Talmud su Ketubbot 4:18

“Works of kindness.⁵⁸Quote from the Mishnah, introduction of the next subject.” That means with his person⁵Charity has two aspects: one is giving money and valuables to the needy; this has no explicit lower and upper limit, but it does have rabbinic limits in both directions. This, in addition to the laws of Peah, is one of the topics of the tractate. The other aspect is giving one’s time to attend funerals, weddings, visiting the sick and mourners, to work for the public good, and similar deeds. That aspect has no limits, upper or lower, expressed anywhere.. But with his money it has a measure. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina⁵⁹An Israeli Amora of the first generation. All his known statements were transmitted by R. Simeon bar Laqish. [In the Babli, the Amora is Rebbi Illaï, i. e., R. La who was mentioned earlier in this Halakha, a student of R. Simeon ben Laqish.]: They voted at Usha⁶⁰Usha in lower Galilee was the place of residence of R. Jehudah bar Illaï who, through his good relations with the Roman authorities, obtained permission for the reconstitution of the Synhedrion. This decree must have been one of the first acts of the new Synhedrion; it is explained later that the formal decree was only a formalization or reaffirmation of earlier practice. that a person may give a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia⁶¹A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of R. Mana I. and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe⁶²Terumah gedolah has to be given by estimate, not by measure (Terumot 1:7). A generous farmer will give one part in forty (2.5%), the average person one in fifty (2%), the stingy person one in sixty (1 2/3%) (Terumot 4:3). The terumah of the tithe has to be given exactly as 1%. Hence, the minimal amount of charity one is obliged to give from his gross income varies between 2.67% and 3.5%, with 3% recommended., the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property and with the first of all your yield;” corresponding to the first of all your yield⁶³Terumah gedolah is called “first of your grain and oil” in Deut. 18:4; in this opinion one is only required to spend for charity the 2% of his gross earnings equivalent to terumah gedolah..

MISHNAH: The sons of a female convert who converted with her do neither perform ḥalîṣah nor levirate⁶⁶Even if they biologically are children of the same father, they legally are not since the rules of family relationships are restricted to Jews. even if a first [son] was not conceived in holiness⁶⁷Before conversion. but born in holiness and a second [son] was conceived and born in holiness. The same applies to a slave girl⁶⁸Who before manumission already was Jewish as a slave. who was freed together with her sons.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent,” etc. ²³Better versions of this paragraph are in 10:8 Note 337, Bava qamma 4:9 Notes 122–125. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was a false declaration of ownerlessness²⁴This is Babylonian spelling. The Yerushalmi form is הבקר.. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be stoned when his owner dedicated him to the Temple²⁵One has to read with the parallel sources: When his witnesses were found perjured. At the moment the slave is condemned to death, he loses all value for his owner; valueless objects cannot be dedicated. Therefore the dedication is the equivalent of declaring the slave ownerless., Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

MISHNAH: Both son and daughter⁷⁵If there are no sons, the rules of inheritance apply to daughters as if they were sons. are equal for the rules of inheritance, except that the son take a double portion of the father’s property⁷⁶Deut. 21:17. The entire paragraph only deals with father and son; since the mother is neither required nor empowered to recognize a child as hers, it cannot refer to the mother’s inheritance.
It probably is correct to read פִּי שְׁנַיִם as “double portion” rather than “two thirds” which would read פִּים (1S.13:21); cf. Sifry Deut. #217. The double portion of male first-borns is also found in the Egyptian native law both in Ptolemaic and in Roman times and the Syro-Roman law book. but no double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters can claim sustenance from the father’s property⁷⁷After the father’s death; cf. Mishnah 9:1, Ketubot 4:8. but not from the mother’s property.

