Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sobre Eruvin 1:7

בַּכֹּל עוֹשִׂין לְחָיַיִן, אֲפִלּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. וּמְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם גּוֹלֵל, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר. וְכוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּטֵּי נָשִׁים, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי פוֹסֵל:

Qualquer coisa pode ser usada como um lechi, até como uma coisa viva. R. Yossi proíbe isso, [temendo que possa morrer e não ter mais dez tefachim de altura, e as pessoas, sem perceber, continuam a confiar nele.] E isso (uma coisa viva) torna-se impuro por causa de golel ("top -pedra"). [Se ele fez o golel de uma sepultura, sempre torna impuro se tocado por um homem ou vasos, como uma tenda sobre um corpo morto, mesmo que tenha sido tirado dali, sendo escrito (Números 19:16): " E todo aquele toque na face do campo, um morto pela espada, etc. ", que é exposto para incluir golel e dofek (túmulo). "Golel" é a cobertura da sepultura.] R. Meir a governa. [A lógica de R. Meir: Qualquer partição que se sustenta em virtude de um espírito vivo não é uma partição. Esta não é a halachá.] E divórcios podem ser escritos sobre ela (um animal). R. Yossi Haglili a considera imprópria, [sendo escrita (Deuteronômio 24: 1): "Então ele escreverá a ela um pergaminho de divórcio". Assim como um pergaminho não tem espírito vivo, tudo o que não tem espírito vivo (é válido como um divórcio). E os rabinos? (Eles diriam :) Se estivesse escrito: "E ele escreverá para ela em um pergaminho", seria como você diz. Mas agora que está escrito: "Ele escreverá a ela um sefer", sippur devarim, "relacionar palavras" (do divórcio) é o que se pretende. A halachá está de acordo com o primeiro tanna. E se ele escreveu a ela um divórcio no chifre de uma vaca e deu a ela a vaca, caso em que não exige corte após a escrita, é kasher. Mas se ele não deu a vaca a ela, mas apenas a buzina, já que ele deve cortar se for cortado, ela não se divorcia.]

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

“On a cow’s horn.” The Mishnah77Which requires that the cow be delivered to the wife as bill of divorce. in case he says to her, here is your bill of divorce. But if he says to her, here is your bill of divorce and the remainder is for your ketubah, her bill of divorce and the payment of her ketubah were received together78The moment she accepts the horns carrying the bill of divorce, she acquires the animal as part payment of the ketubah. There is a small problem here which is not mentioned in either Talmud: A bill of divorce can be given to a wife against her will but the ketubah can be delivered in merchandise, instead of coin, only with her consent. Since transfer of property of an animal always requires an act of acquisition, the husband who writes the bill of divorce on the horns of a cow gives up his right to unilateral divorce.. If he said to her, here is your bill of divorce and the payment of your ketubah together79In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Rebbi Ezra80Reading of the Geniza. The reading of the Leiden ms., R. Ze‘ira, cannot refer to R. Ze‘ira, the head of the Academy of Tiberias, who lived in the second generation after R. Mana I and two generations before R. Mana II. A R. זְעוּרָה, student of R. Mana I, is quoted a few times in other places in the Yerushalmi. asked before Rebbi Mana: If he delivered the halter to her, what81A bridled animal can be acquired by the buyer by taking the halter in his hand and causing the animal to walk one step at his command.? In commercial law, the buy is acquired, do you say so here79In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Or is it a difference since it is written: “he shall deliver into her hand,” until it is completely in her hand82The bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand by being delivered by the husband, not by an active act of acquisition on her part. The formulation of this paragraph implies that this delivery of a bill of divorce is classified as invalid.!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versículo anteriorCapítulo completoPróximo versículo