MISHNAH: Rectangles field of grain” would be redundant.] Since מַלְבֵּן is a masculine word with a feminine plural, the gender of the numeral “one” in the Mishnah is undetermined and different manuscripts and prints vary between אחד ,אחת, usually not in a consistent manner. of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching. If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot.
HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah , but for those which are free from the obligation of peah , a general statement “fruit trees” includes (as a majority) those that are not subject to peah . even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah , but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.
What are we dealing with? 3:9) seems to have been: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Hillel will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Shammai will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah . The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted,” inverting the roles of Shammai and Hillel in the first clause. But the version of R. Abraham ben David ( loc. cit .) is: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah . The House of Shammai compare it to densely planted ones, the House of Hillel compare it to widely spaced,” inverting the statements in the second clause. There is no direct manuscript evidence of any Yerushalmi manuscript for one reading over the other. If they are widely spaced, even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one must be well separated from the trees); hence, each patch is a separate field. . But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah . The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones.
What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables from each bed, but the Sages say: From one bed for all of them.” According to R. Yose, onions are detrimental to other vegetables growing near them. , so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.
If there was a fence there, it is like a tree. How about two for all? The question is asked but not answered [which for practical purposes is a negative answer.] ?
So far if the beds grown from seeds are connected at more than one place. if they are combined from one side and the other. If they were combined only on one side, either by three coarse furrows or at any place?
“He who harvests his field in spots,” etc. Like a spotted field; the place where fertilizer makes plants grow early is called “spotted.”
So far if it was dry on both sides and moist in the middle. How about being moist on both sides and dry in the middle.) ?
Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Meïr follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says that moist and dry are two different kinds, so Rebbi Meïr twice. says that moist and dry are two different kinds.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: Why should he argue like Rebbi Aqiba? He could argue even like the Rabbis since we have stated there ( Mishnah 3:3): “He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage twice. !” Rebbi Yose answered: We understand that market and storage make two kinds, are moist and dry two kinds?
Two kinds, half moist and half dry, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree is due. This argument cannot apply to spot cutting. . But did we not state: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill and mustard at three different places for each part separately. …” It is so, 2nd ed., Jerusalem 1964, pp. 441–508. : Either dill at three places or mustard at three places mustard” found in the Parma and one of the Genizah manuscripts of the Mishnah. It is explained that any one kind of spice triggers the special rule of peah for spice beds. . Samuel says, because the first one does not wait for the last one at all. Hence, Samuel restricts the meaning of the Mishnah to dill and mustard only; these kinds are mentioned for themselves and not as paradigms. . Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they usually are being sown bed by bed. According to Samuel, he has to give from each stalk; according to Rebbi Joḥanan he has to give from each bed.
MISHNAH: He who rips out. 41:7 . According to R. Simson of Sens, it means either “leaves a bald spot” where the onions have been taken out or it means “splits” his field into two parts; it is possible that the expression is intentionally ambiguous. [In Mishnah Arakhin 1:3 , the word means “to finish, to play the final coda.”] In Arabic, חלק means “to shave”; this supports the first interpretation of R. Simson, also supported by Mishnah Ševiït 4:4 which explains that “thinning” means taking out single plants but “ripping out” means pulling at least three together, leaving a bald spot. moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage gives peah for each batch separately; the same applies to peas (Mishnah Peah 1:4). and vineyards. He who thins out gives peah for what is left. He who rips out with one hand from these green onions. But if he rips out only a few at a time with one hand, at the end, at the time of the harvest of the fully ripe onions for storage, he gives peah also for the volume of those green ones that he took occasionally. gives from the remainder for everything.
HALAKHAH: It is stated 1:9 . : “In patches p. 131), אורּגא is the Syriac translation of ברוד “having white spots.” Z. Frankel refers the word here to Aramaic מרג “escape control”, which does not make sense. J. Levy refers to Arabic מַרַגַ “to be, to get into disorder”, to which one may add מַרג “pasture”. it is obligated at the beginning and at the end.” What is “in patches?” Rebbi Jeremiah said, just as we have stated: “He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage.” Rebbi Yose; only if part of the field is left to produce onions for storage does the obligation of peah fall on the entire field. said, for example nigella: If one sows it, it produces thin bulbs; if one plants seedlings, it produces large bulbs. For if it were not so, we would say because it is for sowing seed, all will be taken out for replanting. Hence, by Mishnah 1:4, it should not be subject to peah . However, since the seeds of the strong plant will be stored as spice, it is subject to peah in every harvest. it should be freed from peah . But are wheat grains not also for sowing? Wheat is mostly for eating, that one does not produce usable spice. is mostly for sowing. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, are vegetables subject to peah for green onions even if the field does not produce any onions for storage. This contradicts Mishnah 1:4. ? Its kind is collected for storage. How does Rebbi Yose deal with it? It is finished and needs only to dry out.
