Talmud do Jewamot 10:3

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ וּבְנָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת בְּנֵךְ, וְנִשֵּׂאת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ, חִלּוּף הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים, תֵּצֵא, וְהַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחֲרוֹן מַמְזֵר. אָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בְּנֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִתְיַבְּמָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ, חִלּוּף הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים, תֵּצֵא, וְהַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחֲרוֹן מַמְזֵר. אָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִסֵּת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ, קַיָּם הָיָה וּמֵת, תֵּצֵא, וְהַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן מַמְזֵר, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. אָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַעְלָהּ, מֻתֶּרֶת לַחֲזֹר לוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ אַחֲרוֹן גֵּט, לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. אֶת זוֹ דָרַשׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַתְיָא, וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ (ויקרא כא), וְלֹא מֵאִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ אִישָׁהּ:

Gdyby mąż i syn kobiety wyjechali za granicę, a przyszli i powiedzieli jej: Umarł twój mąż, a potem umarł twój syn, [tak że nie była poddana yibum], i wyszła ponownie za mąż [z obcym]; a potem powiedzieli do niej: Było odwrotnie, ona go zostawia; a dziecko, zarówno to pierwsze [tj. zanim usłyszała inaczej], jak i drugie [po tym, jak usłyszała inaczej] jest mamzerem. Jest to zgodne z R. Akivą, który mówi, że kwestią relacji, której zakazuje przykazanie negatywne, jest mamzer. Ale to nie jest halacha.] Gdyby jej powiedzieli: Umarł twój syn, a potem umarł twój mąż, a ona została porwana w yibum; a potem powiedzieli do niej: było odwrotnie, ona odchodzi, a dziecko, zarówno to pierwsze, jak i drugie, jest mamzerem. Gdyby jej powiedzieli: „Twój mąż umarł, a ona wyszła ponownie za mąż; i powiedzieli do niej: On żył (w czasie, gdy ona powtórnie wyszła za mąż), a potem umarł, ona go zostawia; i dziecko—pierwszy to mamzer, a drugi nie jest mamzerem. Gdyby jej powiedzieli: „Twój mąż umarł, a ona została zaręczona; a potem wrócił jej mąż, wolno jej było wrócić do niego. Nawet jeśli ten ostatni dał jej szansę, nie jest ona niezdolna do kapłaństwa. R. Elazar b. Matia wyjaśnił w tym względzie (Kapłańska 21: 7): „A kobieta rozwiedziona z mężem” (nie może poślubić Coheina)— a nie od kogoś, kto nie jest jej mężem.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

“He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim³⁵If a person can prove three years of undisturbed possession of real estate and claims legal acquisition (by sale, inheritance, or gift), the court has to confirm him in possession since documents have to be kept only for three years. from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy³⁶The three years of undisturbed possession count only if the person from whom he acquired it was alive during these years since the heirs might not be knowledgeable enough of the details of the deceased’s property to exercise their duty to object to the squatter’s occupation.. ³⁷Except for the last sentence, the following is Halakhah Baba Batra 3:4 in a different editing. As the following: Reuben ate from a field³⁸Undisturbed for 3 years. claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob³⁹He should be called Rav Naḥman ben Jacob, in the Babli simply called Rav Naḥman, chief judge and highest authority in money matters in Babylonia. said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben⁴⁰If there are two against two witnesses and all four testimonies hold up under cross examination, there is no testimony and Simeon has no claim. The identical statement appears in the Babli, Baba Batra 31b.. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed⁴¹Since (Deut. 19:15) “by the testimony of two or three witnesses the case shall be confirmed”, Reuben’s witnesses cannot be accepted unless they prove that Simeon’s witnesses were lying.
It is difficult to see who “the rabbis from there” are since Rab Naḥman was the authority in Babylonia and the Babli (loc. cit.) decides explicitly that later claims are admissible in money matters.. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married⁴²This really belongs to the next paragraph, about a woman whose husband has disappeared and she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband had died; when two witnesses come and say he is alive, they are not listened to.. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld⁴³If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset