Талмуд к Гиттин 3:9

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items¹¹The Babli, 113a, quotes this in the name of Rebbi; E reads “Joḥanan” instead of Jonathan.. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs¹²Giṭṭin 3:8 (Note 146), 8:7 (Note 104), Bava meṣi‘a 1:6; Babli 111b (in the name of Rami bar Ḥama). A loan executed without a public document is not subject to a title search; the loan cannot be collected either from mortgaged property or from the innocent buyer of property pledged for the oral loan.. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed¹³Babli 111b, in the name of Rava. Since the loan made before witnesses can be collected from unencumbered property, it can be collected from unencumbered property of the estate.
In the Babli, Bava batra 175b, Samuel agrees with Rav that an undocumented loan cannot be collected from the heirs; the opinion expressed here, that it can be enforced against the heirs but not against buyers of the property, is attributed there (176a) to Rav Pappa and declared judicial practice.. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs¹⁴But the Mishnah requires robbed real estate to be paid for. The question makes sense only in the formulation of the Mishnah, not the quote at the beginning of the present paragraph since both R. Jonathan and R. Simeon ben Laqish agree that originally robbed real estate available after the robber’s death must be returned to its original owners.. Explain it if he left them real estate¹⁵There is no question of “paying for it”, only of “returning it.”. But might it¹⁶The Mishnah. not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items¹⁷Which has to be returned according to everybody, for reasons other than the rules of foreclosure..

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said¹⁵⁰Lev.16:11., and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die¹⁵¹Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8(6). He cannot marry her outright since a High Priest (and any priest aspiring to that position) is restricted to a single wife, as explained later in the paragraph..” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission¹⁵²Emission of semen, an example of impurity which even if removed immediately disables a person from performing sacral acts before the next sundown. would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent¹⁵⁴Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it., death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated¹⁵⁴Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it.: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated¹⁵⁵Babli 55a, Tosephta Šeqalim 3:3, Gittin 7:4 (Notes 195–107). The horns were openings of boxes where people could deposit money for specified sacrifices and assume that the boxes would be emptied every day and the necessary sacrifices offered. In particular a woman after childbirth who may not eat sancta unless she brought her purification sacrifice may deposit the money and eat sancta after sundown without inquiring whether the offering had actually been brought. A “nest” is a couple of pigeons or turtle-doves.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them¹⁵⁶If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her. would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath¹⁵⁶If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her.? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath¹⁵⁷Since the Day of Atonement follows the Sabbath rules and the High Priest would have to get a new wife immediately if his wife die after nightfall of the day, should not his wife’s death disqualify him from the service since preliminary marriage is an act of acquisition forbidden on the Sabbath? (Since the High Priest is forbidden to defile himself for any corpse, in contrast to a common priest he is not disabled by the death of a close relative.).

As the following: Ganiba was lead out to be executed¹⁰⁴It seems, by the Persian government as a political trouble maker. (Babli 7a).. He said, One should give money¹⁰⁵In the Babli, 65b, 400 zuz. It seems that R. Abuna was Ganiba’s only student (Ḥulin 44a,50b). He also was Rav Huna’s student. to Rebbi Abuna from the wine of Kefar Panaya¹⁰⁷In the Babli, 66a, the heirs were forced to pay by Rav Huna.. They did not give him¹⁰⁷In the Babli, 66a, the heirs were forced to pay by Rav Huna.; they were considering what Rav said, “an heir is like the buyer of encumbered property.” Just as a loan before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs¹⁰⁸Cf. Chapter 3, Note 146. The opinion ascribed here [and in 3:7, Baba qama 10:1 (7b 1. 39), Baba meṣi‘a 1:6 (8a 1.26)] to Rav is quoted as common to Rav and Samuel (i. e., established Babylonian practice) in Baba batra 175b.. If they did not give it as payment of a debt, they should have given as a gift! They were considering what Rebbi Eleazar said, for Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person⁹⁸Some formal rules of gifts are waived for a person on his deathbed. If a sick person directs that gifts should be given and he dies, the gifts are valid even though no act of acquisition was performed for the benefit of the recipients. But if he recovers, his instructions are void in the absence of a formal act of acquisition; cf. Peah 3:9; Babli Baba batra 146b ff.? Rebbi Ze‘ira¹⁰⁹In the Babli, he counsels R. Abina to appeal to Rav Huna. brought Rebbi Isaac from Atosha who stated for him: A gift is like a bill of divorce¹¹⁰Which is valid without formality if ordered by a person sentenced to death.. Rebbi Abba said to him, perhaps like bills of divorce which one cannot deliver if not delivered during his lifetime, so a gift is not called a gift if not delivered during his lifetime? He said to him, here comes the rabbi with sophistication to let Rebbi Abuna lose money! You cannot, for we have stated there¹¹¹Mishnah 1:6.: “Give a mina to X; then he died. One shall give after death.” Following Rebbi Simeon. For Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, they should give him, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan before witnesses can be collected from the heirs¹¹²Quoted as opinion shared by R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish (i. e., common Galilean practice) in Baba batra 175b. on condition that they inherited real estate. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if somebody was with him until the moment of his death¹¹³Who can testify that from the moment of the gift to the donor’s death nothing was given to the recipient of the gift.. But if he goes in and out, I am saying that already he gave him. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it¹¹⁴Ganiba’s gift. was not given since Rebbi Ḥanina reported this fact: Levi Parisa¹¹⁵In Šabbat 3:4 (6a 1. 63), he is called Levi Sarisa. He may be Levi ben Sisi, known as a commuter between Galilee and Babylonia. was going from place to place when Ganiba’s relatives came to eat with him. He said, the money should be given to Rebbi Abuna; they started quarelling with him.

HALAKHAH: “One who found documents of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from unincumbered property⁸⁰Property which is in the debtor’s possession without being subject to any third party lien. In this version of R. Meïr’s position, a creditor who wants to be secure has to write a contract which forbids the debtor to either sell his property or to mortgage it to another person.. Following this opinion of Rebbi Meïr, to what purpose does he return it? To cover the mouth of his pitcher⁸¹In this context, the remark is a non sequitur. It seems to refer to another tradition of R. Meïr’s, quoted in the Babli, 13a, by Samuel: A contract containing no alienation clause cannot be used to foreclose. This means that such a contract is hardly worth the paper it is written on.
E has a different text with an additional sentence:
תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בֵּין שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין וּבֵין שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים. וַחֲכָמִים אומ׳ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין אֵנוֹ גוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים.
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from incumbered property. But the Sages say, he collects from incumbered property based on a document containing an alienation clause, but based on a document containing no alienation clause, he cannot collect from incumbered property.
S. Lieberman suggests to read תַּמָּן אוֹמְרִים “there (in Babylonia), they say” instead of “but the Sages say.” This then properly refers the entire discussion to positions of R. Meïr quoted in the Halakhah. One could also suggest to read אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים “others say,” and refer to the opinion stated as R. Meïr’s in Ketubot 4:9, Note 217, which is identical with that quoted here in the name of the “Sages”.. ⁸²The following two sentences are from Bava Qamma 10:1, Notes 12–13. Rav’s statement is a reformulation, Samuel’s a copy. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected⁸³Unencumbered property can be foreclosed on basis of an IOU missing an alienation clause. The property of the recipient of a gift cannot be foreclosed.. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien.

What are palisades? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: For examples if bells, chains, and ropes¹⁶⁴Interpretation of Musaphia. The parallel text in Giṭṭin reads וְאִיסְטְרָטִיּוֹת soldiery., and geese, and chickens and machinery¹⁶⁵In Giṭṭin כְּלָבִים “dogs”. The same in the Babli, 27a. surround the town¹⁶⁶The bells, geese, etc. shall make sure that nobody escapes.. And Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥama¹⁶⁷Here certainlyחמא is a mistake for חייה, cf. Note 159. bar Ashi said, it happened that a blind woman was able to flee from there¹⁶⁸He questions the Mishnah. If a blind woman can escape a siege conducted so that nobody should escape, then everybody could escape and the fact that at the beginning of the siege the wife of a Cohen was in the town does not mean anything.. If there was one breach¹⁶⁹In the palisades surrounding the town., it saves all. If there were hiding places, it is questionable¹⁷⁰It is undecided whether a woman can claim that she was in hiding and not a victim of the entering army.. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, in the name of Rebbi Yudan the prince: Only if there were palisades of that government¹⁷¹The Mishnah speaks only of a revolt or a civil war, when the army is ordered to attack (and enslave) the civilian population. A conquering foreign army might plunder, but its soldiers are not under orders to rape all women. In the interpretation of Tosaphot (s. v. כאן), the same statement appears in the Babli, 27a, in the name of Ḥizqiah.. But palisades from another government are like robbers.