משנה: בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה בִּמְסִירָה וְהַדַּקָּה בְּהַגְבָּהָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה. MISHNAH: Large animals by handing over409Actual possession of cattle or horses is obtained by the buyer grasping either the animal’s hair or any saddle, bridle, or belt tied to it. Talmudic civil law, in parallel to Ptolemaic law in Egypt, is based on the distinction between ownership and possession. Ownership can be acquired by a monetary transaction but possession, including transfer of responsibility, requires a separate act. While acquisition, as a private act between consenting adults, is essentially unregulated, taking possession must follow specific rules. and small410Sheep and goats. by lifting, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eleazar. But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near411By making the animal walk according to the buyer’s will, but also by lifting the animal..
הלכה: בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְסִירָה כול׳. רִבִּי הוּנָא אָמַר. אֵין מוֹסֵירָה קוֹנָה אֶלָּא בְנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר. רַב חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר שָׁאַל. הָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה גְמָלִים קְשׁוּרִים זֶה בָזֶה. מָסַר לוֹ מוֹסֵירָה שֶׁלְּאַחַת מֵהֶן. כּוּלְּהָם קָנָה אוֹ לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ בִּלְבַד. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. מְשׁוֹךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה זוֹ לִקְנוֹתָהּ. קָנָה. לִקְנוֹת ווְלָדוֹתֶיהָ. לֹא קָנָה. לִקְנוֹתָהּ הִיא וּוְלָדוֹתֶיהָ. קָנָה. אִילּוּ הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. מְשׁוֹךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה זוֹ שֶׁתִּקְנֶה מַשּׂוּי שֶׁלָּהּ שֶׁמָּא לֹא קָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בִּשְׁלֹּא הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה עוֹבָרָה. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה עוֹבָרָה עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּמַשָּׂאָהּ. HALAKHAH: “Large animals are taken possession of by handing over,” etc. Rebbi Huna said, the halter gives possession only for property of the proselyte412Who failed to start a Jewish family and whose property becomes ownerless at his death; cf. Note 30. In the Babli, Baba meṣia‘ 8b, Rav Huna states: that “a halter from another person takes possession except in case of a find and property of a proselyte.” On basis of this quote, all commentators and editors delete אֶלָּא “only” in the present text. The deletion is unjustified; the texts in Yerushalmi and Babli are not comparable.
In the Babli, the formulation makes it clear that the buyer either receives the animal’s halter from the seller or is instructed to take it. Since both a lost article and the estate of an intestate heirless person are ownerless, there is nobody who could hand over the halter or authorize its use. Therefore, only actual moving of the animal can be an act of simultaneous acquisition and taking in possession. While the text of the Babli is beyond doubt, confirmed by Rashi’s translation of מוסירה by chevêtre, it is quoted in Tosaphot Baba batra 75b, s. v. אחזה, as מְסִירָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, “handing over by another person”, which is correct in meaning if not in text. By contrast, neither handing over nor third person is mentioned in the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi asserts that in acquiring and taking possession of ownerless property, taking up the halter is enough, but not in course of formal taking possession of property acquired from a prior owner.. Rav Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abba: Rebbi Eleazar asked, if there were ten camels tied one to another and he handed him the halter of one of them. Did he take possession of all of them or only of the one of which he handed him [the halter]413It is assumed that even if the first camel took a step under the influence of its new owner, the other nine did not move.? Rav Ḥisda said: “Draw414The seller instructs the buyer to proceed to take possession of the animal he bought. this animal to take possession of it, he took possession. To take possession of its offspring, he did not take possession415Moving an animal which he did not buy does not give possession. In the parallel Baba batra 3:1, fol. 13d 1. 66, “he took possession.” The reading of Baba batra is incomprehensible.. To take possession of it together with its offspring, he took possession416In taking possession of a group of animals, it is enough to move one of them. This answers R. Eleazar’s question. In Baba batra: “He did not take possession,” cf. Note 415..” If somebody said to another person, draw this animal close to take possession of its load, would he not take possession417If he also bought the animal, moving it moves the load and all is taken in possession. The Babli, Baba meṣia‘ 9b, disagrees.? Rebbi Yose said, that is, if the animal was not pregnant418If the offspring are already born, they are independent animals which must be acquired by themselves.. But if it was pregnant, they considered it as if carrying a load419In Baba batra (Note 415), R. Nasa notes that a fetus is part of his mother’s body (Note 404)..
