Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.6.6.3-7.1.3

Using Sefaria to prepare for Shavuot? Give back with a monthly donation today and we’ll send you a free tote bag!

6:6

משנה: לֹא יִבָּטֵל אָדָם מִפִּרְייָה וְרִבְייָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ בָנִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים זָכָר וּנְקֵיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר זָכָר וּנְקֵיבָה בְּרָאָם. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהֲתָה עִמּוֹ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָֽלְדָה אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִבָּטֵל. גֵּירְשָׁהּ מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר וְרַשַּׁאי הַשֵּׁנִי לִשְׁהוֹת עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְאִם הִפִּילָה מוֹנָה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהִפִּילָה. הָאִישׁ מְצוּוֶה עַל פִּרְייָה וְרִבְייָה אֲבָל לא הָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר וַיְבָרֶךְ אוֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וגו׳. MISHNAH: A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply unless he has children. The House of Shammai say two males, but the House of Hillel say a male and a female, as it is said “male and female He created them¹¹⁰Genesis.1.27">Gen. 1:27..” If he married a wife and she stayed with him for ten years and had no child he is not permitted to rest. If he divorced her¹¹¹He also might take a second wife., she is permitted to marry another and the second [husband] is permitted to stay with her for ten years, and if she had a miscarriage she counts from the moment of the miscarriage. The man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply but not the woman. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, for both of them it says “God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply,¹¹²Genesis.1.28">Gen. 1:28.” etc.

הלכה: לֹא יִבָּטֵל אָדָם מִפִּרְייָה וְרִבְייָה כול׳. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמֹשֶׁה גֵּרְשׁוֹם וֶאֱלִיעֶזֶר. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה מִבִּרְייָתוֹ שֶׁלְּעוֹלָם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר זָכָר וּנְקֵיבָה בְּרָאָם. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה אֲפִילוּ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה. דִּלֹ כֵן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. בְּנֵי בָנִים כְּבָנִים. בְּנֵי בָנוֹת אֵינָן כְּבָנִים. בֶּן בֵּן וּבַת בַּת עוֹלִין. בַּת בֵּן וּבֶן בַּת אֵינָן עוֹלִין. אַיילוֹנִית וְהַסָּרִיס וְשֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִװְלָד אֵינָן עוֹלִין. HALAKHAH: “A man should not rest from being fruitful and multiply,” etc. The House of Shammai say two males, since “Gershom and Eliezer”¹¹³1Chr. 23:15. The argument is in Yevamot.61b">Babli 61b, Tosephta 8:4, Genesis.26">Tanḥuma Buber Bereshit 26. Nobody has to be more strict than Moses. are mentioned for Moses. The House of Hillel say a male and a female the way the world was created, as it is said “male and female He created them¹¹⁰Genesis.1.27">Gen. 1:27..” Rebbi Abun said, one has to understand “even a male and a female”. If it were not so, it should have been a Mishnah¹¹⁴In Tractate Idiut. It must be that the House of Hillel accept either two males or male and female. about the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel. Sons of sons are counted as sons¹¹⁵Tosephta 8:4, Yevamot.62b">Babli 62b., sons of daughters are not counted as sons¹¹⁶In the Yevamot.62b">Babli, 62b, this is the opinion of Abbai; it is rejected by the authoritative Rava (Rav Abba bar Rav Yosef bar Ḥama).. The son’s son and the daughter’s daughter count; the son’s daughter and the daughter’s son do not count. A she-ram, a castrate, and those who cannot have children are not counted.

רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. טַעֲמָא דְהֵן תַּנָּייָא מִקֵּץ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים לְשֶׁבֵת אַבְרָם בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן. צֵא שָׁנִים שֶׁעָשָׂה בְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. חָֽלְתָה הִיא אוֹ שֶׁחָלָה הוּא אוֹ שֶׁהָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אֵינָן עוֹלִין. נִישְׂאֵת לָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא יָֽלְדָה יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. לַשֵּׁינִי יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. לַשְּׂלִישִׁי יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. לָרְבִיעִי וְלַחֲמִישִׁי אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בַּר עָגוּל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. לַשְּׂלִישִׁי עַצְמוֹ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. נִישֵּׂאת לָרְבִיעִי וְלַחֲמִישִׁי וְלֹא יָֽלְדָה מַה דְיַחְזְרוּן קַדְמַאֵי עָלֶיהָ. יָֽכְלָה הִיא מֵימַר. כְּדוֹן אִיתְעֲקָרַת הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא. נִישֵּׁאת לַחֲמִישִׁי וְיָֽלְדָה מַהוּ תַחֲזִיר עַל רְבִיעָייָא. אוֹמֵר לָהּ. שְׁתִיקוּתֵיךְ יָפָה מִדִּיבּוּרֵיךְ. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of that Tanna: “At the end of ten years since Abram lived in the Land of Canaan¹¹⁷Genesis.16.3">Gen. 16:3; Sarah gave her husband a second wife to have children..” Deduct the years outside the Land¹¹⁸Tosephta 8:5, Yevamot.64a">Babli 64a as tannaitic statement. In both sources, the verse is designated as hint, not as proof since Issac waited 20 years for his children. The rule does not apply outside the Land in any case.. We also have stated: [The time during which] she was sick or he was sick, or he went overseas, does not count¹¹⁹Tosephta 8:6, Yevamot.64a">Babli 64a.. If she was married to the first [husband] and did not give birth, she receives ketubah¹²⁰Cf. Yevamot 4:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.3.1">Chapter 4, Note 84.; from the second she receives ketubah, from the third she receives ketubah, from the fourth and fifth she has no ketubah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar ‘Agil in the name of Rebbi Ḥizqiah: From the third himself she has no ketubah¹²¹In the Yevamot.65a">Babli, 65a: As a third husband, she should marry only a man with children. If she married a childless man, she has no ketubah.. ¹²²In the Yevamot.65a">Babli, 65a, this statement is characterized as tannaitic. If she was married to a fourth or fifth and did not give birth, may the earlier ones have regress on her¹²³Since it is now proven that she is sterile and most people would not marry a woman knowing that she was sterile. May they ask the ketubah money back?? She can say, only now did this woman become sterile¹²⁴The claimants would have to prove that she was sterile before.. If she was married to the fifth and gave birth, has she regress on the fourth? He says to her, your silence is better than your talk¹²⁵The fourth husband could say, had I known you were not sterile, I never would have given you a bill of divorce. This threatens retroactively to invalidate the divorce and to make her child a bastard (Yevamot.65a">Babli 65a)..

