Талмуд к Бава Батра 8:7

הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ, הָאָב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכֹּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּתוּבִין לַבֵּן, וְהַבֵּן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכֹּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב. מָכַר הָאָב, מְכוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת. מָכַר הַבֵּן, אֵין לַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּהֶן כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב. הָאָב תּוֹלֵשׁ וּמַאֲכִיל לְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וּמַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ תָּלוּשׁ, הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, אֵין הַגְּדוֹלִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים עַל הַקְּטַנִּים וְלֹא הַקְּטַנִּים נִזּוֹנִין עַל הַגְּדוֹלִים, אֶלָּא חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. נָשְׂאוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים, יִשְׂאוּ הַקְּטַנִּים. וְאִם אָמְרוּ קְטַנִּים הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶם, אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נָתָן:

Если кто-то пишет о своей собственности своим сыновьям, он должен написать: «с сегодняшнего дня и после смерти» [имея в виду: сама земля приобретается вами с сегодняшнего дня, и вы не должны есть ее плоды до после (моей) смерти. И если он не пишет «с сегодняшнего дня», он ничего ему не дает, потому что после смерти не дает.] Это слова Р. Иегуды. Р. Йосси говорит: ему не нужно [писать «с сегодняшнего дня». Ибо так как в деле написано: «В этот и этот день недели, так и так сказали нам:« Будь свидетелем для меня и т. Д. »», Дата указывает, что дар «начался» в тот день. Ибо если это не так, зачем вообще нужно писать дату? Галаха соответствует Р. Йосси.] Если кто-то пишет о своей собственности своему сыну после его смерти, [то есть «с сегодняшнего дня и после смерти»], отец не может продать ее [без сына], потому что это переписано сыну [то есть сама земля принадлежит сыну], и сын не может продать ее [без отца], поскольку она находится в собственности отца [т.е. плоды принадлежат отцу.] Если отец продал его [без квалификации], они [фрукты] продаются (покупателю) до тех пор, пока он [отец] не умрет. Если сын продал его [при жизни отца], у покупателя их нет [фрукты], пока отец не умрет. Отец [который передал свое имущество своему сыну «с сегодняшнего дня и после смерти»] отрывает и кормит [плоды] тому, кого пожелает [при жизни. Но что касается того, что было оставлено в земле во время его смерти, то, несмотря на то, что оно должно быть вырвано, оно принадлежит его сыну, получателю дара. Однако, если кто-то передает свое имущество другому, даже то, что осталось на земле во время его дара, принадлежит наследникам. Ибо человек более благосклонно относится к своему сыну, чем к другому.] И то, что осталось оторванным (от земли), принадлежит наследникам. Если он оставил сыновей, взрослых и маленьких, то взрослые не будут одеты за счет маленьких [(Расходы на одежду у взрослых больше, чем у маленьких)], а маленьких не кормят за счет из взрослых. Но они делятся поровну. [(Расходы на питание у маленьких больше, чем у взрослых, потому что они едят чаще и оставляют больше.) Поэтому маленькие мешают взрослым одеваться в поместье, а взрослые - маленькие от того, что им кормят, но каждый одет и питается от своей доли.] Если взрослые сыновья женились [и брали свои расходы на свадьбу из поместья после смерти их отца], молодые также могут жениться [т.е. они также могут взять свои свадебные расходы из поместья.] И если младшие сказали [после смерти их отца]: «Мы поженимся, как (то есть, в том же стиле, что и вы)» [при жизни нашего отца ], к ним не прислушиваются, но что бы ни дал их отец [при жизни], он дал.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