רִבִּי אַבָּא רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. הָהֵן דִּנְגִיד בְּזִקָה וְהִיא מִבַּזְעָא בְיָדֵהּ לֹא חַייָב בָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה. אֲפִילוּ לְמַעֲלֶה לְגַו חָנוּתָא דְּלָא אִיתְכַּװֵן אֶלָּא דְלָא יִסְבָּהּ בַּר חוֹרִין. מָהוּ שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בְּשַׁעַר הָפָּחוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בְּשַׁעַר הָפָּחוֹת. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַמּוֹכֵר יֵינוֹ לְנָכְרִי. פָּסַק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד דָּמָיו מוּתָּרִין. מָדַד עַד שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה לִי בְּשַׁעַר הַפָּחוֹת אֲפִילוּ מָדַד עַד שֶׁלֹּא פִּיסֵּק. וְיֵיעָשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁפִּיסֵּק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד וְיִהְיוּ דָמָיו מוּתָּרִין. 420A parallel is in ‘Avodah zarah5:10 (ז). Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin421When no price had been agreed upon. Therefore, handling of the wine skin by the prospective buyer cannot be taking possession. and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he had no other intention than that no other person should take it422It was handled in preparation of a buy.. Can he take possession at a minimal rate423Is it possible to take possession now of a commodity whose price will be determined at a future rate, e. g., the lowest price at which the commodity will be traded in the market (the commodities exchange) during the next 30 days. This is a futures contract which cannot be enforced (cf. Ketubot5:5, Note 116.? Rebbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rebbi Yose: A Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there424Mishnah ‘Avodah zarah 5:10.: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew425The Non-Jew is assumed to use his wine for libations, among other things. Since a libation makes the wine an instrument of pagan worship, it will be forbidden to a Jew and all proceeds received for it are forbidden (Deut. 13:18).. If he fixed the price before he measured, the proceeds are permitted426The Non-Jew owed the price to the Jew before he went and took possession of the wine. What the Jew sold was wine, not an article of pagan worship.; if he measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden427If the Non-Jew handled the wine before the price was fixed, the Jew sold an article of pagan worship..” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal rate428Or any rate to be determined in the future., even if he measured before he fixed the price, it should be as if he fixed the price before he measured429Since he could have transferred possession to the Non-Jew before the latter handled the wine. The Babli, ‘Avodah zarah 72a, rejects the argument since it may be that the seriousness of the prohibition of pagan worship might override rules of contracts. and the proceeds would be permitted.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. הָהֵין דִּנְסַב כֻּזָנִיתָא וְהִיא מִתְחַטְּפָא מִי חַייָב בָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבודַמָא. הָדָא דְתֵימַר כְּצוֹר וַחֲבֵירוֹתֶיהָ כְּקַיְסָרִין וּכְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ. בְּרַם הָכָא עַד כְּדוֹן אוֹרְחֵיהּ מְחַזְּרָה לְמִתְקְלָה. Samuel said, if somebody take a small gold vessel and it be snatched, who is responsible for it430If the person handling the vessel was not the owner.? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is at Tyre or a similar place, at Caesarea431Big cities where thieves easily find fences. or a similar place. But here, so far it usually would be recovered.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. הַמּוֹכֵר צֹאן לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹכִית קָנָה. מָהוּ מַשְׁכּוֹכִית. אִית דְּאָֽמְרִין. חוּטְרָא. וְאִית דְּאָֽמְרִין. שַׁרְקוּקִיתָה. וְאִית דְּאָֽמְרִין. נְגִדָתָא. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If somebody sold a flock432Of sheep or goats. to another person, when [the seller] delivered the maškokît, [the buyer] took possession. What is maškokît? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a whistle. And some say, the bell-wether433It is difficult to explain the feminine form chosen for “bell-wether”. In the parallel Baba batra 3:1 (13d 1. 43), the bell-wether is called תַּייָשָׁא רַבָּא “the large ram”, and instead of “whistle” one has πανδοῦρα, Latin pandura, a three-stringed musical instrument, invented by Pan. [Also compare Latin pandus, -a,-um “bent, crooked, curved” as reference to shephard’s crook? (E. G.)] In the Babli, Baba qama 52a, only tambourine and bell-wether (“the ram at the head of the flock”) are offered as explanations of maškokît..