נִבְעֶלֶת וְרוֹאָה דָם נִבְעֶלֶת וְרוֹאָה דָם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַּנֵּי שְׁנִייָה תִיבָּעֵל שְׁלִישִׁית לֹא תִיבָּעֵל. וְאִית תַּנּוּיֵי תַנֵּי שְׁלִישִׁית תִּבָּעֵל רְבִיעִית לֹא תִבָּעֵל. הֲווֹן בְּעַייָן מֵימַר. מַה דָמַר. שְׁנִייָה תִבָּעֵל וּשְׁלִישִׁית לֹא תִיבָּעֵל. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. שְׁלִישִׁית אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. בְּרָם כְּמָאן דָּמַר. שְׁלִישִׁית תִּיבָּעֵל רְבִיעִית לֹא תִיבָּעֵל. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. שְׁלִישִׁית יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. הָֽיְתָה יוֹלֶדֶת זְכָרִים וְהָיוּ נִימּוֹלִים וּמֵתִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שֵׁינִי יִמּוֹל שְׁלִישִׁי לא יִמּוֹל. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שְׁלִישִׁי יִמּוֹל רְבִיעִי לֹא יִמּוֹל. הֲווֹן בְּעַייָן מֵימַר. מָאן דָמַר. שֵׁינִי יִמּוֹל שְׁלִישִׁי לֹא יִמּוֹל. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַשְּׁלִישִׁית אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מָאן דָּמַר. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי יִמּוֹל הָרְבִיעִי לֹא יִמּוֹל. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַשְּׁלִישִׁית יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַשְּׁלִישִׁית יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מוֹדֵי הוּא הָכָא שֶׁלֹּא יִמּוֹל מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנָה. תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי נָתַן. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לְקֵיסָרִין שֶׁלַּקַּפּוֹטָקִייָא. וְהָֽיְתָה שָּׁם אִשָּׁה אַחַת וְהָֽיְתָה יוֹלֶדֶת זְכָרִים וְהָיוּ נִימּוֹלִים וּמֵתִים. וּמָלַת אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וָמֵת שֵׁינִי וָמֵת שְׁלִישִׁי וָמֵת. רְבִיעִי הֱבִיאָתוֹ לְפָנַיי. נִסְתַּכַּלְתִּי בוֹ וְלֹא רָאִיתִי בוֹ דַם בְּרִית. אֲמַרְתִי לָהֶם. הֲנִיחוּהוּ לְאַחַר זְמָן. וַהֲנִיחוּהוּ וּמַלּוּהוּ וְנִמְצָא בֶּן קַייָמָא. וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ נָתָן בִּשְׁמִי. If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not¹²⁶The Niddah.65b-66a">Babli, Niddah 65b/66a, and Niddah 8:1" href="/Tosefta_Niddah.8.1">Tosephta Niddah 8:1–2 know only of the more lenient opinion. This does not deal with a virgin but a woman who reacts to intercourse with interior bleeding that might be menstrual. After three consecutive episodes she may not have any more intercourse with this husband.. They wanted to say¹²⁷A conjecture, not a statement. that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise¹²⁸In the Yevamot.64b">Babli, 64b and other places, and Tosephta Shabbat 15:8 the person who holds that in matters of physical danger two cases are proof is Rebbi, and the one who requires three is his father, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger¹²⁹The Yevamot.64b">Babli, 64b, agrees that it is most careless not to follow Rebbi in matters of dangers to life. A warning example is Abbai, who died after he married a very beautiful twofold widow.. It was stated¹³⁰Tosephta Shabbat 15:8, Shabbat.134a">Babli Shabbat 134a. In both of these sources, the third child was brought before R. Nathan (the Babylonian), the baby was called Nathan the Babylonian, and it happened in Kappadokian Mazaca (pre-Roman name of Caesarea).: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים וּמֵתוּ מוֹנָה מִשְּׁעַת מִיתָה. יְכוֹלָה הִיא מֵימַר. רוּחָא חָֽנְקָת בָּנֶיהָ דְהַהִיא אִיתְּתָא וַעֲקָרָתָהּ. If she had children but they died, she counts from the time of death¹³¹This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that after a miscarriage there starts a new period of 10 years.. She can say, a spirit strangled the children of this woman and made me sterile¹³²Since she was not sterile at the moment of marriage, her ketubah is due her in any case..

רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זִימְרָה. טַעֲמָא דְהֵן תַּנָּייָא. פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשׁוּהָ. וּכְבָשָׁהּ כְתִיב. מִי דַרְכּוֹ לִכְבּוֹשׁ. הָאִישׁ. לֹא הָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מַרְיוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂייָא. אִם תּוֹבַעַת לְהִינָּשֵׂא הַדִּין עִמָּהּ. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא. עִמָּךְ הָיִיתִי. לֹא אִתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא אִם הָֽיְתָה תוֹבַעַת לְהִינָּשֵׂא הַדִּין עִמָּהּ. הָדָא הוּא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שַׁבָּת שֶׁחָלָה תִשְׁעָה בְאַב לִהְיוֹת בְתוֹכָהּ אֲסוּרִין מִלְּסַפֵּר וּמִלְּכַבֵּס. וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מוּתָּרִין מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. בִּיקֵּשׁ רִבִּי לַעֲקוֹר תִּשְׁעָה בְאַב וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּ לוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. עִמָּךְ הָיִיתִי. וְלֹא אִיתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא בִּיקֵּשׁ רִבִּי לַעֲקוֹר תִּשְׁעָה בְאַב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּ לוֹ. אָמַר. הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחֶה יִדָּחֶה. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ יִדְחֶה לְמָחָר. וְקָרָא עֲלֵיהֶם טוֹבִים הַשְּׁנַיִם מִן הָאֶחָד. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra: The reason of that Tanna¹³³The last clause in the Mishnah, that only men are obligated to have children. The entire paragraph has its parallel in the Yevamot.65b">Babli, 65b.: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and conquer it.” It is written “he shall conquer it.¹³⁴Genesis.1.28">Gen. 1:28. The last word is written וכבשה which can be read as defective plural or regular singular.” Who usually conquers? The man, not the woman. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Isaac bar Marion, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula in the name of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia: If she requests to be married, she has the law on her side¹³⁵If a woman was childlessly married to a man for 10 years and requests a divorce in order to be able to have a child with a more potent man, the court is required to force the husband to divorce her with a full ketubah. The Babli is explicit in this matter, that she must claim to need children who will care for her in her old age. Such a statement is needed only if practice does not follow R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said to him, I was with you and it was only said that if she requests to be married, she has the law on her side. In a similar case¹³⁶Involving R. Eleazar and R. Abba bar Zavda and an erroneous statement. In the Megillah.5">Babli, Megillah 5a/b, the wrong statement is again given by R. Eleazar and the correction by R. Abba bar Zavda. From the insistence that the two cases are parallel, it seems that this should be the reading here also. But the text given here is confirmed by the parallel in Megillah1:1., referring to what we have stated there¹³⁷Mishnah Ta‘aniot 4:9.: “In the week in which the Ninth of Av¹³⁸The day of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. falls, it is forbidden to get a haircut and to wash. But on Thursday one is permitted, in preparation for the Sabbath.” Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi wanted to do away with the Ninth of Av but they did not let him. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, I was with you and it was only said that Rebbi wanted to do away with the Ninth of Av which happened to be on the Sabbath but they did not let him. He said, since it is pushed away, let it be pushed away. They said to him, it should be pushed to the next day. He recited on these¹³⁹Ecclesiastes.4.9">Eccl. 4:9. From the text in Megillah, it seems that “he” is a third person, possibly R. Ḥaninah,: “Two are better than one.”

7:1

משנה: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג לא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג אִם מֵתוּ מֵתוּ לָהּ וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתָן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אִם מֵתוּ מֵתוּ לוֹ וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא חַייָב בָּאַחֵרָיוֹתָן אֵילּוּ יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. MISHNAH: If a widow [married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah [married] to a simple priest, brought him slaves as paraphernalia or as mortmain¹Mortmain (“inalienable property”, ‘iron flock’, in German law eisern Vieh) whose value was determined in the marriage contract (ketubah) as dos aestimata, upon marriage became the husband’s property. At the termination of the marriage their value was due back to the wife.
Paraphernalia [from the Greek παράφερνα, Middle Latin paraphernalia(bona), as a legal term relevant here “bride’s goods beyond her dowry,” equivalent to Late Latin parapherna “bride’s property.” (For the etymology of מְלוֹג, Ashkenazic מְלוּג, cf. Yevamot 7:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.7.1.7">Note 45, also Yevamot 4:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.3.1">Chapter 4, Note 86). These goods are dos non aestimata, property not entered in the marriage contract, of which the husband has administration for the duration of the marriage. He must maintain the value of this property and is compensated by receiving its usufruct but has no property rights.
Since in any irregular union (such as described in the Mishnah) the wife of a Cohen is barred from all sanctified food, her property is barred with her. But the property of a Cohen is entitled to share in his sanctified food (Leviticus.22.11">Lev.22:11).
The expression צאן ברזל “iron flock” for “inalienable, private property” may also be compared to Latin peculium“private property” which is derived from pecus, -oris “cattle” but used as a legal term for property in general.: The slaves of separate property may not eat heave²And all other sanctified food that may be eaten outside the Temple precinct., the slaves of mortmain may eat heave. These are slaves of paraphernalia: If they died, they died as her property, if they increased, they increased as her property. Even though he is responsible for their upkeep, they may not eat heave. These are slaves of mortmain: If they died, they died as his property, if they increased, they increased as his property. Since he guarantees them, they may eat heave.

