Talmud su Gittin 1:6

הָאוֹמֵר, תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן, יַחֲזֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, רַשַּׁאי. וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶם, וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָנוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר, תְּנוּ גֵט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, וּמֵת, לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מָנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וּמֵת, יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה:

Se uno dice: dai questo a mia moglie, o questo atto di manomissione al mio servitore, se desidera ritirarsi con entrambi, [prima che raggiungano la mano della donna o del servo], può farlo [e il messenger non può acquisire l'atto per loro conto; poiché è loro una responsabilità in quanto li priva del loro sostentamento.] Queste sono le parole di R. Meir. I saggi dicono: [Può ritrarre] con il gittin delle donne, ma non con le manomissioni dei bondmen. [E l'halachah è in accordo con i saggi.] Poiché a un uomo viene concesso un beneficio anche non in sua presenza, ma la responsabilità gli è imposta solo in sua presenza. Perché se desiderava non dare da mangiare al suo servo, poteva farlo, [così che quando lo libera non gli fa perdere il suo sostentamento]; ma non gli è permesso di non dare da mangiare a sua moglie, [così che quando la divorzia, la fa perdere il suo sostentamento.] Lui (R. Meir) disse loro: Ma squalifica il suo servo dalla teruma, proprio mentre squalifica sua moglie! Hanno risposto: Questo perché è la sua acquisizione. [Cioè, il motivo per cui il servitore di un Cohein mangia teruma è che è la sua acquisizione—proprio come la bestia di un Cohein mangia la veccia di teruma, e non c'è ascesa in questo. Pertanto, se lo libera, anche se lo squalifica dal mangiare terumah, questo non è una responsabilità per il servitore.] Se uno dice: dai questo in cambio a mia moglie o (dai) questo atto di manomissione al mio servo, e lui morto, non devono essere dati dopo la sua morte. [Perché non è una presa finché non raggiunge la sua mano, e quando raggiunge la sua mano, è morto; e non c'è più niente dopo la morte. E anche con l'atto di manomissione, quando raggiunge la sua mano (il servo), lui (il proprietario) è morto e non ha alcuna autorità su di lui.] (Se uno dice :) Dai un manah a questo e quest'uomo, e muore, deve essere dato dopo la sua morte [anche se non ha detto: "questo manah", poiché le parole di un shechiv mera (uno in punto di morte) sono come "scritte e date"].

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity¹¹This is the unanimous opinion of the Babli.? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.¹²This is an obligation independent of the wishes of the deceased.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate¹³Since usually a ketubah is payable in real estate.. As it was stated¹⁴A similar text in Tosephta 9:3.: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody¹⁵Anybody with a claim sustainable in court, the widow for her ketubah or a creditor. who takes them first acquires them and¹⁶If nothing is left of his estate. he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first¹⁷If the estate already had disappeared before the burial.. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me¹⁸If the deceased had requested a burial before he died, the burial expenses are privileged.. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses¹⁹In this case, time is of the essence since any one of the witnesses could die anytime. But real estate can be foreclosed only by a regular court procedure.. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not²⁰It seems that this is a scribal error and one should read: מוציאין “one does remove”. Since the claim is documented, there is no need for the creditor to resort to self-help. remove from their hands. For²¹This is an unnecessary word; R. Abba explains general principles about the legal standing of death-bed requests. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said²²In the Babli (Baba batra 152a, 175a; Giṭṭin 13a, 15a) this is an undisputed statement of Rav Naḥman.: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered²³The legal forms of a valid gift.. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y²⁴It seems that one has to read: Give field X to Y and Z. It is understood that each one gets half a field but the method of subdivision of the field was not indicated.? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half?²⁵No answer is given since it is clear that the bequest cannot be enforced against the legal heirs; the burden of proof being on the claimants, who would have to prove in court that the method of division is that intended by the donor; this is impossible after the latter’s death. Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give?²⁶Since the first half of the request is clearly illegal, can the second half be legal? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway²⁷Since daughters’ right to sustenance is a standard condition of the ketubah (Mishnah 4:11), what did the mention of the daughters add to their rights?? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables²⁸At places where the ketubah could be taken only in real estate, the daughters could be supported only by real estate.? Rebbi Yudan [ ]²⁹The words בָּרַח לְנוֹי “he fled to beauty” do not make sense here. there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold³⁰By bodily possession.. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated³¹Tosephta Qiddušin 1:7.: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. ³²This last sentence is not in the Tosephta or in the Babli (Baba batra76a); R. Yose’s ruling is rejected by Rav Naḥman (Note 22) who validates the transfer of documents by death-bed declaration. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versetto precedente Capitolo completo Versetto successivo