1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 6.9-6.10, 7.6, 7.12-7.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 6.9. וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִמֶּנָּה יֹאכְלוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל־מוֹעֵד יֹאכְלוּהָ׃ 7.6. כָּל־זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכְלֶנּוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָכֵל קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא׃ 7.12. אִם עַל־תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ וְהִקְרִיב עַל־זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת מַצּוֹת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן וְסֹלֶת מֻרְבֶּכֶת חַלֹּת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשָּׁמֶן׃ 7.13. עַל־חַלֹּת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ יַקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ עַל־זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו׃ 7.14. וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֶחָד מִכָּל־קָרְבָּן תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן הַזֹּרֵק אֶת־דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים לוֹ יִהְיֶה׃ 7.15. וּבְשַׂר זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו בְּיוֹם קָרְבָּנוֹ יֵאָכֵל לֹא־יַנִּיחַ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד־בֹּקֶר׃ 7.16. וְאִם־נֶדֶר אוֹ נְדָבָה זֶבַח קָרְבָּנוֹ בְּיוֹם הַקְרִיבוֹ אֶת־זִבְחוֹ יֵאָכֵל וּמִמָּחֳרָת וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ יֵאָכֵל׃ 7.17. וְהַנּוֹתָר מִבְּשַׂר הַזָּבַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף׃ 7.18. וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר־זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ פִּגּוּל יִהְיֶה וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֺנָהּ תִּשָּׂא׃ 7.19. וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע בְּכָל־טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף וְהַבָּשָׂר כָּל־טָהוֹר יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר׃ 7.21. וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי־תִגַּע בְּכָל־טָמֵא בְּטֻמְאַת אָדָם אוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אוֹ בְּכָל־שֶׁקֶץ טָמֵא וְאָכַל מִבְּשַׂר־זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַיהוָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ׃ | 6.9. And that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat; it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it." 6.10. It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering." 7.6. Every male among the priests may eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy." 7.12. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked." 7.13. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving." 7.14. And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift unto the LORD; it shall be the priest’s that dasheth the blood of the peace-offerings against the altar." 7.15. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the morning." 7.16. But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a freewill-offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his sacrifice; and on the morrow that which remaineth of it may be eaten." 7.17. But that which remaineth of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire." 7.18. And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it; it shall be an abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity." 7.19. And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is clean may eat thereof." 7.20. But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people." 7.21. And when any one shall touch any unclean thing, whether it be the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean detestable thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, that soul shall be cut off from his people." |
|
2. Cicero, On Duties, 1.151 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
| 1.151. Quibus autem artibus aut prudentia maior inest aut non mediocris utilitas quaeritur, ut medicina, ut architectura, ut doctrina rerum honestarum, eae sunt iis, quorum ordini conveniunt, honestae. Mercatura autem, si tenuis est. sordida putanda est; sin magna et copiosa, multa undique apportans multisque sine vanitate impertiens, non est admodum vituperanda, atque etiam, si satiata quaestu vel contenta potius, ut saepe ex alto in portum, ex ipso portu se in agros possessionesque contulit, videtur iure optimo posse laudari. Omnium autem rerum, ex quibus aliquid acquiritur, nihil est agri cultura melius, nihil uberius, nihil dulcius, nihil homine libero dignius; de qua quoniam in Catone Maiore satis multa diximus, illim assumes, quae ad hunc locum pertinebunt. | 1.151. But the professions in which either a higher degree of intelligence is required or from which no small benefit to society is derived â medicine and architecture, for example, and teaching â these are proper for those