It was stated: ( Lev . 19:9 ) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects ears for his dough in any quantity is free from peah . Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state ( Tosephta Peah 1:10 ): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house, he is free from fallen berries, from orlah , from the fourth year is the yield of the first three years of a newly planted tree that is forbidden for all use; the yield of the fourth year must be eaten in Jerusalem (or it may be redeemed and the money brought to Jerusalem) if there is a Temple. These obligations do not depend on the harvest; hence, they cannot belong to the text. Even though this text is found in both manuscripts of the Yerushalmi, it is not in the Tosephta where the reading is: he is free from fallen berries, forgotten sheaves, and peah . This is also the text implied by both Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (הלכות מתנות עניים 4:27) and the mention of peah is implied by the discussion here. The corruption must have crept into a manuscript from which both the Leyden and the Rome manuscripts are derived. The Tosephta does not mention a remainder; this seems to contradict R. Yasa. , but he is obligated for gleanings. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe may be fulfilled. , one for those which are not fully ripe is not due. . Rebbi Yose said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.
“He who thins out gives peah for what is left.” It was stated ( Tosephta Peah 1:10 ): Rebbi Jehudah said: When has this been said? If he thins for sale. Nobody requires peah for thinnings that are discarded. , but if he thins for his own use he gives from the remnant for everything. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means for marketable thinnings if they are marketed. , if he sowed thickly in order to thin later. But if he sowed thickly without intention to thin later, not only if he uses it for himself but even for the market he gives from the remnant for everything.
MISHNAH: Mother onions are subject to peah , Rebbi Yose frees. Rectangles of onions among vegetables, Rebbi Yose says peah from each single one, but the Sages say from one for everything.
HALAKHAH: Rav says pvrgrh , Samuel says sproutings.
Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose said only because of ownerless property since it cannot be called produce of your field. . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Mana: Is abandoned property obligated for peah ? He said to them: When he reacquired them one by one. But did we not state: Even though one with a large harvest will not store the mother-onions, one with only a small harvest will. Hence, the reason is only that he collects them for storing.
MISHNAH: Brothers who split.] give two peot . When they later form a cooperative, they give one peah 135b ) notes that Lev . 19:9 reads: “When you (plural) harvest the harvest of your (plural) land, do not finish to cut the corner of your (singular) field.” This is taken to mean that peah is due from the owner, individual or collective [but not, as pointed out by Sifra Qedošim 1(11 ), if not all shareholders in the collective are Jews.] . Two people who together bought a tree give one peah . If one bought the North side and the other the South side, each gives peah for himself.
HALAKHAH: If he harvested half a field in company [with his brother] and then they split up, he 2:16), the entire sentence speaks about a man who took the harvested grain as his part and left the standing grain to his brother. He does not have to give peah for his part since the obligation rests on the standing grain and, if his brother would have cut the rest of the field without leaving peah , he cannot be asked to contribute to the peah that now has to be given from cut grain since he had no ownership rights at the time the last grain was cut. does not give from his own part either for the initial harvest or for the final one. When they changed their minds and after splitting formed a company and harvested half a field, and then separated again, he can give from his part at the end for his partner’s part at the end, but not from his part at the start for his partner’s part at the start cannot cross ownership lines. .
Rebbi Joḥanan said: If he wanted to cut half of his field and actually cut starts with the first cut. But since at that point he intended only to cut half of his field, the second part has to be considered a separate field and, therefore, the obligation falls only on the first part of the field. half of this half, but when he came to cut the other half he finished off his entire field, then he may give from the first cut on the intermediate ones and from the intermediate ones on the first but not from the first on the first. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If he had a field where half of it was one third ripe. If he now has the intention of harvesting his field when it is one-third ripe, it is as if the field were divided into two fields. The explanation of this sentence is then completely parallel to that of the preceding statement of R. Joḥanan. , the other half was not yet one third ripe, and by the time he finished harvesting half of the first half, the entire field also was one third ripe, he gives from the first cut on the intermediate ones and from the intermediate ones on the first 2:17) reads: “And from the intermediate ones on the first and the last”. He seems to argue that the first split was by nature, not by the farmer’s design; a change in nature changes the status and at the time of the second harvest the field was counted as one again. But the first cut of the first part cannot be used to free those parts of the field that were not yet a crop at the time of cutting. Since R. Abraham ben David does not disagree, both must have read “and the last” in the text of the Yerushalmi. but not from the first on the first.
MISHNAH: He who sells tree trunks 3:18), the rule applies to any sale, not only of trees or tree roots, but even of standing grain. in his field gives peah from each single one. Rebbi Jehudah says, when? If the owner of the field did not retain anything, but if he retained his field, he gives peah for all of them.
HALAKHAH: So far when he started harvesting beforehand (see Halakhah 1:1). Hence, the obligation of the seller can be satisfied only if he disposes of the entire field. The discussion centers on R. Jehudah’s clarification. ; even if he did not start to harvest? Let us understand it from the following ( Mishnah Ḥulin 11:2 ): “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable. 18:4 . , otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Is there a difference? There, both if he started to shear or if he did not start to shear, and here there will be no difference whether he started harvesting beforehand or did not start beforehand 138a ), both Rav Ḥisda and Rava agree that peah is due only if the harvest started since it says ( Lev . 19:9 ): “When you harvest the harvest of your land.” But the obligation of giving the first wool to the Cohen exists independent of the act of shearing. Hence, the Babli negates the conclusion of the Yerushalmi here. .