The House of Shammai insist on interpretation of the ketubah. As the House of Shammai explain, we can infer that from the text of her ketubah document in which he writes³²I. e., he is required by rabbinical decree to write this sentence in her marriage document; if the sentence is missing it nevertheless is implied and enforced by the court; cf. Ketubot Chapter 4.: “If you would be married to another man you shall take the amount I wrote for you.” The House of Hillel reversed themselves and taught following the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel insist on interpretation of the ketubah. ³⁴Tosephta Ketubot 4:9; a slightly different language in Babli Baba Meṣ‘ia 104a. In a slightly different arrangement the rest of the Halakhah is also in Ketubot 4:8. Hillel the Elder explained it, using the vernacular. In Alexandria they were writing that a man there became betrothed to a woman³⁵In contrast to the usage in Judea, they did not execute the betrothal, qiddušin, by a gift but exclusively by contract.. Another man abducted her from a public place³⁶And immediately marry her.. When this came before the Sages, they intended to declare [the children] as bastards³⁷Since qiddušin make the girl a married woman in all aspects of criminal law. If somebody abducts a betrothed girl he commits adultery and the children are bastards.. Hillel the Elder told them, bring your mothers’ ketubah. They brough their mothers’ ketubah. They found written there: “When you enter my house you shall be my wife according to the laws of Moses and the Jews³⁸This language makes the validity of the betrothal dependent on the fact of marriage, of the bride entering the groom’s house. If the prospective bride was abducted before entering the groom’s house, there were no qiddušin and the girl was free to marry any man..”

⁸³The Text is from Ketubot 4:8, Notes 200–201. Variant readings are given there. What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children. Rebbi Samuel, son of 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 them, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren.

HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated⁶¹Cf. Tosephta 10:5.: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper⁶²This makes no sense. The correct reading is given in Šiṭṭah mequbbeṣet ad 144b in the name of Ravad and Rashba Novellae ad 144b: brothers. Since only rich and well-known people were ordered to pay for the city services, if the estate was renowned for its riches, the estate had to pay for the cost of services. If it was because of the personal renown of the person appointed, he had to bear the cost., he takes because of the sharecropper⁶²This makes no sense. The correct reading is given in Šiṭṭah mequbbeṣet ad 144b in the name of Ravad and Rashba Novellae ad 144b: brothers. Since only rich and well-known people were ordered to pay for the city services, if the estate was renowned for its riches, the estate had to pay for the cost of services. If it was because of the personal renown of the person appointed, he had to bear the cost.. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council⁶³Greek βουλή, responsible not only for city services but also for the collection of taxes.. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

HALAKHAH: “He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma.” “Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel,” etc. Rav Qarni stated: For a kick, one. For an elbow, three. For sqlvnqyt fifteen⁷²In the parallel in Babli, 27b, the quote appears in Rav Ḥisda’s name. There, pushing with the elbow cost 3 tetradrachmas, a kick with the foot 5, and סנוקרת 13. The unexplained סנוקרת (which also is the reading of E here) according to R. Ḥananel (i. e., Gaonic tradition) means a hook with the fist under the chin; according to Rashi hitting somebody with a donkey saddle. The Genizah text reads יסקינוקינית, the Metivot fragment סקלוקינת. J. N. Epstein (ללקסיקון התלמודי 2/1 תרביץ p. 123–127) proposes Accadic sunkirtu (su-un-kir-tum) “camel’s hump” as origin. {Cf. Latin sculpturigo “scratching”, sculptorium “back scratcher” (E. G.).}. Somebody said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who puts an Elder to shame has fully to pay for his shame. A person insulted Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina⁷³The case is mentioned in Ketubot 4:8, Note 202.. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him a pound of gold.

If a prophet starts to prophesy, one listens to him if he gives a sign or miracle; otherwise one does not listen to him¹¹³Deut. 13:2. It is no disrespect to Heaven if one disregards the sayings of an unqualified prophet.. Two prophets who prophesied indentically, two prophets who prophesied in the same sense¹¹⁴This reading (Pene Moshe) is preferable to reading בְכָרָךְ אֶחָד “in the same fortified place” (Qorban Haˋedah).? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Hoshaia: One said, each one has to provide a sign or a miracle; the other said, not each one has to provide a sign or a miracle¹¹⁵But the accredited prophet can legitimate his companion.. The one who said he did objected to the one who said he did not: Is it not written¹¹⁶2K. 20:8., Ezekias said to Isaias, what is the sign? He told him, that is different since he was occupied in reviving the dead. He shall revive us after two days; on the third day He will lift us up and we shall live before Him¹¹⁷Hos. 6:2. The verse is the basic source for the belief that the resurrection has to be on the third day, or that souls have to suffer punishment for their misdeeds while alive for two days and on the third day are admitted to Paradise (Berakhot 5:2 Note 64; Taˋaniot 1:1 63d l.52). Ezekias was declared ready to die (2K. 20:1) and was well enough to go to the Temple on the third day; this shows that his recovery was indeed a resurrection..