⁶⁷The first sentences are quoted by Naḥmanides in מלחמות ה׳ (in the Wilna edition of Alfassi, Yebamot 22a). Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died⁶⁸The husband sold of his wife’s paraphernalia property during her lifetime. Since he was not the owner, he could not sell; the sale is void even when he becomes the heir.? He said to him, his sale⁶⁹Naḥmanides writes מכרו; that may have been a correct ms. or it may be his (obvious) correction of the text. In these details, a medieval quote is not a witness to the text. is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died⁷⁰While a son can legally sell his right of inheritance to a speculator (who would take the risk that the son might die before the father and his investment become worthless), the son cannot sell his father’s property before his father’s death; such a sale is void even after the son becomes the heir.. If she sold and then he died⁷¹She sold of her paraphernalia properties, of which she is the owner, and her husband died during her lifetime. She sold irregularly since her husband had the administration of her properties during his lifetime but after her husband’s death the sale is valid.? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died⁷²The father is not required to inconvenience himself to leave his properties for his heirs.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah⁷³The reference is not to R. Jehudah (bar Illaï) mentioned in the Mishnah but to Rebbi, R. Jehudah ben Rabban Simeon, quoted in the baraita later in this paragraph., this implies that her sale is a sale⁷⁴As explained at length later, the temporary owner is a total owner and may sell at will. The question why she would want to sell is addressed below.. It was stated⁷⁵A similar text in Tosephta Baba batra 8:4 (fragmentary), Yerushalmi Baba batra 8:9 (16c 1.19); Babli Baba batra 136b/137a (cf. R. Rabbinowicz, דקדוקי סופרים בבא בתרא. p. 374, Note ח).: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]⁷⁶This clause appears in all texts mentioned in the preceding Note; it is necessary to introduce the third beneficiary of the will.. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them⁷⁷In the language of the Babli: If the second died while the first is alive, the properties should return to the first’s legal heirs (in Yerushalmi Baba batra: to the testator’s legal heirs)..” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia⁷⁸In the Babli (Baba batra 136b), he is called “Rav Hoshaia in Babylonia”., the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y⁷⁹As the Babli explains in the name of Rav Hoshaia, for him there is a difference between “it should be given to X, then to Y, then to Z” and “you should inherit, after you Y, after him Z.” In the first case, the properties are given in usufruct but have to be preserved. In the second case, the properties are given in possession; the owner receives title. The only claim the successor has is to the real estate which still is in the preceding heir’s hand at his death; Y cannot complain if X sells the properties. This is made clear in the following baraita.. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.^75,A similar text in Tosephta Baba batra 8:4 (fragmentary), Yerushalmi Baba batra 8:9 (16c 1.19); Babli Baba batra 136b/137a (cf. R. Rabbinowicz, דקדוקי סופרים בבא בתרא. p. 374, Note ח).⁸⁰In the Babli, the position of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is modified to mean that a sale is a breach of trust but not that it is void. Since a baraita which forces the Babli to its conclusion is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi, one has to assume that in its opinion for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel there is no difference in the language of the will; in any case in which a succession of heirs is noted only usufruct is transferred and any sale of real estate is void.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will⁸¹In Baba batra, the text reads: “R. Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. R. Joḥanan said, not even as a gift between the living.” The statement of R. Mana (I)/R. Yannai simply means that X, the first heir, cannot give the properties away in a will since the will becomes active only after X’s death and at that moment the real estate is already Y’s property (as explained in the Babli, loc. cit.). R. Joḥanan’s statement is explained by R. Eliahu Fulda, that X may sell for his own needs because he is the owner, but he cannot give away since the original will prescribes that after X it must be given to Y.. So said Rebbi Mana⁸²R. Mana II. before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons⁸³Why should the wife have the power to sell the real estate whose proceeds go to her husband? Is it not that she received the properties on condition that after her, they should be given to her husband or children?? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens⁸⁴She may sell for expenses which the husband is not required to cover.. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell⁸⁵X may sell real estate only for his personal needs but the definition of personal need has to be very generous.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there⁸⁶In the Tosephta from Baba batra. The wife may also sell some of her property and buy herself a burial plot (which, if used, becomes forbidden for all usufruct.), he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, in the circumstances where he was empowered at her entrance he was disabled at her exit, and in the circumstances where he was disabled at her entrance he was empowered at her exit. What was connected to the ground at her entrance is his and at her exit is hers, what was cut from the ground at her entrance is hers and at her exit is his³⁸He follows the Sages in the previous Mishnah that produce she brings into the marriage as capital and real estate is given over to his administration. He adds that at a divorce (if she exits the marriage) he has to deliver the field as is at the moment the bill of divorce is delivered, with all the grain standing if it was not cut before the divorce but that all produce harvested before the moment of divorce is his; cf. Yebamot 15:5, Notes 67–68..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

“He who curses by a charm.” Like those Nabateans who curse “your creator, your smith, your acquisition⁷¹Explanation of J. Levy in his Dictionary, based on Arabic קני “to acquire, to create”, קינ “smith; any craftsman”; a similar but Hebrew formulation in the Babli 81a. He also notes that the words might be substitutes for others, similar to קונם, קונח, קונס used for קָרְבָּן in vows (cf. Mishnah Nedarim 1:2)..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Предыдущий стих Полная глава Следующий стих