Talmud sobre Ketubot 13:13

The people of Bet Shean asked Rebbi Immi, may one take stones from one synagogue to build another synagogue¹³In a different place or neighborhood. If the synagogue was destroyed and has to be rebuilt on its plot or nearby, the old stones have to be re-used if at all possible.? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Immi forbade it only to make them feel bad¹⁴The ruling is not invariable religious law, but an ad hoc ruling at a time when the Christian government of the Roman Empire tried to eliminate Jewish settlement in the Holy Land.. Rebbi Gorion said, the people from Magdala asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: May one take stones from one village to build in another village? He said to them, it is forbidden¹⁴The ruling is not invariable religious law, but an ad hoc ruling at a time when the Christian government of the Roman Empire tried to eliminate Jewish settlement in the Holy Land.. Rebbi Immi instructed, even from East to West is forbidden because of the destruction of that place. May one sell a synagogue to buy a school? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s word implies that it is permitted. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he burned the Eternal’s House¹⁵2K. 25:9., that is the Temple, and the king’s house, that is Sedecias’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, these are the 480 synagogues which were in Jerusalem¹⁶While this refers to Jerusalem in post-Herodian times (Babli Ketubot105a) and the verse describes the destruction of the first Temple, this should not be considered an anachronism. Since the verse is formulated as part of Scripture, it is meaningful outside of time and space.. As Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a school and a Talmud study; [the school] for Bible and the Talmud study for Mishnah. Against all of them came Vespasian. And every large house he burned in fire, that is the study of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai where one was telling the great deeds of the Holy One, praise to Him, in the sense of tell please of the great deeds which Elisha accomplished¹⁷2K. 8:4.. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: That you are saying about a private synagogue. But with a public synagogue it is forbidden; I am saying that one at the end of the world has part in it¹⁸He would have to be asked to vote on the sale of the property. Babli 26a/b,27a.. But did we not state, “it happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq bought the synagogue of the Alexandrians and used it for all his needs”? The Alexandrians made it from their own¹⁹Tosephta 2:17. In the Babli 26a it is the synagogue of the metal smelters, a local guild, so no far-away person may have a say in it. Therefore their vote is undisputed.. So far if it was built as a synagogue. If it was built as a court and he dedicated it, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “A qônam²⁰A formula to confirm an oath, Phoenician for qorbān; cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim. that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.²¹Mishnah Nedarim9:2. Since the Mishnah states that this vow may be dissolved, it confirms that the dedication of profane building turns it into a synagogue.” This implies that if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it became sanctified. When is it sanctified, immediately [or] at the moment of use? Let us hear from the following: If one builds a chest for a scroll²²A Torah scroll. or makes ribands for a scroll. As long as it was not used for a scroll profane use is permitted; after it was used for the scroll private use is prohibited. Therefore, if these who were made for a scroll are not sanctified until used, this which was built as court not so much more? What is the rule for these if they were made for profane use? Since you are saying there, if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it is sanctified, so here if they were made for profane use and he dedicated them they are sanctified²³The rules for dedication of real estate and of movables are identical..

MISHNAH: “You are holding for me a kor⁶⁴Biblical and Accadic measure of volume, 30 seah. of grain;” “I am holding for you only a letek⁶⁵A biblical measure of volume, half a kor. of legumes;” he is not liable. “You are holding for me a kor of produce;” “I am holding for you only a letek of legumes;” he is liable since legumes are subsumed under produce. If one sued for wheat and the other acknowledged barley, he is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon⁶⁶In all other sources, including the following Halakhah: Rabban Gamliel. He considers all grain to be of related kind. declares him liable. Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and the other admitted to pitchers, Admon says since he admitted of the kind of the claim he has to swear. But the Sages say, the admission is not of the kind of the claim⁶⁷Admon (an authority of pre-rabbinic times) holds that the content of the vessels is determining; the Sages give preference to the determination of the vessels of storage.. Rabban Gamliel said, I see⁶⁸To see = to accept as obvious. the words of Admon.
If somebody sued for both vessels and real estate; if [the other] admitted the vessels but denied the real estate, or the real estate and denied the vessels, he is not liable⁶⁹One does not swear on claims of real estate (Mishnah 1). Therefore if the defendant acknowledged his debt of vessels, there is nothing left to take the oath. If he disputes all claims to vessels, there is no acknowledgment since admission of the duty to hand over real estate does not count.. If he admitted part of the real estate he is not liable⁶⁹One does not swear on claims of real estate (Mishnah 1). Therefore if the defendant acknowledged his debt of vessels, there is nothing left to take the oath. If he disputes all claims to vessels, there is no acknowledgment since admission of the duty to hand over real estate does not count.. Part of the vessels he is liable since non-guaranteed property obligates guaranteed property to be sworn about⁷⁰Mishnah Qiddušin1:5, Note 474. If the defendant is liable to take an oath, the claimant can add to the oath all of his outstanding claims even if they in themselves would not force an oath. This is known as “rolling over of oaths.”
A property is guaranteed if the seller as a matter of routine must guarantee the title to the property; this is the case with real estate..

MISHNAH: Somebody had robbed a field which subsequently was taken by discharged veterans⁶⁰“Retired Roman veterans who received a provincial’s property”, from Latin missicius, missitius, adj., “discharged from military service” (M. Gil).
In a Genizah ms. of the Mishnah: “If armed robbers took it.” Parallel sources leave no doubt that the Leiden ms. text is the correct one.. If it is a provincial plague, he may tell him: Here is your property before you⁶¹If the properties of many provincials had been taken, the robber can tell the original owner that it is up to him to try to get indemnification.. But if it was because of the robber⁶²If the veterans were directed to take the land because it had come to the attention of the authorities that it was in the wrong hands, the robber has to indemnify the original owner with another field of equal value., he has to give him a field. If a river had washed it away, he may say to him: Here is your property before you⁶³Since it also would have been damaged in the original owner’s hand..
He who robbed from another, or took a loan from him, or accepted a deposit in a built-up area cannot give it back to him in the desert. [If it was given] with the intent to depart for the desert, he can give it back to him in the desert.

MISHNAH: Two tame bulls which injured one another; one pays half for the excess damage¹¹⁸Since each owner has to pay damages to the other, in effect only the owner of the bull causing the greater damage has to pay for the excess damage his animal did cause, by the statutory rate of 50% for the tame, 100% for the notorious.. If both are notorious, one pays in full for the excess damage. One tame and one notorious; the notorious over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the notorious pays half for the excess damage.
Similarly, two people who injured one another pay in full for the excess damage¹¹⁹Since a human always is notorious (2:10).. A human and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a human, one pays in full for the excess damage. A human and a tame animal; the human over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the human pays half for the excess damage. Rebbi Akiba says, also a tame animal which injured a human pays the excess damage in full¹²⁰He holds that the rules of Ex. 21 do not apply to damages caused to humans..
A bull worth a mina¹²¹100 denars. which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; he¹²²The owner of the dead bull. It is presumed that the aggressor was tame and the damage be paid from its body (Mishnah 1:5). takes the bull. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; Rebbi Meïr said, about this case it was said¹²³Ex. 21:35.: “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.” Rebbi Jehudah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold ¹²³Ex. 21:35.“and also the cadaver they shall split.” What is this? That is a bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is worth 50 zuz¹²⁴The Babylonian half-šeqel, zūz, is identified with the Roman denar., in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half from the cadaver¹²⁵Tosephta 3:3; Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 12..