Mana I and two generations before R. Mana II. A R. זְעוּרָה, student of R. Mana I, is quoted a few times in other places in the Yerushalmi. asked before Rebbi Mana: If he delivered the halter to her, what⁸¹A bridled animal can be acquired by the buyer by taking the halter in his hand and causing the animal to walk one step at his command.? In commercial law, the buy is acquired, do you say so here⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Or is it a difference since it is written: “he shall deliver into her hand,” until it is completely in her hand⁸²The bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand by being delivered by the husband, not by an active act of acquisition on her part. The formulation of this paragraph implies that this delivery of a bill of divorce is classified as invalid.!

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versetto precedente Capitolo completo Versetto successivo