הלכה: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל כול׳. מְנַיִין לְכֹהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְקָנָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְייַן כַּסְפּוֹ וגו׳. מְנַיִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁקָּֽנְתָה עֲבָדִים וַעֲבָדֶיהָ עֲבָדִים שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְייַן כַּסְפּוֹ. אַף קִנְייָנוֹ שֶׁקָּנָה קִנְייָן אוֹכֵל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲבָל בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת [שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא] לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן קִנְייָנוֹ הוּא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. עֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא רְשׁוּת לְרַבּוֹ בָּהֶן וּמֵת. כָּל־הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. וְהָכָא לֹא קִנְייָן קִנְייָנוֹ הוּא. HALAKHAH: “A widow [married] to a High Ptiest,” etc. From where that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition⁴Leviticus.22.11">Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.,” etc. From where that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves [bought] slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat⁵Note the incongruous plural in Leviticus.22.11">Lev. 22:11. Up to here the text is a baraita; Yevamot.66a">Babli 66a, Sifra Emor Parasha5(1).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “They shall eat⁴Leviticus.22.11">Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.”, they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property⁶Anything a slave buys is his owner’s property. Usually, what he otherwise acquires is also his owner’s property. But if he received something as a gift (e. g., money to buy his freedom) with the express stipulation that his master shall have no claim to it, then it is the slave’s direct property. If the slave received other slaves as such a gift, these are not the master’s acquisition and are barred from eating sanctified food.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them⁷They are ownerless. Since a slave can become free only by an act of manumission, these slaves are not freed by the death of their master and can be taken by anybody.. In that case, [that slave] is not his property’s property⁸The slave’s slave is not the slave’s master’s property..

רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. הָרָאוּי לוֹכַל מַאֲכִיל וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עֶבֶד עָרֵל שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים. אִין תֵּימַר קְנָס. אֵין כָּאן קְנָס. וְאִין תֵּימַר הָרָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל מַאֲכִיל. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat⁹Cf. Yevamot 7:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.7.1.2">Note 4. They read יאכלו as יַאֲכִלוּ. In Sifra Emor Parashah 5(6), this is a tannaitic argument of R. Simeon.. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat¹⁰Since the divorcee becomes desecrated by her marriage to any priest, she never can herself eat heave nor cause her slaves to eat.. Rebbi Joḥanan says, because of a fine¹¹By qiddushin, the divorcee was acquired by the priest. Her property was acquired with her. Therefore, by biblical standards her slaves could eat but it is a traditional fine imposed on irregular marriages that they should not confer the same advantages as a regular one.. What is the difference between them? If an uncircumcised slave¹²He cannot eat sanctified food (Exodus.12.48">Ex. 12:48); the rules are spelled out in Yevamot 8:1:2-19" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.8.1.2-19">Halakhah 8:1. buys slaves. If you say, it is a fine, here there is no fine¹³On condition that the slave remain uncircumcised in a way accepted in Jewish law.. If you say the one who may eat enables to eat, this one, since he is not able to eat, cannot enable to eat.

