Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sobre Nedarim 11:2

וְאֵלּוּ הֵם נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אָמְרָה, קוֹנָם פֵּרוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלָי, הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. פֵּרוֹת מְדִינָה עָלָי, יָבִיא לָהּ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. פֵּרוֹת חֶנְוָנִי זֶה עָלָי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה פַרְנָסָתוֹ אֶלָּא מִמֶּנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי:

E estes são votos de aflição: se ela dissesse: "Konam, (que eu não comerei) os frutos do mundo", ele pode anulá-lo. (Se ela dissesse: "Konam, que eu não comerei) os frutos daquele país", ele pode trazer seus frutos de um país diferente. "os frutos desse lojista", ele não pode anulá-lo. E se o seu sustento (do marido) vier apenas dele (aquele lojista) [o lojista que dá crédito ao marido até que ele o ganhe e o pague], ele pode anulá-lo. Estas são as palavras de R. Yossi. [R. Yossi é consistente com sua opinião de que o marido não anula todos os votos de aflição, diferenciando entre grande aflição e aflição moderada, e entre aflição de longo e curto prazo. E todos os mishnayoth deste capítulo estão de acordo com ele e não são a halachá. Mas o marido pode anular qualquer voto de aflição, seja um voto de um dia, um voto de uma hora ou um voto de longo prazo; se envolve grande aflição ou aflição moderada. Da mesma forma, ele pode anular votos e juramentos nas coisas "entre ele e ela", mesmo que isso não implique aflição, como quando ela jurou ou jurou não pintar os olhos ou não se enfeitar. Da mesma forma, se ela prometeu não comer os frutos deste país, o marido pode anulá-lo, trazendo-os de um país diferente, o que implica esforço. São coisas que estão "entre ele e ela". E qual é a diferença entre votos e juramentos que existem entre ele e ela e votos e juramentos de aflição? Votos e juramentos de aflição que ele anula por si e pelos outros, por exemplo, se ela prometeu não comer carne ou beber vinho, ele anula e ela pode comer e beber, mesmo depois de ser viúva ou divorciada e casada com outro . E votos e juramentos "entre ele e ela", por exemplo, se ela proibisse a si mesma coabitar com todos os homens para sempre ou pintar ou adornar-se para sempre, ele anula o que lhe diz respeito, e ela coabita com ele, pinta e adorna a si mesma desde que ela é a esposa dele. E quando é viúva ou divorciada, é proibida a convivência com qualquer homem, além de pintura e adorno; e, da mesma forma, em casos semelhantes.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

For whom is it needed9The clause in the Mishnah that the husband has only the usufruct of any inheritance coming to his wife during the marriage.? For Rebbi Meïr! Even though for Rebbi Meïr the hand of the slave is his master’s hand10Similarly, R. Meïr holds that a wife cannot act legally except as her husband’s representative. It would seem reasonable that a wife can retain separate property by prenuptial agreement (cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1), but for R. Meïr one would expect that a wife can only acquire an inheritance as representative for her husband. Therefore, it is essential that the Mishnah state that an inheritance becomes the wife’s sole property for which the husband has to act as administrator. Cf. Nedarim 11:8, Note 70; Ma‘aser Šeni 4:4, Note 95; Babli Nedarim 88b, Qiddušin 23b. and if the wife acquired title the husband should have acquired it; he agrees that his rights over it11The inheritance. are restricted to the use of the yield. There, we have stated12Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5.: “The finds of his underage son and daughter or of his Canaanite slave13It is not required that the slave be Phoenician. Any non-Jewish slave who became semi-Jewish by circumcision (for a male) and immersion in a miqweh is called “Canaanite slave”. In the theory of the Babli, the Canaanite slave’s body is the property of his master; therefore, if the slave lifts a find to acquire it, it is legally his master whose hand took it. or slave-girl as well as his wife’s find belong to him,” for he can direct them to do other work. Why do we say: “The finds of his adult son and daughter or of his Hebrew slave14While the rules for the treatment of Hebrew slaves (Ex. 21:1–11) are a frequent topic in the Talmudim, the subject is purely theoretical since the institution of Hebrew slavery disappeared with the end of the First Commonwealth. It is asserted that only the working capability of the slave is the master’s, not his body. Therefore, if he lifts a find to acquire it, it is not the master’s hand which lifts the find. or slave-girl belong to them,” because he cannot direct them to do other work15Obviously, the master can direct the Hebrew slave to perform any task he asks of him; but he cannot direct him not to use his hands for anything else.. But his wife he cannot direct to do other work16In Chapter 5, an exhaustive list was given of work the husband can demand from his wife. The wife’s body certainly is not her husband’s property. Therefore, one does not understand why her find should be her husband’s. and you say that her find belongs to him! Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is another reason for his wife. What is the other reason for his wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai says, because of quarrel17One has such a poor opinion of Jewish husbands that one is afraid he would be offended if the wife would not share her find with him [mentioned also in Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1. 15)]. This is the only explanation offered in the Babli, 96a; it is called “because of jealousy”.. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but that she should not smuggle away18Meaning: stealing. any of her husband’s property and say, I found it. Think of it, if another person gave it to her as a gift19The gift can be given on condition that the husband have no right to it. Should the wife not be believed if she says she received a gift?! A gift is public knowledge, a find is not public knowledge. Think of it, if she found it in the presence of witnesses! This because of that20R. Yose will agree that in the case of a find in the presence of other people his reason is invalid. He holds that, nevertheless, the rabbinic decree giving the find to the husband stands because ịt would be impractical to admit exceptions.. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, if they21This refers to the adult children to whom the Mishnah in Baba Meṣi‘a assigns their finds. This is qualified; the Mishnah applies only if the children are financially independent. In the Babli, this is formulated that “they are not dependent on their father’s table.” Cf. Peah 4:6, Note 107; Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1.3); Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 12b. are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versículo anteriorCapítulo completoPróximo versículo