Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud su Terumot 3:4

בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּשֶׁלֹּא דִבֵּר, אֲבָל הִרְשָׁה אֶת בֶּן בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת שִׁפְחָתוֹ לִתְרֹם, תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. בִּטֵּל, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָרַם בִּטֵּל, אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. וְאִם מִשֶּׁתָּרַם בִּטֵּל, תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. הַפּוֹעֲלִים, אֵין לָהֶן רְשׁוּת לִתְרֹם, חוּץ מִן הַדָּרוֹכוֹת, שֶׁהֵן מְטַמְּאִים אֶת הַגַּת מִיָּד:

A cosa si applica questo? Solo se uno non ha conferito [con l'altro], ma se uno consente a un membro della sua famiglia, o al suo schiavo o schiavo femmina di mettere da parte Teruma [per lui], questo Teruma è [considerato valido] Teruma . Se ha annullato [questa autorizzazione]: Se ha annullato prima di mettere da parte Terumah , il Terumah non è [valido] Terumah . Ma se lo ha annullato dopo aver messo da parte Terumah , il Terumah è Terumah . I lavoratori non hanno il permesso di dare Teruma , ad eccezione di quelli che calpestano [uva] perché rendono immediatamente impuro il vinificatore.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times, he could go to court,” etc. Does this15This question is based on the interpretation of the term “court” in the Mishnah as an ad hoc court, that the husband was able ad hoc to assemble three people as a court, and declare before them that he was revoking the agency given to the agent. This is the explanation accepted in the Babli in the name of Rav Naḥman, 32b. not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that nobody can annul an agency by speech2,If a person can declare the agency void by a declaration at his place without informing the agent, why does the Mishnah accept voiding the agency only if either the agent for delivery or the recipient of the bill is informed of the annulment? R. Joḥanan’s statement is also in Qiddušin 4:9; in the parallel in the Babli, Qiddušin 59a, his reason is that words can be invalidated by words; he is opposed by R. Simeon ben Laqish. As an Amora, R. Joḥanan should not have the authority to contradict a Mishnah.16For money transactions, this is credited to R. Johanan in the Babli, 32b.. Explain it in a fully constituted court17He will hold that even in earlier times the agency could be revoked only by a public act of the local court who was presumed to transmit a copy of the document to the court at the wife’s place of residence..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versetto precedenteCapitolo completoVersetto successivo