1. Septuagint, Tobit, 7.13-7.14 (10th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 7.13. Then he called his daughter Sarah, and taking her by the hand he gave her to Tobias to be his wife, saying, "Here she is; take her according to the law of Moses, and take her with you to your father." And he blessed them. |
|
2. Septuagint, Tobit, 7.13-7.14 (4th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 7.13. Then he called his daughter Sarah, and taking her by the hand he gave her to Tobias to be his wife, saying, "Here she is; take her according to the law of Moses, and take her with you to your father." And he blessed them. |
|
3. 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. |
|
4. 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." |
|
5. 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.”" |
|
6. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.7, 5.1, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.7. If he did not write a kethubah for her, a virgin still collects two hundred zuz and a widow one mane, because it is a condition laid down by court. If he assigned to her in writing a field that was worth one mane instead of the two hundred zuz and did not write for her, “All property that I possess is a lien for your ketubah”, he is liable [for the full amount] because it is a condition laid down by the court." 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." 7.6. These leave [their marriage] without their ketubah: A wife who transgresses the law of Moses or Jewish law. And what is the law of Moses? Feeding her husband with untithed food, having intercourse with him while in the period of her menstruation, not separating dough offering, or making vows and not fulfilling them. And what is Jewish practice? Going out with her head uncovered, spinning wool in the marketplace or conversing with every man. Abba Shaul says: also one who curses her husband’s parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: also one who has a loud voice. And who is regarded as one who has a loud voice? A woman whose voice can be heard by her neighbors when she speaks inside her house." |
|
7. 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." |
|
8. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.9, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 4.9. Hillel the Elder would explain lay-language [of contracts as if it were the biblical text]. When the people of Alexandria would betroth wives, another would come and seize her from the street. The matter came to the Sages. They sought to make their children bastards [since the betrothal was valid, so when they are married to others in the meantime their children will be illegitimate]. Hillel the Elder said to them: \"Bring to me the ketubah of your mothers.\" They brought them for him, and it was written in it \"When you enter my house, you will be my wife according to the law of Moshe and Yisrael\" [in other words, based on a fine reading of the ketubah text, the betrothal only takes full effect when she enters his house, which means that the other husband was not illegitimate and her children aren't bastards]." 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, Bava Metzia, 104a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 104a. איבעי לך לאתויי בדוולא,אמר רב פפא הני תרתי מתניתא קמייתא משכחת לה בין בחכרנותא בין בקבלנותא מכאן ואילך דאיתא בקבלנותא ליתא בחכרנותא ודאיתא בחכרנותא ליתא בקבלנותא:,אם אמר לו חכור לי שדה בית השלחין זה [וכו']: ואמאי לימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך מי לא תניא האומר לחבירו בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו אלא לתך הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי בית כור,כרמא אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו גפנים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי כרמא פרדס אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו רמונים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי פרדסא אלמא אמר ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך הכא נמי נימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך,אמר שמואל לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר הא דאמר ליה חוכר למחכיר אמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר שמא בעלמא א"ל א"ל חוכר למחכיר קפידא,רבינא אמר אידי ואידי דא"ל מחכיר לחוכר מדקאמר זה מכלל דקאי בגוה עסקינן בית השלחין למה ליה למימר דקאמר ליה בית השלחין כדקיימא השתא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המקבל שדה מחבירו והובירה שמין אותה כמה ראויה לעשות ונותן לו שכך כותב לו אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ר"מ היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא ר"מ אומר אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא,רבי יהודה היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא ר' יהודה אומר אדם מביא קרבן עשיר על אשתו וכן כל קרבן וקרבן שהיא חייבת שכך כותב לה אחריות דאית ליך עלי מן קדמת דנא,הלל הזקן היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא אנשי אלכסנדריא היו מקדשין את נשותיהם ובשעת כניסתן לחופה באין אחרים וחוטפים אותם מהן ובקשו חכמים לעשות בניהם ממזרים,אמר להן הלל הזקן הביאו לי כתובת אמכם הביאו לו כתובת אמן ומצא שכתוב בהן לכשתכנסי לחופה הוי לי לאינתו ולא עשו בניהם ממזרים,ר"י בן קרחה היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא ר"י בן קרחה אומר המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו יותר מחובו שכך כותב לו תשלומתא דאית לך עלי כל קבל דיכי,טעמא דכתב ליה הכי הא אי לא כתב ליה הכי לא קניא והא אמר רבי יוחנן משכנו והשיב לו המשכון ומת שומטו מעל גבי בניו | 104a. bYou should have broughtwater bin a bucket. /b, bRav Pappa said:With regard to bthese first two imishnayot /i, you findthat they are correct, bconcerning both tecy,where the tet farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, bas well asthe case of ba contractor,who gives a set proportion, e.g., one-quarter or one-third, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. bFrom thispoint bforward,i.e., from the third mishna of the chapter until its end, that bwhich isrelevant to the case bof a contractor is notapplicable bto tecy, andthat bwhich isrelevant bto tecy is notapplicable btothe case of ba contractor. /b,§ The mishna teaches: bIfthe cultivator bsaid tothe landowner explicitly: bLease me this irrigated field,or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tecy. The Gemara asks: bBut whyis this so? bLetthe owner bsay to him: I told you only the name,i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. bIsn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of bone who says to another: I am selling you a ibeit kor /ifield bof dirt, althoughthe field bcontains only a half- ikor /i,once the buyer purchases the dirt bit has come to him,i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, basthe seller bsold himthe dirt bonlyby bthe name,and he did not mean that its size was precisely a ibeit kor /i. The ibaraitaadds: bAndthis bisthe ihalakhaonly bwherethat field bis calledby people ba ibeit kor /i. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: Similarly, if he said: bI am selling you a vineyard,then balthough it does not have vines,once he purchases the land bit has come to him, asthe seller bsold himthe field bonlyby bthe name; andthis bisthe ihalakhaonly bwhere it is called a vineyard.Likewise, if he said: bI am selling you an orchard,then beven though it does not have pomegranates,once he purchases the land bit has come to him, as he sold him onlyby bthe name; andagain this bisthe case only bwhere it is called an orchard. Apparently,the seller can bsay to him: I told you only the name. So toohere, bletthe seller bsay to him: I told you only the name. /b, bShmuel said:It is bnot difficult; this ibaraitais comparable to a case bwhere the owner of the land said to the tet farmerwhat he was leasing him, while in bthatmishna bthe tet farmer said to the owner of the landwhat he was leasing from him. The reason for the difference is that if bthe owner of the land saidthe terms bto the tet farmer,then he can claim that bhe told him only the name,and the tet farmer cannot object. But if bthe tet farmer saidthe terms bto the owner of the land,then he was clearly bparticularto receive a field that would be irrigated when he cultivated it., bRavina said:Both bthis ibaraita band thatmishna are referring to a case bwhere the owner of the land told the tet farmerwhat he was leasing him, as implied by the mishna, but bsincethe owner bsaid: Thisirrigated field, bby inference we are dealing withone bwho is standing inside it. Why,then, bdoesthe owner bneed to statethe fact that it is ban irrigated field?It is obvious simply from looking at it that it is irrigated. Rather, the owner must have bsaid to himby way of emphasis that he is providing ban irrigatedfield bas it currently stands. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bone who receives a field from anotheras a contractor bandthen blets it lie fallowand does not work the land at all, the court bappraises itby evaluating bhow much it was able to produceif cultivated, band he giveshis share of this amount btothe owner. The reason is bthat thisis what a cultivator bwrites tothe owner in a standard contract: bIf I letthe field blie fallow and do not cultivateit, bI will pay with best /b-quality produce., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Meir would expound common languageused in legal documents written by ordinary Jews to deduce halakhic conclusions. Although these formulations were not prescribed by the Sages, one can nevertheless infer ihalakhotfrom them if they are used in legal documents. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitathat presents a similar case to the mishna: bRabbi Meir sayshe is liable to pay, as the document states: bIf I letthe field blie fallow and do not cultivateit, bI will pay with best /b-quality produce.,Likewise, bRabbi Yehuda wouldalso bexpound common language, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda says:In a case where a woman who has given birth is commanded to bring the offering of a childbearing woman and her husband is sufficiently wealthy, ba person brings the offering of the rich on behalf of his wife.This is so even if his wife does not possess money of her own and perhaps should have been considered poor. bSimilarly,he may bring bevery offering that she is obligatedto bring, such as a sin offering or guilt offering. He pays for all these offerings bbecause thisis what bhe writes to herin her marriage contract: I accept bupon myselfto repay you for all bobligations that you have,even those bfrom beforehand.Consequently, he must fund all of her offerings.,Similarly, bHillel the Elder would expound common languageas well, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wivesa significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, band at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, otherswould bcome and snatchthe women bfrom theirhusbands. bThe Sagesconsequently bsought to establish the childrenof these women as imamzerim /i.This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are imamzerim /i, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband., bHillel the Elder said tothe children who came before him for a ruling on their status: bBring me your mother’s marriage contractfor examination. bThey brought him their mother’s marriage contract, and he found thatthe following formulation bwas written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife.This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, bandtherefore these women bdid not cause their childrento be imamzerim /iby engaging in intercourse with the other man.,The Gemara adds: bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa wouldalso bexpound common language. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:One bwho lendsmoney to banother may not take more collateral from him thanthe value of bhis debt, as thisis what the debtor bwrites tothe creditor if the creditor temporarily returns a deposit for the debtor’s use: bThe paymentto bwhich you havea right, which it is bupon meto pay, bcorresponds to the entirevalue of bthisitem, indicating that the item cannot be greater in value than the debt itself.,The Gemara infers: bThe reasonthe creditor acquires the collateral is bthat he wrote this to him. But ifthe creditor bdid not write this tothe debtor, would the creditor bnot acquirethe collateral? bBut doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say:If a creditor btook collateralfrom the debtor band returned the collateral to him andthen the debtor bdied,the creditor bremovesthe collateral bfromthe debtor’s bchildren.The reason for this is that although movable property of orphans is not acquired by their father’s creditor, the collateral is considered to belong to the creditor, and he can collect the debt from it. |
|
10. 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 |
|
11. Papyri, P.Hever, 65, 69, 8-9, 50
|
12. Papyri, P.Murabba'T, 19
|
13. Papyri, P.Yadin, 11, 16-20, 26, 37, 10
|
14. Papyri, Cpj, 128
|