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. הַמּוֹכֵר בּוֹר לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ דְלָיוֹ קָנָה. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁצָּבַר לְתוֹכוֹ קְנָייוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בָּעֵי. מָסַר לוֹ אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה חֲתָנֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לֵוִי. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וַחֲכָמִים. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַמּוֹסֵר מַפְתֵּחַ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר. שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמִירַת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַמֵּא. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If somebody sell a cistern, when he handed over its pail [the buyer] took possession434The Babli, Baba qama 51b, requires a declaration by the seller that the pail is handed over for possession.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sell a house, when [the buyer] stored there, he took possession. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi asked, what if he handed over the key435In the Babli, Baba qama 51b/52a, handing over the key as sign of transfer of possession is undeniably a valid action.? Rebbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rebbi Levi, said: This is a disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there436Mishnah Ṭahorot 7:1.: “If somebody hand over the key to his house to an ‘am ha’areṣ437A person who does not keep the rules of ritual purity. If he did enter the house, any movables (food and vessels) he touches there would become impure., the house is pure since he handed to him only the guarding of the key.” It was stated438Tosephta Ṭahorot 8:1. He implies, against the othet Tanna, that handing over the key implies permission to use the house.: “Rebbi Simeon declares impure.”
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַמּוֹכֵר מַעְשְׂרוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. וְלַד שִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. עוּבְּרֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אַוֵּיר חֳרֵבָתוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אֶלָּא מוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ וּמְשַׁייֵר מַעְשְׂרוֹתֶיהָ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה וּמְשַׁייֵר לוֹ ווְלָדָהּ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ בְהֵמָה וּמְשַׁייֵר לוֹ ווְלָדָהּ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ חוֹרֵבָה וּמְשַׁייֵר לוֹ אַוֵּירָהּ. וְהֵיךְ אֵיפְשַׁר לוֹ לָאָדָם לִמְכּוֹר אַוֵּיר חֳרֵבָתוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ. תְּלוֹשׁ מִן הֶחֳרֵבָה הַזּוֹ שֶׁתִּקְנֶה אֶחָד מֵעֶשֶׂר שֶׁבָּהּ. וְכָא קַרְקַע לְפָנָיו שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. תְּלוֹשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הַזֶּה שֶׁיִּקָּנֶה לָךְ אֶחָד מֵעֶשֶׂר שֶׁבּוֹ. 439This paragraph is from Demay6:3 (ד), Notes 79–83, which has an intelligible text.“Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person440Translation of the text in Demay. The text here reads: “The children of another person’s slave girl” which does not make sense., he did not do anything; the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself; a slave girl and reserve her children for himself; an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses from that dry land to acquire its airspace441Translation of the text in Demay. The text here reads: “A tenth of its surface area”, which is inappropriate.. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that one tenth of it be acquired by you.