whose social position they become. Trade, if it is on a small scale, is to be considered vulgar; but if wholesale and on a large scale, importing large quantities from all parts of the world and distributing to many without misrepresentation, it is not to be greatly disparaged. Nay, it even seems to deserve the highest respect, if those who are engaged in it, satiated, or rather, I should say, satisfied with the fortunes they have made, make their way from the port to a country estate, as they have often made it from the sea into port. But of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more becoming to a freeman. But since I have discussed this quite fully in my Cato Major, you will find there the material that applies to this point. |
|
3. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 8.7, 10.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8.7. If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintece at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given." 10.6. If a man’s debt document was erased, he must have witnesses testify with regards to the loan, and come before the court to make this attestation: “So and so, the son of so and so, his debt document was erased on such and such a day, and so and so and so and so are his witnesses.” If a man had paid part of his debt, Rabbi Judah says: “He should exchange the debt document for a new one.” Rabbi Yose says: “He should write a receipt.” Rabbi Judah said: “It turns out that this one (the debtor) will have to guard his receipt from mice.” Rabbi Yose said to him: “That’s good for him, as long as the rights of the other (the creditor) have not been damaged." |
|
4. Mishnah, Gittin, 9.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.3. The body of the get is: “Behold you are permitted to any man.” Rabbi Judah says: [he must add] “And this shall be to you from me a writ of divorce and a letter of release and a bill of dismissal, with which you may go and marry any man that you wish.” The body of a writ of emancipation is: “Behold you are a free woman”, “Behold you belong to yourself.”" |
|
5. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.12, 5.1, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.12. If he did not write for her, “You shall live in my house and be maintained from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. Thus did the men of Jerusalem write. The men of Galilee wrote as did the men of Jerusalem. The men of Judea used to write: “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah”. Therefore if the heirs wish to, they may pay her her ketubah and dismiss her." 5.1. Although [the Sages] have said: a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one maneh, if he wishes to add, even a hundred maneh, he may do so.After betrothal [but before marriage], a virgin collects two hundred zuz and a widow only one maneh, for the man wrote her [the additional amount] in order to marry her. If she was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, she is entitled to collect the entire amount. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: [a woman widowed or divorced] after marriage receives the entire amount; Rabbi Judah says: if he wishes he may write for a virgin a document for two hundred zuz and she writes “I have received from you a maneh”, or for a widow [he may write a document for] a maneh and she writes, “I have received from you fifty zuz”. Rabbi Meir says: Any man who gives a virgin less than two hundred zuz or a widow less than a maneh is engaging in licentious sex." 5.3. A yavam [who is a priest] does not allow [his sister-in-law] to eat terumah. If she had spent six months waiting for her husband and six months waiting for the yavam, or even [if she spent] all of them waiting for her husband less one day waiting for the yavam, or all of them waiting for the yavam less one day waiting for her husband, she may not eat terumah. This [was the ruling according to] the first mishnah. The court that followed afterwards ruled: a woman may not eat terumah until she has entered the bridal chamber." |
|
6. Mishnah, Peah, 3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.7. One who is about to die who assigns his property in writing [to another]: If he retains any land [for himself] however small, he renders his gift valid. But if he retains no land whatsoever, his gift is not valid. One who assigns in writing his property to his children, and he assigns to his wife in writing any plot of land, however small, she lost her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: if she accepted [such an assignment] even though he did not assign it to her in writing she lost her ketubah." |
|
7. Mishnah, Shekalim, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 7.6. Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth]." |
|
8. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.13, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 4.13. Explained Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili: Anywhere they write (sic!, based on Ehrfurt) a loan into a ketubah (i.e. a combined document with aspects that are a loan, e.g. in the dowry, and other aspects that are a normal ketubah), he (sic!) can collect the lone but she (sic!, Ehrfurt has גובה in both instances) can't collect the ketubah. Anywhere they double the ketubah, she can only collect half. (This is my explanation—against everyone I have found!—trying to account for the simple meanings of the words in the Ehrfurt manuscript, which Robert Brody has shown to probably be the best text, but there is a LOT of confusion about this halakhah. See Lieberman and traditional commentators on Baba Metzia 104b for more details)." 12.1. Originally, when her ketubah was with her father, it was light in [her husband's] eyes to divorce her. Shimon ben Shatah decreed that her ketubah should be with her husband and that he should write for her \"All of my property will be mortgaged or pledged for your ketubah\". They do not make a wife's ketubah from moveable items [i.e. they don't make moveable items the thing that she can collect from it, but rather real estate] because of tikkun ha-olam. Said Rabbi Yose: What tikkun ha-olam is there in this!? It is because they [the moveable items] have no fixed value." |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, 56b, 57a, 82b, 56a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 56a. אלא תרוייהו אזלי בתר אומדנא,מאן דאמר הלכה שפיר מאן דאמר אין הלכה הכא נמי אומדן דעתא הוא משום איקרובי דעתא הוא והא איקרבא ליה דעתא,יתיב רב חנינא קמיה דרבי ינאי וקאמר הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה אמר ליה פוק קרי קראך לברא אין הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה,אמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי משום רבינו הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה,ורב נחמן דידיה אמר אין הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה ונהרדעי משמיה דרב נחמן אמרי הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה ואע"ג דלט רב נחמן ואמר כל דיינא דדאין כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה הכי והכי תיהוי אפילו הכי הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה והלכה למעשה כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה:,בעי רבין נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה מהו חיבת חופה קונה או חיבת ביאה קונה,תא שמע דתני רב יוסף שלא כתב לה אלא על חיבת לילה הראשון אי אמרת בשלמא חיבת חופה קונה היינו דאמר לילה הראשון אלא אי אמרת חיבת ביאה קונה ביאה בלילה הראשון איתא מכאן ואילך ליתא,ואלא מאי חופה חופה בלילה איתא ביממא ליתא ולטעמיך ביאה בלילה איתא ביממא ליתא הא אמר רבא אם היה בבית אפל מותר הא לא קשיא אורח ארעא קא משמע לן דביאה בלילה,אלא חופה קשיא חופה נמי לא קשיא כיון דסתם חופה לביאה קיימא אורח ארעא קא משמע לן דבלילה,בעי רב אשי נכנסה לחופה ופירסה נידה מהו אם תימצי לומר חיבת חופה קונה חופה דחזיא לביאה אבל חופה דלא חזיא לביאה לא או דלמא לא שנא תיקו:,רבי יהודה אומר רצה כותב לבתולה וכו': וסבר רבי יהודה דכותבין שובר והתנן מי שפרע מקצת חובו רבי יהודה אומר יחליף רבי יוסי אומר יכתוב לו שובר,אמר רבי ירמיה כששוברתה מתוכה,אביי אמר אפילו תימא בשאין שוברתה מתוכה בשלמא התם ודאי פרעיה דלמא מירכס תברתא ומפיק ליה לשטרא והדר גבי זימנא אחרינא הכא ודאי יהב לה מילתא בעלמא היא דאמרה ליה אי נטריה נטריה אי לא נטריה איהו הוא דאפסיד אנפשיה,בשלמא אביי לא אמר כרבי ירמיה לא קתני שוברתה מתוכה אלא ר' ירמיה מ"ט לא אמר כאביי גזירה שובר דהכא אטו שובר דעלמא,טעמא דכתבה ליה אבל על פה לא אמאי דבר שבממון הוא ושמעינן ליה לר' יהודה דאמר דבר שבממון תנאו קיים,דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בדבר שבממון תנאו קיים,קסבר רבי יהודה כתובה דרבנן וחכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה,הרי פירות דרבנן ולא עבדו להו רבנן חיזוק דתנן רבי יהודה אומר לעולם הוא אוכל פירי פירות עד שיכתוב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן ובפירות פירותיהן עד עולם | 56a. In any case, it has been established that Rav also follows the principle of assessing one’s intention, which calls into question the conclusion that Rabbi Natan is the one who said that the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. bRather,the Gemara concludes: bBothRav and Rabbi Natan bfollowthe principle of bassessingintention, and the debate can be explained in a different way.,According to bthe one who saysthe ihalakha /iis in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, this works out bwell.According to bthe one who saysthe ihalakhais notin accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, bhere too, this is an assessmentof his bintention.Why did he give her the additional sum of the marriage contract? bIt was due to a sense of intimacybetween them, as they were betrothed and were planning to get married. Since bhe diddemonstrate ba sense of intimacywith her, the assessment is that he intended to give her the additional