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. בְּעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרזֶל פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה מִכּוֹחוֹ וְאַתְּ אָֽמְרָת אָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג הֲרֵי הֵן אוֹכְלִין תְּרוּמָה מִכּוֹחוֹ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. מִשֶּׁלָּךְ נָֽתְנוּ לָךְ. בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. וְהֵן אָֽמְרוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל. וְהֵן אָֽמְרוּ. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְדֵין. מַתְניתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר. עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן לָאִשָּׁה אֲבָל לֹא לָאִישׁ. וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן לָאִישׁ אֲבָל לֹא לָאִשָּׁה. מַה עֲבַד לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קַל הוּא בְשִׁחְרוּר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׂה עַבְדוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי. מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. שִׁיחְרְרוֹ מְשׁוּחְרָר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֶחָד עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְאֶחָד עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אֵינָן בְּיוֹם וְיוֹמַיִים וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן בֵּין לָאִישׁ בֵּין לָאִשָּׁה. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְעוֹלָם אוֹ בְשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָּׁעָה. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְעוֹלָם וְלֹא מְכָרָן לְשָׁעָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְכוּרִין. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָׁעָה אֲבָל לֹא מְכָרָן לְעוֹלָם. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָעוֹשֶׂה שָׂדֶהוּ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ עַל חוֹבוֹ. מְכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְכוּרָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָחוּשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. לָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא עָֽלְתָ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁתְּהֵא אִשָּׁה מְחַזֶּרֶת עַל בָּתֵּי דִינִים. אָֽמְרוּ. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כְּרַבָּנִן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הֲוֵי בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָׁעָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אֲבָל אִם מְכָרָן לְעוֹלָם דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold¹⁶Gittin 41a:11:2" href="/Tosafot_on_Gittin.41a.11.2">Tosaphot in Giṭṭin 41a, s. v. אשה, are of the opinion that the Babli concurs.. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold¹⁷If the wife is not from a priestly family, then her slaves can eat only because he made her his wife. He cannot sell them since nobody can sell what is not his; Tosephta 9:1.. From your own they¹⁸The developers of rabbinic doctrine. gave to you. It would be logical that one¹⁹A paraphernalia slave who is not property of a Cohen. should not eat heave. But they said that he eats²⁰As if he were the property of a Cohen., and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye”²¹If a slave loses a body part through his owner’s fault, he gains his freedom (Exodus.21.26">Ex. 21:26). Paraphernalia slaves are property of the wife but not the husband. This part of the baraita is quoted in the Babli. Baba Qama 89a. from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves²²This baraita holds that they are the husband’s property; therefore, he must have the absolute power to sell them, against R. Joḥanan. are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit²³The Babli agrees without a dissenting opinion., as we have stated²⁴Quoted as tannaitic text also in Gittin 4:4:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.4.2-7">Giṭṭin 4:4 (fol. 45b), as amoraic in the Babli, Baba Qama 11b. 33b; Baba Meṣi‘a 44b.: If somebody mortgages²⁵Greek ὑποθήκη “mortgage”. a slave and later sold him, he is not sold²⁶The creditor can foreclose on the slave in the hands of the buyer.; if he freed him, he is freed²⁷The creditor has to sue the borrower for damages; he cannot put his hand on the ex-slave.. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days”²⁸Exodus.21.20">Ex. 21:20. The exemption for the owner who hits his slave which provided that he is not prosecutable if the slave survives for two days is not available to either wife or husband. This baraita defines “owner” as a person who has both the right to and disposition of his property.
This text is also in the Babli Baba Qama 89b. and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time²⁹“Selling temporarily” is not selling the property but leasing the use of the property for a limited period.? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: ³⁰Sheviit 10:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.10.1.6">Ševi‘it 10:1 (Notes 22–24), in a slightly different version Gittin.41a">Babli Giṭṭin41a. If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself³¹The buyer has to insure himself against the possibility that the creditor or the wife at the dissolution of her marriage will foreclose the property and he will have to sue the seller for restitution of the sale price.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman³²Without a male protector. Then the law has to protect her. should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel³³Since the wife has a lien on the mortmain slaves, the husband cannot alienate them without her consent, just as he cannot alienate real estate put up as collateral for her ketubah.
Rosh (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel) in his commentary on this Yerushalmi (Yebamot 7 #1) holds that the husband is prevented even from leasing the property without his wife’s consent. Rif (R. Isaac Fasi), Giṭṭin #472 holds that the husband may not sell but may lease for a limited time.. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.

