הָאוֹכֵל אֵצֶל חָמִיו בִּיהוּדָה שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ. אַחַת אַלְמְנַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַחַת אַלְמְנַת כֹּהֵן, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָנֶה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ גוֹבִין לַבְּתוּלָה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, וְלֹא מִחוּ בְיָדָם חֲכָמִים:
Se uno aveva mangiato ai suoi suoceri senza testimoni in Giuda, non è soggetta a una pretesa di verginità, poiché è lasciato solo con lei. [Quando fecero la festa di fidanzamento nella casa del padre della sposa a Giuda, era pratica che lo sposo fosse lasciato solo con lei per familiarizzare con lei. Pertanto, quando in seguito la sposò, non aveva alcuna pretesa di verginità.] Sia la kethubah della vedova di un israelita che quella della vedova di un Cohein sono un manah. Un beth-din di Cohanim avrebbe reclamato quattrocento zuz per (il kethubah di) una vergine (che era la figlia di un Cohein), e i saggi non protestarono.
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah. When was this said? About war killings before the war. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply.” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
