Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 9:4

משנה: הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לָאוּמָנוּת נָפַל לָאֶמְצַע. חָלָה וְנִתְרַפָּא נִתְרַפָּא מִשֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. הָאַחִין שֶׁעָשׂוּ מִקְצָתָן שׁוּשְׁבִּינוּת בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב חָֽזְרָה הַשּׁוּשְׁבִּינוּת חָֽזְרָה לָאֶמְצַע שֶׁהַשּׁוּשְׁבִּינוּת נִגְבֵּית בְּבֵית דִּין. אֲבָל שִׁילַּח לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ כַדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן אֵינָן נִגְבִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. MISHNAH: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned⁵⁶He was ordered by the government to fulfill certain duties at his own expense., he was requisitioned from the estate⁵⁷If he was living off an undistributed estate, the estate had to bear the cost of government service.. If he fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are his own. If some of the brothers together sent a wedding gift⁵⁸Of money or valuables. during their father’s lifetime, if a corresponding gift was returned⁵⁹By the recipient on his wedding day., it returned to them in common since wedding gifts⁵⁸Of money or valuables. can be sued for in court. But if somebody’s friend sent him pitchers of wine or oil⁶⁰Gifts of food are genuine gifts, not subject to a law of reciprocity. they cannot be sued for since they represent deeds of charity.

הלכה: הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָפִין כול׳. תַּנֵּי. הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לָאוּמָנוּת הַמֶּלֶךְ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּאִין מִכֹּחַ הָאָרִיס נוֹטְלִין מִכֹּחַ הָאָרִיס. מִכֹּחַ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נוֹטְלִין מִכֹּחַ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. כְּהָדָא דְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן נִתְפָּשׂ לַבּוּלֵי. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי. אָמַר. אִין אִית בְּנִיכְסוֹי דְנַחְמָן שֶׁנִּתְפַּשׂ לוֹ יִנָּתֵן לוֹ מִנְּכָסָיו. וְאִם לָאו יִינָּתֵן לוֹ מִן הָאֶמְצַע. HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated⁶¹Cf. Tosephta 10:5.: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper⁶²This makes no sense. The correct reading is given in Šiṭṭah mequbbeṣet ad 144b in the name of Ravad and Rashba Novellae ad 144b: brothers. Since only rich and well-known people were ordered to pay for the city services, if the estate was renowned for its riches, the estate had to pay for the cost of services. If it was because of the personal renown of the person appointed, he had to bear the cost., he takes because of the sharecropper⁶²This makes no sense. The correct reading is given in Šiṭṭah mequbbeṣet ad 144b in the name of Ravad and Rashba Novellae ad 144b: brothers. Since only rich and well-known people were ordered to pay for the city services, if the estate was renowned for its riches, the estate had to pay for the cost of services. If it was because of the personal renown of the person appointed, he had to bear the cost.. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council⁶³Greek βουλή, responsible not only for city services but also for the collection of taxes.. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

חָלָה וְנִתְרַפָּא נִתְרַפָּא מִן הָאֶמְצַע. תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. כָּל־מַכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קִיצָּה מִתְרַפָּא מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִיצָּה מִתְרַפָּא מִן הַנְּכָסִים. כְּהָדָא קְרֵיבָתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר װָא הֲװָת חֲשָׁשָׁה עֵיינָהּ. אֲתַת גַּבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לָהּ. קְצִיץ הוּא אָהֵין אַסְייָךְ. אִין קְצִיץ מִן פֶּרְנֵיךְ. אִין לָא קְצִיץ בַּעֲלֵיךְ יְהִיב לִיךְ. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנִּינָן. אַל תַּעַשׂ עַצְמְךָ כְּעֹרְכֵי הַדַּייָנִין. וָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָסוּר לְגַלּוֹת לְיָחִיד דִּינוֹ. אָֽמְרֵי. יְדַע הֲוָה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּהִיא אִיתָא כְשֵׁירָה בְּגִין כֵּן גְלֵי לָהּ. בַּעֲלָהּ בָּעֵי הֵן דִקְצַץ וְהִיא בְּעַייָה הֵן דְלָא קְצַץ. לְמָאן שָֽׁמְעִין. לֹא לְבַעֲלָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּהַהוּא דְּלֵית דִּינֵיהּ עִימֵּיהּ. בְּרַם בָּהוּא דְּאִית דִּינֵיהּ עִימֵּיהּ אָמַר לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא. If she fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are on the estate⁶⁴It seems that this is a baraita which disagrees with the Mishnah.. It was stated: ⁶⁵Tosephta Ketubot 4:5, Ketubot.52b">Babli Ketubot 52b. A shortened version of the paragraph is in Ketubot 4:10:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.4.10.4">Ketubot 4:11, Notes 231–236. It is commented on by Ran (Ketubot 4, ad Alfasi #249), and Rosh (Ketubot 4, #23).“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah; if it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate.” As the following: The eye of a female relative of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba hurt. She came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor mention a fixed fee? If [the fee] is fixed, from your ketubah, if it is not fixed, your husband will give it to you⁶⁶Ran proves that Maimonides read this to mean: “From your husband’s estate it will be given to you.” He holds that the placement of the extended story in Bava batra indicates that it refers to an estate, not a living husband who bears unlimited responsibility for his wife’s health.. But did we not state: “Do not turn yourself into a pleader⁶⁷Mishnah Abot 1:8. It is unethical for a judge to dispense legal advice.”, and did not Rebbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is forbidden to disclose a judgment to a party? They said, Rebbi Joḥanan knew her to be an honest woman; therefore, he disclosed it to her. If her husband wants a treatment at a fixed rate, but she wants one without fixed rate, does one not listen to her husband? Rebbi Mattaniah said, only if the case not be before him. But if the case be before him, he has to tell it as it is⁶⁸If the case is before him, he can disclose the judgment. He is only prohibited to talk to one party separately before and during the trial..