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל וְרִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי חִייָה בַר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה וּפְלִיג. אֵימָתִי אָֽמְרוּ. הַמְטַלְטְלִין נִיקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה. בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו זָכָה. בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר לֹא קָנָה עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹ עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ וְיוֹצֵא חוּץ רְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים. בִּרְשׁוּת זֶה שֶׁהֵן מוּפְקָדִין אֶצְלוֹ לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיְזַכֶּה הוּא בָהֶן אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. 442Giṭṭin 8:1, Notes 17–21. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתֵיכֶם. כִּי הָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח לִשְׁאוֹל. בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה בְּמָה הִיא נִקְנֵית. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בִּמְסִירָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְסִירָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי מִיחְלַף. רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּטְרַף בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּמַה שֶׁמֵּת וּפָטוּר מֵחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁלַּבֵּן. רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. שִׁילְייָא שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ הַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָהּ לְמָחָר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם לְדַם טָהוֹר מוֹנָה מִיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן. וְאִם לְדָם טָמֵא מוֹנָה מִיּוֹם שֵׁינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא יָצָא עִמָּהּ ווְלָד. אֲבַל אִם יָצָא עִמָּהּ ווְלָד בֵּין לְדַם טוֹהַר בֵּין לְדָם טָמֵא אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת יְצִיאַת הַווְלָד. “But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Draw near and take for yourselves small animals for your families443Ex. 12:21..” As Rav Jehudah sent to ask444As the later text shows, probably one should read here: “To ask R. Eleazar.” According to the Babli, Baba qama 11b, the messenger was Ulla.: By what means is possession of large animals established? He answered, by handing over; and asked, is that not the Mishnah? There are Tannaïm who switch the attributions445Obviously, Rav Jehudah was supposed to have studied the Mishnah. But he was not sure about the references to large and small domesticated animals and asked for the correct text from the Babylonian R. Eleazar in Galilee where the latter had access to the traditions of the school of Rebbi.. Rav Jehudah asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a firstborn became “torn” within thirty days446A firstborn son has to be redeemed (Ex. 13:13,34:20); this is specified in Num. 3:40,47 to apply to firstborn sons above the age of one month and the redemption money, 5 biblical šeqalim (Note 122), has to be given to a priest. A human who develops a defect which makes his long-term survival impossible is called “torn”, a term used in parallel with the talmudic interpretation of “torn” animals forbidden as food (Ex. 22:30).? He answered, he is as if dead447This parallels the rabbinic theory that a person who kills a “torn” human cannot be convicted of first-degree murder (Babli Sanhedrin 78a). In the Babli, Menaḥot 37a/b, the rule is derived from Num. 18:15 (cf. also Sifry Num. #118.) and free from the five tetradrachmas of a son. 448Niddah 3:4, Notes 103–104; the parallel in the Babli is Baba qama 11a. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: A placenta which was delivered partially today and partially tomorrow? He answered, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, if no child was produced with it. But if there was a child, both for pure and impure blood she counts only from the moment of birth of the child.
רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הָרִאשׁוֹן חַייָב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַשֵּׂינִי חַייָב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. הַשֵּׂינִי חַייָב. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִשְׁאִילָהּ לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ. ייִשְׁבַּע הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁמֵּתָה כְדַרְכָּהּ. הַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם לַשּׂוֹכֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. כֵּיצַד הֲלָהּ עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. אֶלָּא תַחֲזוֹר פָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהַשְׁאִיל. אֲבָל אִם לֹא נָתַן רְשׁוּת לְהַשְׁאִיל לֹא בְדָא. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵּן. אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל. וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְלֹא הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל. וְלֹא מִי שֶׁהוֹפְקַד אֶצְלוֹ רַשַׁאי לְהַפְקִיד אֶצֶל אַחֵר. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָֽטְלוּ רְשׁוּת מִן הַבְּעָלִים. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשִּׁינּוּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים חַייָבִין. וְשׁוֹאֵל אֲפִילוּ לֹא שִׁינָּה חַייָב. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. מַתְנֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אָתָא מֵימַר לָךְ אֲפִילוּ הִתְנֶה עִמּוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר חַייָב. בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַשּׁוֹאֵל. נשׁבע מִן הָדָא. כָּתַב לָהּ. נֶדֶר וּשְׁבוּעָה אֵין לִי עָלַיִיךְ. אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ. אֲבָל מַשְׁבִּיעַ הוּא אֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ וְאֶת הַבָּאִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאִם בִּיקֵּשׁ אֶת הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְהַהִיא יָֽלְפָה מִן הָדָא. שֶׁאִם בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַאִשָּׁה שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיעָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. לָא צְרִיכָה מֵילַף הָדָא מִן הַהִיא. וּמַה צְרִיכָה מֵילַף. הַהִיא מִן הָדָא. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ רְשׁוּת לַשּׁוֹאֵל. וְהָכָא שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ רְשׁוּת שֶׁיְּהוּ בָנֶיהָ אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר כָּל־זְמָן שֶׁהִיא שְׂכוּרָה אֶצְלוֹ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אֲבִּינָא. שְׁאָלוּהָ הַבְּעָלִים וָמֵתָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אֲפִילוּ אֲכָלוּהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שֶׁלָּהֶם אָֽכְלוּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי יָסָא. הֵיךְ עָֽבְדִין עוֹבְדָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תְּרֵיי כָּלְקֳבֵל אַרְבָּעָה לָא עָֽבְדִין עוֹבְדָא בְסוּגְייָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תְּרֵיי כָּלְקֳבֵל תְּרֵיי אִינּוּן. רַבִּי לָֽעְזָר תַּלמִידֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָא רִבִי יוֹחָנָן תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי. Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper449And something happens to the object to be kept, who is responsible?. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second450This must read: “The first”, as shown by the last statement in the paragraph and shown in Ketubot 9:5, Note 144. is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. 451From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Ketubot 9:5, Notes 128–146 (variant readings given there). There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear452Translation of נשמעינה in the Ketubot text, instead of נשבע “been made to swear” which does not fit here. from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.
רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הָאַחִין שֶׁחָֽלְקוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִיבֵּם אֶחָד מֵהֶן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּנִיכְסֵי כוּלָּם כְּנִיכְסֵי הַמֵּת. עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. מְצוּיַת דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְלֹא שַׁנְייָא. הִיא שֶׁחָֽלְקוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִיבֵּם אֶחָד מֵהֶן. הוּא שֶׁיִיבֵּם אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָֽלְקוּ. זָכוּ כּוּלָּן בְּנִיכְסֵי הַמֵּת. וְלָמָּה אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה דִשְׁאָלֵיהּ אֲגִיבֵהּ. וְלָמָּה לֹא שְׁאָלוֹ לְהָ דְאָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּינָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַסִּי. בְּכוֹר שֶׁחָלַק כְּפָשׁוּט חֲזָקָה ווִיתֵּר. Rav Jehudah sent asking from Rebbi Eleazar: If brothers split [the estate] and then one of them entered a levirate marriage453The father died and then one of the brothers died childless. The brother who married the widow inherits the childless brother’s property. If the deceased brother was not married, it is clear that the father’s inheritance is distributed among the surviving brothers. The problem is whether the brother who marries the widow only gets the deceased brother’s property or also has a claim to the share the brother would have had if he had not died.? He answered, the property of the deceased is like common property454The estate of the deceased brother has no claim on the father’s inheritance.. Ulla bar Ismael said, it is found that in Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion there is no difference whether they split and then one of them entered a levirate marriage or one of them entered a levirate marriage and then they split, but all of them share455Equally. in the property of the deceased. Why did he not say so? He answered what was asked of him. And why did he not ask? Because of what Rebbi Abinna said in the name of Rebbi Assi456Babli Baba batra 126a; Yerushalmi Ketubot 4.13, Notes 257–258.: If a first-born shared as a common son, it is prima facie evidence that he renounced his prerogative457The claim to a double portion. Similarly, if the brother who married the widow did not put forth his deceased brother’s claim at the moment of distribution, he is presumed to have waived his claimt..
רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הָאַחִין שֶׁחָֽלְקוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חוֹלְקִין מַה שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן וְאֵין חוֹלְקִין לֹא מַה שֶׁעַל בְּנֵיהֶן וְלֹא מַה שֶׁעַל בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן. רִבִּי אִימִּי אוֹמֵר. הָעוֹשֶׂה שׁוֹם לְבֵיתוֹ מֵבִיאִין שׁוֹם לְעַצְמָן לָאֶמְצַע וְחוֹלְקִין. הָעוֹשֶׂה קַטֶלָּא לְבֵיתוֹ אֵין מֵבִיאִין לָאֶמְצַע וְחוֹלְקִין. בִּרְאוּיָה לְהִשְׁתַמֵּשׁ בַּחוֹל. אֲבָל בִּרְאוּיָה לְהִשְׁתַמֵּשׁ בָּרֶגֶל מֵבִיאִין לָאֶמְצַע וְחוֹלְקִין. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. כְּלֵי רֶגֶל חוֹלְקִין. כְּלֵי שַׁבָּת צְרִיכָא. רִבִּי אָבִין פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. בֵּין כְּלֵי רֶגֶל בֵּין כְּלֵי שַׁבָּת מֵבִיאִין לָאֶמְצַע וְחוֹלְקִין. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. אִילֵּין בּוֹלָסְייָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲכִים אַתְּ דְּאִית לָךְ בּוֹלָסִּיין סַגִּין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מֵבִיאִין וְחוֹלְקִין. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: Brothers who split458Brothers who all were living and working together on the father’s estate. During their father’s lifetime, they had no independent income. Sometime after the father’s death they decided to split the estate.? He answered, they divide what they are wearing but not what their sons and daughters are wearing459Since all they have came from the father’s estate, even what they are wearing is part of the estate. However, their children’s clothing is property of the children and cannot be counted in the estate. The Babli Baba qama 11b agrees. It notes that if the oldest brother had been made to wear more distinguished clothing in order to represent the entire family before the authorities, the extra expenditure was made on behalf of the estate and cannot be debited to the brother.. Rebbi Immi said, if one makes an appraisal460It is difficult to understand what is