Il pagamento non è richiesto per il consumo di frutta, per l'arricchimento della terra e per il cibo della propria moglie e delle proprie figlie dalla proprietà legata, per "il bene generale". [Se uno rubava un campo e lo vendeva a un altro, e lui lo seminava e germogliava e produceva frutta, e arrivò quello spogliato e lo reclamò con il suo frutto dal compratore (rimborsandolo solo per le sue spese), il compratore restituisce e rivendica il prezzo del campo dalla proprietà vincolata, essendo stato venduto a lui con una garanzia dalla fattura di vendita, essendo questo un "prestito contro una nota" (milveh bishtar), e (sostiene) il prezzo del frutto da libero e non dalla proprietà associata. Lo stesso vale quando l'acquirente ha arricchito la terra piantando alberi o fertilizzandola, e simili. ("e per il cibo della moglie e delle figlie" :) essendo questa una condizione della kethubah, vale a dire: "E tu abiterai nella mia casa e sarai nutrito attraverso la mia proprietà; e le figlie che hai da me abiteranno a casa mia ed essere alimentato attraverso la mia proprietà, ecc. " Quando vengono a reclamare il loro cibo, lo fanno solo dalla proprietà libera e non dalla proprietà legata. ("per" il bene generale "" :) Perché queste sono cose indeterminate e non si possono fare esatte quote per loro.] E se uno trovasse un oggetto smarrito [e lo restituisse, e il proprietario affermò che non lo restituiva tutto ], non presta giuramento per "il bene generale". [Perché se gli fosse stato imposto un giuramento, nessuno si sarebbe preso cura di restituire un oggetto perduto.]
Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot
89Parallel arguments are in the Babli 69a, Giṭṭin. 51a. If there were two daughters and one son; the first one took a tenth of the estate, but the son died before the second could take her tenth90The son died childless; then the two daughters inherit the estate.. Rebbi Ḥanina was of the opinion that the second takes a tenth of the estate and the rest they divide equally among themselves. Rebbi Joḥanan told him that in this case there was nothing else to provide for her, but here she may sell from the remainder and provide for herself91In the Babli, R. Joḥanan holds that the second daughter gave up her claim for the extra 10% and takes 50% of the estate. According to R. Ḥanina, 45% go to the first daughter and 55% to the second.! Rebbi Tebi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The reason of Rebbi Ḥanina: If she can collect from encumbered real estate, from what lies before her not so much more92He holds that providing a dowry for the daughters is a ketubah obligation and as such has the status of a mortgage. Therefore, in talmudic law (abolished by the Geonim in Babylonia after the Arab conquest and apparently never followed in the European provinces of the Roman empire) the claim for a dowry must be satisfied by real estate. If the father sold a piece of real estate and there is none left to satisfy the demand for dowry, the daughter can go to court to repossess the land and let the buyer be indemnified by the estate.? Rebbi Joḥanan sticks to his opinion, since Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rebbi Joḥanan does not collect93He refuses to grant repossession for claims to dowry.. Who collects? Rebbi Ḥanina [and Rebbi Hila] collect. Rebbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property94Valuables, not real estate.. There were orphan [girls] who asked to be provided for. He brought the case before Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity95The underlying hypothesis here is that dowries from estates are given only from real estate. R. Simeon ben Yaqim holds that an estate rich in money but without real estate should provide for the daughters in money and not force them to apply to public charity for their dowry.? Rebbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it96The Patriarch’s court in his days could not decide whether dowries should be paid from real estate or movables; why should a lower court deal with the matter?; would we act? Rebbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans get up and complain, I would give it to them97In a similar situation, he provided for the daughters from movables. But since he had no precedent, if the male orphans were to appeal the judgment, he would rescind it. Since there was no appeal, a precedent was created that dowries be given from movables. The Babli strongly disagrees, 69b.. Even so, they saw and did not complain. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose: How do you decide in practical cases? He said to him, following Rebbi Ḥanina. And so an actual case was decided following Rebbi Ḥanina98To split the inheritance 55% / 45%, cf. Note 89.. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Hila: One considers the estate as if it were dry99The daughters cannot claim part of the yield of the estate for their dowry..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot
200This paragraph, transmitted here in rudimentary form, is from Giṭṭin 5:4. The variant readings are indicated by גי. In this text, “here” means the text in Giṭṭin, “there” is a different setting in Yebamot 6:6 (Notes 115,116). The topic of the Mishnah in Giṭṭin is the enforcement of the ketubah contract for the support of a wife and her daughters; the question is whether the ketubah also covers granddaughters. Similarly, here the question is whether the rules of Usha require a man to feed his underage grandchildren (if they have no father or the father is incapacitated.) In Yebamot, the question is whether grandchildren count as much as children in the obligation “to be fruitful and multiply.” The answer there is a qualified yes, while here and in Giṭṭin it is no. What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, [grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren201In biblical obligations, grandchildren can be counted as children. But in rabbinic institutions involving monetary obligations, only what is specified counts..