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah¹⁴⁰Mishnah Bekhorot 1:7: “The obligation of levirate has precedence over ḥalîṣah. That was in earlier times, when people had the intent to fulfill the commandment, but now, when people do not have the intent to fulfill the commandment (but to enjoy the marriage) they said, the obligation of ḥalîṣah has precedence over levirate.”. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.¹¹⁷Deut. 25:9.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them¹⁴¹Gen. 48:16. This verse is a blessing.”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

HALAKHAH: “Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’,” etc. It was stated⁹⁴Tosephta 11:1; Babli Bava batra51b.: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children⁹⁵Since usually they have no independent property, one has to suspect that the deposit might be stolen property.. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband⁹⁶Who is her heir.. If one accepted from a slave, he should return it to him; if he died, he should return it to his master. From an underage child, he should return it to him, if he died he should return it to his father, and make it a safe investment⁹⁷It seems that this sentence should be rearranged as in the Tosephta: “From an underage child, he should make it a safe investment, return it to him (once he reaches the age in which he legally can do business); if he died he should return it to his father.”. If any of these said at the moment of their death, it should be given to X because it is his property, one should follow his interpretation⁹⁸The translation follows the extensive discussion of the expression פירוש לפירושו by S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah Neziqin, p. 134..” Rebbi Zebida in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only before witnesses⁹⁹Dispositions of a last will which do not follow the general rule should be executed only in the presence of witnesses, to protect the trustee against claims of the legal heirs.. As the following¹⁰⁰Another version of the same story is told in the Babli, Bava batra52a. There, the husband is Abba bar bar Ḥana. This is the correct attribution since Abba bar Ḥana, the elder R. Ḥiyya’s brother, died before the birth of his son, therefore also before his wife. In Halakhah 10:1, “R. Abba bar Ḥana” speaks of “my oncle R. Ḥiyya”. This proves that the person called Abba bar Ḥana in the Yerushalmi is called Abba bar bar Ḥana in the Babli.: When Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana’s wife was dying, she said, these rings belong to my daughter. But he said no, they are mine. The case came before Rav who said, people are not given to lying at the time of their death¹⁰¹A statement of Rava in the Babli, Bava batra 175a..

HALAKHAH: “The intruder by stealth,” etc. ⁷⁹Parallel texts are in the Babli 72a, Mekhilta dR.. Ismael Mišpaṭim 13, dR. Simeon ben Iohai p. 192, Sifry Deut. 217; partially Yerushalmi Ketubot 4:4 (Notes 88–93). Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses⁸⁰To the verses Ex. 21:19 and 22:2 mentioned here one has to add Deut. 22:17. which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: If he gets up and walks outside on his support⁸¹Ex. 21:19.. If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood⁷⁷Ex. 22:2.. Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it be day or night his killer will be killed⁸²The Babli, 79b, states that if a father intrudes in the son’s home, the son does not have the right to kill him. The Yerushalmi does not have this good opinion of family relationships, cf. the next paragraph.. If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed⁸³In Tosephta 11:9, this is a declarative sentence; the next sentence is missing there.? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as (foreign worship)⁸⁴Obviously, foreign worship has to be deleted since Mishnah 9 states clearly that a person intent on idolatry cannot be killed before he acts. One must read שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים “bloodshed” which defiles the Land (Num. 35:33; Babli Šabbat 33a, Yoma 85a); by Mishnah 9 a person intent on committing murder may be killed by any bystander before he commits the murder. If a person with a drawn sword runs after another, it is only a surmise but one which allows the bystander to kill the attacker; maybe the pursuer would not kill his victim. This is the “action in doubt“ referred to in this sentence. is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, so much more that doubts have to be disregarded in cases of danger to life⁸⁵The Sabbath must be desecrated for the possibility of saving a life. For example, if there was a landslide on the Sabbath and it is only surmised that somebody was buried in it, one starts digging without delay..