meant. The word שום has two meanings, (1) appraisal (of real estate, of dowry, etc.), (2) mole (on the skin). Neither of the meanings is appropriate here. It seems that meaning (1) is derived from Accadic šāmum “buy, object of acquisition; price of object”. Following the first meaning of the Accadic word, one speaks of clothing which one of the brothers bought for his wife with his father’s money, as distinct from clothing made by home manufacture. In making an inventory of the estate, these clothes are debited to the brother. for his wife, this is counted for himself and becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. If one makes a necklace460aLatin catella. for his wife, this is not of the common estate to be distributed if it is to be used on weekdays461Small jewellery objects become property of the women and are not to be counted.. But if it is made to be used on holidays, it becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. Rebbi Mana said, holiday dresses are distributed462They are not distributed but are counted as part of the husband’s part in the estate.. Sabbath dresses are problematic. It is obvious for Rebbi Abin that both holiday and Sabbath dresses become part of the common estate and are distributed. Rebbi Ze‘ira377The name probably should be “Ezra”. asked before Rebbi Mana: What about spherules463Greek βῶλοι, Latin boloe, “spherules” of glass or metal beads, used for jewellery, also kind of precious stones.? He answered, you understand this since you own many spherules. He said to him, they become part of the common estate to be distributed.
רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מָהוּ לִגְבוֹת מִן הָעֲבָדִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. גּוֹבִין מִן הָעֲבָדִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר לְאִילֵּין דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי לִגְבוֹת מִן הָעֲבָדִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: May one foreclose slaves with real estate? He answered, one may foreclose slaves with real estate464Since mortgages usually were written as liens on the entire real estate of the debtor (the Byzantine mortgage omnium bonorum, derived from Ptolemaic Egyptian practice), not on a specific parcel, the question arises whether slaves can be treated as real estate since for them the rules of possession are derived from the rules of real estate. In the Babli, Baba batra128a, the Babylonian Rav Naḥman rules against the Yerushalmi rule, represented there by the Galilean Rebbi Abba. (The Galilean rule could not be based on Egyptian precedents since mortgages in Egypt had to be registered with the registrar of deeds, restricted to real estate.). Rebbi Eleazar instructed those from the House of Rebbi Yannai to foreclose slaves with real estate465His ruling was in practice, not only theoretical..
רַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. הָאַנָּס וְהַגּוֹזְלָן וְהַגַּנָּב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים מְיטַפְּלִין בְּמֵיתָה. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים מְיטַפְּלִין בְּמֵיתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. חַיִים שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם. וְלֹא מֵתִים. עַד כְּדוֹן גְּנֵיבָה. גְּזֵילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵילָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזַל. בְּעֵייְנָהּ. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief466The owner obtained a court order of restitution for anything taken unlawfully. If the thing was broken in the meantime or if it was livestock it died (cf. Ex. 21:35), is the thief or robber obligated to pay for the entire damage or may he return the damaged object and pay only the difference between the original value and the amount recoverable from sale of the damaged object?? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal467In the Babli, Baba qama 11a, Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar represents the opposite opinion. The opinion expressed here is accepted by the Babylonian authorities as judicial practice. The paragraph is discussed in Tosaphot Baba meṣia‘ 96b/97a, s. v. זיל.. From where that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double468Ex. 22:3, speaking of the thief of livestock.,” but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rebbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed469Lev. 5:23.,” as it was.