sum., bRav Ḥanina,who was known for teaching biblical verses, bsat before Rabbi Yannai and said:The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya.Rabbi Yannai bsaid to him: Go outand bread your verses outside.Your area of expertise is biblical verses, not ihalakha /i. What you said is incorrect and should not be said in the study hall, as the ihalakhaisactually bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya. /b, bRav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said in the name of our teacher,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rav Naḥman saidthat bShmuel said:The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya. /b, bAnd Rav Naḥmanalso bsaid hisown statement: The ihalakhais not in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Andthe Sages bof Neharde’a say in the name of Rav Naḥman:The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya.The Gemara comments: bAnd although Rav Naḥman cursedthem band said: Any judge who rules in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya, such and suchunspecified misfortune bwill happen to him, even sothe ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya.Since the Gemara presented a number of different opinions, it concludes: bAnd the practical ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya. /b,§ Since the practical ihalakhais that a woman who was divorced or widowed after betrothal receives the main sum of her marriage contract but not the additional sum, bRavin asks: What isthe ihalakhawith regard to a woman who bentered the wedding canopy andis then widowed or divorced bwithout having had sexual intercourse?Does the baffectionmanifest in the bwedding effectthe marriage, and therefore she receives the additional sum as a married woman? bOr,is it the baffectionmanifest in the bintercoursethat beffectsthe marriage, and consequently this woman is no different than a betrothed woman for the purpose of this ihalakha /i?, bComeand bhear that Rav Yosef taughtthe following ibaraita /i: bHe wrotethe additional sum in the marriage contract bfor her only on account of the affectioncharacteristic bof the first nightof the marriage. The Gemara asks: bGranted, if you saythat the baffectionmanifest in the bwedding effectsthe marriage, bthis iswhy bit says theaffection characteristic of bthe first night,as the wedding ceremony is performed on the first night only. bBut if you saythat the baffectionmanifest in the bintercourse effectsthe marriage, bis there intercourseonly bon the first nightand then bfrom thispoint bforward there is none?Consequently, the ibaraitaimplies that the affection manifest in the wedding effects the marriage, and from that point on she is entitled to the additional sum of the marriage contract.,The Gemara rejects this proof: bBut rather, whatis the advantage of interpreting the expression: Affection characteristic of the first night, as a reference to the bwedding? Is there a weddingonly bat nightand bnot during the day?The Gemara responds: bAnd according to your reasoning, is there intercourseonly bat nightand bnot during the day?Didn’t bRava saythat although the Sages generally prohibited engaging in intercourse during the day, bif it was in a dark houseit is bpermitted?The Gemara rejects this question: bThisis bnot difficult.By employing this phrase, bit teaches us the ordinary mode of behavior,i.e., bthat intercoursegenerally takes place bat night. /b, bRather,the opinion that the expression is a reference to the bwedding is difficult,as a wedding does not have to take place at night. The Gemara responds: bThe weddingreference is balso not difficult, sincea reference to ba wedding without specificationmeans a wedding that btakes placein order to lead directly bto intercourse.By using this phrase, bitsimilarly bteaches us the ordinary mode of behavior,i.e., that intercourse generally takes place bat night.Consequently, this ibaraitacannot be used as a proof for either possibility., bRav Ashi asksa question similar to Ravin’s: If the bride bentered the wedding canopy and began menstruating,and the husband then died without ever engaging in intercourse with his wife, bwhat isthe ihalakhawith regard to the additional sum of the marriage contract? bIf you saythat the baffectionmanifest in the bwedding effectsthe marriage, does this refer specifically to ba weddingin which the couple is bfit toengage in bintercourse,which involves greater affection, band a weddingin which the couple bis not fit toengage in bintercoursedoes bnoteffect the marriage? bOr, perhaps it is not different.The Sages could not answer this, so the question bshall standunresolved.,§ The mishna states: bRabbi Yehuda says:If bhe wishes, he may writea marriage contract bfor a virginfor two hundred dinars, and she may then write a receipt as if he had paid part of that sum. They ask: bAnddid bRabbi Yehuda holdthat one bwrites