ווְלַד בְּהֵמַת מְלוֹג לְבַעַל. װְלַד שִׁפְחַת מְלוֹג לָאִשָּׁה. חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר. װְלַד בְּהֵמַת מְלוֹג כִּװְלַד שִׁפְחַת מְלוֹג. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר לַחֲבֵרָייָא. הֲווֹן יָֽדְעִין דּוּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. רַב כְּרַבָּנִן וּשְׁמוּאֵל כַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מָתִיב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר מִשֶּׁלָּאִשָּׁה הֵן. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִטּוֹל הַבְּכוֹר פִּי שְׁנַיִם. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהִכְנִיסָתָן קְטַנִּים וְגָֽדְלוּ הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה הֵן. וְאַתְּ מוֹדֶה לִי שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. ³⁴In the Ketubot.79b">Babli, Ketubot 79b, this is a baraita. Since first generation Amoraim disagree over the rule, it seems that the Yerushalmi also presents this as a baraita. The offspring of a paraphernalia animal belongs to the husband, that of a paraphernalia slave girl belongs to the wife. Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua said, the offspring of a paraphernalia animal is like that of a paraphernalia slave girl³⁵In the Babli, the formulation is: “the offspring of a paraphernalia slave girl is like that of a paraphernalia animal.” In the Babli, the child of the slave girl belongs to the husband; in the Yerushalmi, everything belongs to the wife.
In the Babli, the straight argument of Ḥanania is that the husband has the usufruct. In the Babli, the argument of the rabbis is that if the slave girl dies, the wife is left with nothing but if an animal dies, she is left with the value of the hide. There is no reason to transfer the argument of the Babli to the Yerushalmi. From the next paragraph it seems rather that the rabbis hold that the wife’s slaves belong to her father’s household and have to be treated as family heirlooms, and any increase in their number is increase of the value of the stock (which is the wife’s), not yield (which is the husband’s).. Rebbi Eleazar said to the colleagues, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua. Rav and Samuel, Rav follows the rabbis, but Samuel follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua³⁶In the Babli (Note 34) only Samuel’s opinion (opposite in meaning to his position here) is noted, without opposition.. Samuel objected to Rav: According to you who says, they belong to the wife, should the first-born not take a double portion³⁷The first-born takes a double portion of the inheritance (Deuteronomy.21.17">Deut. 21:17, reading פי שנים as “double”, not “2/3”.) However, the first-born takes a double portion only from what is available at the father’s death. For example, property leased to others is available, debts collectable are not available (since the payor may default. Most modern authorities hold that sovereign debt is available.) In the Babli, Baba Batra 123b, an anonymous baraita is quoted which in a different form is a Tosephta, Bekhorot 6:16, that the first-born gets a double interest in the calf of a cow who was pregnant at the father’s death. This must mean that the calf is increase of the value of the stock, of which the first-born gets adouble portion, not yield after the father’s death, of which he would get only a simple portion. It does not make any sense that Rav denies the young of the animal to the wife when he gives the first-born a double portion.? Think of it, if she brought them when they were small and they grew up, are they not the wife’s, and you agree with me that the first-born takes a double portion³⁸Here everybody agrees that this represents increase in the stock, not yield.!

תַּנֵּי הִכְנִיסָתָן יְלָדִים נוֹטְלָתָן נְעָרִים. הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים. הָיָה אֶחָד יָפֶה כִכְתוּבָּתָהּ נוֹטְלָתוֹ בִכְתוּבָּתָהּ. הָיָה אֶחָד וּמֶחֱצָה יָפֶה כִכְתוּבָּתָהּ רַב הוּנָא וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. חַד אָמַר. הוּא נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלוֹ. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלָתוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. אֲפִילוּ הָיָה יָפֶה אֶחָד וּמֶחֱצָה בִכְתוּבָּתָהּ הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא עָלַת עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ אֲחֵרִים בְּכֵלֶיהָ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. הִכְנִיסָתָן בְּדָמִים נוֹטְלָתָן בְּדָמִים. It was stated³⁹Tosephta 9:1. The Tosephta deals with mortmain slaves and states that the wife has the right at the dissolution of the marriage to take the offspring of her slaves, even if their value today is greater than the value at which they were recorded in the marriage contract. She will have to indemnify her ex-husband for the difference in value but, since they are family heirlooms, he has no right to retain them against her will. This right extends to inanimate objects.: If she brought them when they were small, she takes them when they are lads. If she brought him two vessels⁴⁰As mortmain property.. If one of them was worth the value of her marriage contract, she takes it for her marriage contract⁴¹Ketubah in this connection denotes the entire value of the marriage contract, the statutory ketubah sum, the value of mortmain property, and the additional fee he agreed to pay in case of a dissolution of the marriage. For this reason the translation does not simply state “ketubah”. We are dealing with a state of rampant inflation, as it was recorded during the military anarchy of the Roman empire, where the sum stated in the contract would have lost most of its buying power over time.. If one and a half was the value of her marriage contract, [disagreement of] Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob. One of them said, he pays for the second vessel and takes it; the other one says, she pays for the second vessel and takes it⁴²They are not mentioned in the Yevamot.66b-67a">Babli, 66b/67a. There, Rav Jehudah holds that the wife always has the right to take her dowry back and pay the difference but Rebbi Ammi (Immi) holds that it is the husband’s choice what to give her, in contrast to the position he is quoted for in the Yerushalmi. In the final decision after a lenghty discussion, the Babli sides with the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said before Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa⁴³The colleague of R. Immi in their separate place of study in Tiberias.: Even if one was worth one and a half times the value of her marriage contract, she pays for the second vessel and takes it, because it is unthinkable that others should use her vessels. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: A baraita says so: If she brought them for their monetary value, she takes them for their monetary value⁴⁴Tosephta 9:1. Therefore, in times of inflation it is preferable to specify the property, not the monetary value, in marriage contracts..

רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַהוּ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. מְלִיג. מְלִיג. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked Rebbi Mana: What is the etymology of “mĕlōg slaves”? He said to him, as you say: strip off, strip off⁴⁵In Gen. rabba 45(2) the etymology appears in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish and it is explained that Hagar was a paraphernalia personal slave of Sarah whom Abraham had to feed but could not get services from. In the interpretation of Arukh, the simile here is the other way: since the husband has the usufruct of the property he is like somebody who strips the feathers off a chicken but cannot eat the meat.
The root מלג means “strip off (feathers, hair, etc.)” in Syriac. Ostensibly the word is Accadic mulūgu“paraphernalia”, which appears in the same meaning as an Eastern Semitic loanword mlg in Ugaritic (Canaanite); languages long dead by Talmudic times.
The relation between Arabic ملج מַלַגַ “to drink from the breast (baby)”, to Greek ἀμέλγω, Latin mulgeo, “to milk”, is not clear. But possibly the notion of “milking” associated with property of one kind contrasted with the notion of “flock” associated with another goes back to ancient images from times when property mainly consisted of livestock.!

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַמְּקַבֵּל צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי. הַװְלָדוֹת [פְּטוּרִין]. װְלָדֵי װְלָדוֹת חַייָבִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. הַװְלָדוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹן. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. הַװְלָדוֹת לַשֵּׁינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹן הַװְלָדוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹן. בְּרָם הָכָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ לַשֵּׁינִי הַװְלָדוֹת לַשֵּׁינִי. ⁴⁶Bekhorot 2:4" href="/Mishnah_Bekhorot.2.4">Mishnah Bekhorot 2:4. It is not totally clear what mortmain conditions for a shepherd are; cf. the extensive discussion in S. Lieberman, תוספתא כפשוטה בבא קמא-בבא מציעא New York 1988, pp 217–219.
The Yerushalmi Baba Meṣi‘a 5:7, quoting Bekhorot 5:1" href="/Tosefta_Bekhorot.5.1">Tosephta Bekhorot 5:1,14, explains: “What is a mortmain flock? If [the owner] had 100 sheep and said [to the shepherd]: these are stipulated to be worth 100 gold denars, their lambs, their milk, and their shearings are yours, if they die, you are responsible, and for each one you give me a tetradrachma at the end, it is forbidden.” It is forbidden to the shepherd to receive a flock under these conditions from a Jew since most owners will structure the contract so they will make money, which turns the final payment (which accompanies the return of the flock to the owner) into a money-making proposition which looks like interest since the shepherd pays for the use of the flock which he received on credit. It is forbidden to pay interest to Jews. The same kind of contract is permitted with Gentiles. There, we have stated: “If somebody receives [a flock] under mortmain conditions from a Gentile, the young are free, the young’s young are obligated.”⁴⁷The parallel text is in Baba Meṣi‘a 5:7 (fol. 10b). Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There you say, the young are for the first, and here you say, the young are for the second⁴⁸In the Mishnah in Bekhorot, lambs are exempt because they belong to the Gentile even though the entire flock is the shepherd’s responsibility whereas the Mishnah here states that mortmain lambs belong to the husband who also carries the same responsibility as the shepherd.! Rebbi Yosa said, there, because the property rights are with the first, the young belong to the first. But here, because the property rights are with the second, the young belong to the second⁴⁹The contract of the shepherd specifies that the flock must be returned intact at a specified time; the interest of the Gentile is there all the time. In the case of marriage, if the wife predeceases her husband, he inherits from her; his obligation to return the dowry is conditional..

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור