Талмуд к Кетубот 8:13

It happened that Rebbi Yeshebab⁷¹A Tanna of the third generation, student of R. Joshua and colleague of R. Aqiba. He was one of the Ten Martyrs and was executed after the war of Bar Kokhba, at age 90, probably because he continued to teach in Judea. went and let his entire property be distributed to the poor. Rabban Gamliel⁷²In the parallel Babli, Ketubot 50a, it is R. Aqiba who objects and prevents him from executing his wishes. sent to him: Did they not say one fifth of one’s property for good deeds? And was not Rabban Gamliel before Usha⁷³Rabban Gamliel died before the war of Bar Kokhba but the assembly at Usha was long after that war. In addition, the language of Rabban Gamliel implies that “they”, not “we”, instituted the limitation; hence, it was an old rule (but, as the text here shows, not one that was generally observed.)? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Levi: That was the current practice, they forgot it⁷⁴The first two generations after the destruction of the Temple, at the least. The same statement by R. Yose ben R. Abun and R. Levi is quoted in Ketubot 8:11 (fol. 32c) on another practice., but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones, to teach you that everything the Court⁷⁵The Synhedrion or any court whose authority is accepted by all of Israel. insists on will come to be in the end, just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

⁶⁷Tosephta Ketubot 8:2–3. The Tosephta contains additional statements, found in the parallel in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 28b–29a.“If somebody who works his wife’s property⁶⁸His wife’s paraphernalia property of which he receives the usufruct as payment for his investment in and work on the fields. If he divorces his wife before harvest, he loses all rights to the crop. He therefore has an incentive to harvest as early as possible. has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners⁶⁹Not only kidnap victims but a large class described in the next sentence. Both Talmudim, by endorsing Samuel’s definition, take position against the very wide definition of this Tosephta. heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance⁷⁰He had a reason to work the fields to keep them producing; he is rewarded by the possibility of acquiring the yield even if he has to return the real estate.. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance⁷¹He started to work the field without authorization; if the owner returns before the harvest, he loses his investment. (In the Tosephta he may claim to be rewarded for his investment in money and time by being made a sharecropper. The Babli explains that this applies only if the farmer is appointed by the court to take care of his relative’s property. There is no hint of this in the Yerushalmi.). Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons⁷²He disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and assigns the yield to the person working the field.. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed⁷³The Babli refers to Hos. 10:14. persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions⁷⁴The relative who went to work the field may reasonably assume that he would have been appointed to care for the property if the kidnap victim had had time to communicate with him. Therefore, the courts will assign the yield to him.. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions⁷⁵Samuel disagrees with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and refuses the harvest to the relative working the field.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people⁷⁶The absent person cannot reclaim usufruct the unauthorized relative had from his movables.. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables⁷⁷In the Babli, Šebuot 43a, theparallel statement is attributed to the Tanna R. Meїr; the anonymous majority declares any ripe crop to be under the laws of real estate until harvested. That means that the editors of the Babli rejected the attribution of the statement to Samuel, their highest authority in civil law.. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting⁷⁸There, palm trees are so abundant that it is not necessary to take male flowers and hang them into the crowns of female trees. That means that the trees do not need hard work., is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested⁷⁹No answer is given. The problem is not treated in the Babli since it precludes the basis of the question.?

It was stated¹⁷¹Tosephta 1:6.: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified¹⁷²Derivative impurity in the second degree. by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure¹⁷³Original impurity or derivative impurity in the first degree. by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah¹⁶⁶This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel¹⁷⁴For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them¹⁷⁵Babli Šabbat 15b.. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha¹⁷⁶In Usha, the place of R. Jehudah, a loyal supporter of the Roman government, the Rabbinate was reconstituted by the third generation Tannaim after the death of Hadrian and the suspension of the latter’s anti-Jewish decrees. The executive officer of the Cohanim must have served in the Temple; he therefore belongs to the first generation of Tannaim.? Before Usha there was no burning for their words¹⁷⁷Rabbinically impure sancta neither could be used nor destroyed.. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel¹⁷⁸Biblical impurity applies only to kinds of vessels and implements mentioned in the rules of impurity: earthenware and metal (Lev. 6:21), leather and textiles (Lev. 13:49), bone and wood (Num. 31:20). Other vessels cannot become impure; to this fact one attributes the great number of stone vessels found on archeological sites of the Second Temple period. (Similarly intrinsically pure vessels made of cow dung have not survived for the archeological record.) The impurity of glass vessels, unknown to Moses, is purely rabbinical. One has to take the information that the impurity of glass ware “was decided” by the heads of the Synhedrion to mean that they codified the rules which were popularly observed before. Glass vessels are compared to earthenware vessels since the former are made from sand, the latter from clay. They are also compared to metal vessels since if broken they can be melted down and made into new vessels.. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁷⁹Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b., Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware¹⁸⁰The land outside the Holy Land was always being considered impure (cf. Am.7:17). What they decided was that earth of Gentile places, within or outside the Holy Land, is considered infected with the impurity of rotting human bodies. While it is in dispute whether Gentile corpses induce tent impurity, it is universally accepted that they transmit impurity by touching.. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels¹⁸¹The possible impurity of metal vessels is biblical (Note 178). Following the Babli Šabbat 16b, what they decreed was that metal impure by the impurity of the dead should not become pure by being melted down, but only by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow.. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands¹⁸²They codified the rules that hands which were not all the time consciously guarded from impurity after being washed are impure in the second degree and, therefore, impart impurity to fluids, heave, and sacrifices but not to solid profane food (cf. Demay 2:3, Notes 136–137; Babli Šabbat 14b). Corrector’s addition from Ketubot..] Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁷⁹Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b. was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning¹⁸³That it was decided that glassware has the biblical status of metalware.. The following are the six doubts¹⁸⁴Mishnah Taharot 4:5.: “On the doubt of a bet happeras¹⁸⁵A place known to contain a grave whose position is no longer known or ascertainable. If heave was transported over this place, it might have become impure by tent impurity., on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar¹⁸⁶A person not known to observe the rules of impurity. His clothing may be impure either by contact with his impure wife in her period or because he suffers from gonorrhea.
The quote here is lacunary; there is missing the possible impurity of vessels found in the public domain., on the doubt of spittle¹⁸⁷Which might be the source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a woman menstruating or suffering from flux or a male sufferer from gonorrhea., on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine¹⁸⁸Urine was used industrially and as a household chemical. Animal urine is pure; human urine may be a source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a person whose impurity is caused by his own body (Note 187)., on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity¹⁸⁹If the fact that it touched the object in question is not in doubt; the only doubt is whether that object transmits impurity or not. on these one burns heave.