Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sobre Ketubot 4:4

הָאָב זַכַּאי בְבִתּוֹ בְקִדּוּשֶׁיהָ, בַּכֶּסֶף בַּשְּׁטָר וּבַבִּיאָה, וְזַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. וּמְקַבֵּל אֶת גִּטָּהּ, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. נִשֵּׂאת, יָתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְחַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, בְּפִרְקוֹנָהּ, וּבִקְבוּרָתָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲלִילִים וּמְקוֹנָנֶת:

Ela está sempre no domínio de seu pai. [Se ela era filha de um israelita noivo de um Cohein, ela não come terumah. Mesmo que a hora marcada para o casamento chegasse e ela não fosse casada (o marido sendo obrigado a alimentá-la), ela não come terumah] até entrar no domínio do marido, ou seja, a chuppah, pela qual ela entra no marido. domínio] para o casamento. Se o pai a entregou aos mensageiros do marido, ela está no domínio do marido. Se o pai dela foi com os mensageiros do marido, ou os mensageiros do pai foram com os mensageiros do marido, ela está no domínio do pai. Se os mensageiros de seu pai [conhecendo os mensageiros do marido] a entregaram aos mensageiros do marido, ela está no domínio do marido.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

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..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versículo anteriorCapítulo completoPróximo versículo