a receiptfor partial payment of a debt? bBut didn’t we learnin a mishna ( iBava Batra170b): In the case of bone who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says: He should exchangethe original promissory note for a new one that states the amount still owed, and bRabbi Yosei says:The lender bshould write him a receiptfor the money he received? According to Rabbi Yehuda, a new note is preferable to a receipt because if the borrower loses the receipt, the lender is still in possession of a promissory note for the full amount and can collect a second time., bRabbi Yirmeya said:In the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda is referring to a case bwhere the receipt iswritten bwithinthe marriage contract itself and not as a separate document. The husband is therefore not required to hold on to a receipt, and consequently Rabbi Yehuda’s restriction against writing a receipt is not necessary., bAbaye said: Evenif byou saythat the mishna is referring to a case bwhere the receipt is notwritten bwithin it,it is logical that Rabbi Yehuda would make an exception in this case. bGranted, there,in an ordinary case of a receipt, bit is certainthat the borrower brepaidpart of the loan, and consequently there is concern that bperhapshe bwill lose the receiptand the lender will btake out thepromissory bnote and return and collectthe entire payment bagain.But bhere,in the mishna, did the husband bdefinitely givethe wife part of the payment for the marriage contract? The receipt bmerelyamounts to bsomething she said to himin order to waive part of the payment, although she did not actually receive it. bIf he savedthe receipt, bhe saved it; if he did not save it, it is he himself who will lose.Therefore, in this case, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that one writes a receipt.,They ask: bGranted,it is understandable why bAbaye did not sayhis explanation bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yirmeya,as the mishna bdoes not teachexplicitly that the breceipt iswritten bwithinthe marriage contract. bHowever, what is the reasonthat bRabbi Yirmeya did not sayan explanation bin accordance withthe opinion of bAbaye?Why does Rabbi Yirmeya limit the mishna to a case where the receipt was written within the marriage contract? The Gemara responds: Although this is an unusual case, as there is no concern that the receipt may be lost, there is nevertheless a rabbinic bdecreewith regard to bthis receipt due to the typicalcase of breceipts.Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda would not allow a receipt unless it was written into the marriage contract itself.,With regard to the crux of the issue, the Gemara notes: bThe reasonthat Rabbi Yehuda holds that the wife can waive part of the main sum of her marriage contract bisspecifically because bshe wrote hima receipt. bHowever,if she said it bverbally, no,it is not effective, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: bWhynot? bThis is a monetary matter, and wehave bheard that Rabbi Yehuda said:With regard to bmonetary mattersin which someone makes a verbal stipulation, bhis stipulation stands. /b,This is bas it is taughtin the iTosefta( iKiddushin3:7): In the case of bone who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have noability to claim bfrom me food, clothing, or conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:With regard to bmonetary matters,such as food and clothing, bhis stipulation stands;therefore, if she verbally waives part of the marriage contract, and thereby makes a stipulation about a monetary matter, it should be effective.,The Gemara answers: bRabbi Yehuda holds:The bmarriage contract is a rabbiniclaw, band the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with greaterforce bthan Torah law.Therefore, if the wife waives part of the main sum of the marriage contract, Rabbi Yehuda holds that her declaration has no force unless it is written down. However, a Torah obligation, such as food and clothing, does not require this reinforcement, and consequently the wife may waive it with a verbal stipulation.,The Gemara challenges this answer: The husband’s entitlement to the bproduceof his wife’s property bis a rabbinicdecree, bandnevertheless bthe Sages did not reinforcehis rights to bthem, as we learnedin a mishna (83a): bRabbi Yehuda says:Even if the husband wrote that he waived his rights to the produce of his wife’s property, bhe may actually consume the produce of the produceof her property, meaning that he could invest the produce in additional property, which would also belong to his wife, but he would consume its produce. This applies bunless heexplicitly bwritesto bher: I do not have any claim to your property, its produce, or the produce of its produce, forever. /b |
|
10. Papyri, P.Hever, 69, 8, 65
|
11. Papyri, P.Murabba'T, 20, 19
|
12. Papyri, P.Yadin, 17-19, 21-22, 10
|