What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation for the harvest sold. ? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, where the verse requires that the farmer refrain from cutting the last corner of his field, the obligation to give from the fleece to the Cohen is formulated in terms of shearing; the obligation does not exist as long as the wool is still on the sheep’s back. ? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation. .
What is the difference between them? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah . If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave may be given at the start, the middle, and the end of the harvest, it is legal peah but does not concern the seller. . But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him for his part, if he informs the seller that the latter may reduce the amount he has to give, the buyer may ask for indemnity for the reduction of the seller’s obligation. . If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned from his part since the seller cannot do it for him. . But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he from what he bought, has regress on the seller for the amount of produce which goes into peah . may collect money from him.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, a plot of a bet rova ‘ is obligated for peah . Rebbi Joshua says, if its yield is two seah = 6 qab = 24 log . One log is probably 533 cm. This makes the seah equal to .452 cubic feet (12.8 dm) and two seah about .9 cubic feet (25.6 dm). . Rebbi Ṭarphon says, six by six hand-breadths 109 . Rebbi Joshua) on the upper Tigris, today Urfa in Turkey. However, enough manuscripts from different sources have “R. Joshua” to suggest that the name should not be changed. ben Bathyra said, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time; see the discussion at the start of Halakha 1:1. ; practice follows his words.
HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field. 19:9 , 23:22 , speaking of peah . ” and it says about kilaim “your field. 19:19 : “Your field you shall not sow with two different kinds.” It is assumed that a word in the Books of Moses never changes its meaning. ”. Just as “your field” mentioned there 2:10 states that two fields of different crops become forbidden if planted too closely one to the other but only if they are the minimum size of bet rova ‘. means a bet rova ‘, so here it means bet rova ‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on ( Deut . 24:19 ): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two. Similarly, Mishnah 6:6 states that a forgotten part of the field is not for the poor if its yield is at least 2 seah . Rebbi Joshua seems to argue that anything that is not a field for the definition of leqeṭ (collecting grain forgotten be the farmer) and šiḵḥah (collecting forgotten sheaves) cannot be a field for the definition of peah since all three obligations always go together. , so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch 3:1 , the standard vegetable patch for intensive cultivation is defined as being one square cubit. R. Eliezer either is of the opinion that no vegetables are grown for storage or that onions grown for storage are such a rare case that one may take grain fields as the standard for everything. R. Ṭarphon seems to think that the smallest plot used to grow any plant for storage is the standard for all crops. . “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount. The question is only whether the harvest has to be professional or whether simple plucking is enough. The verse from Psalms is taken to mean that only a cut that will fill at least the hollow of one’s hand qualifies for “harvesting.” This argument is the base of the first discussion in Halakhah 1:1. ? Since it is written ( Ps . 129:7 ): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba says: Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, to write a prozbol based on it, and to acquire simultaneously non-guaranteed property “transfer of property to another person.”] with money or contract or possession; the exact and restrictive definition of enforceable squatters’ rights is one of the topics of tractate Baba Batra . . If someone signs over his properties when bedridden and reserved for himself any real estate, his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent. If he signs over his properties to his sons and signs over some real estate for his wife, she lost her ketubah is a mortgage on the husband’s entire property, to be paid to the wife at the termination of the marriage, after divorce or after the husband’s death. It represents the financial obligation of the husband to his wife; without such an obligation, any sexual relations between man and wife are considered illicit. The value of the obligation was fixed at 200 zuz (800 silver denars) for a virgin and 100 zuz (400 silver denars) for a previously married woman. A measure of the intended value of these sums is found in Mishnah 8:8,9, viz., that anyone with 200 zuz investment capital or 50 zuz business capital is living above the poverty line and barred from receiving charity. The Halakhah explains the circumstances under which the wife may agree to be co-heir to the sons. The Mishnah appears in the context of the power of contracts involving real estate; the first part belongs to the matters treated in Baba Batra and Giṭṭin , the second part to Ketubot . . Rebbi Yose says, if she accepted it, even if it was not in a written document, she lost her ketubah .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi, pp. 76,85. asked in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Think of it, if there were only one ear! Before he cut, there was no obligation; after he cut, there will be nothing left!. If the plot is only big enough for one plant, there can never be an obligation since this would fall on the harvest, not on the bare earth. Hence, R. Aqiba also should be giving a minimal size of the plot which might carry an obligation of peah . The answer is that there might be a plant with multiple ears which is not cut but an ear of which is plucked. Then something is left on which the obligation might fall and R. Aqiba is justified. (Cf. the second paragraph in Halakhah 1:1.) Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it if there was one stalk with five ears!
Rebbi Mana asked: Why does he not say: “Any crop is subject to peah ? is not a tax on the soil but on plants which grow on it, should not the principle be formulated in terms of the crop? The answer is that then one would need two separate sentences, one for peah and one for first fruits since only fruits of “your land” may be brought ( Bikkurim 1:2 ). Since the Mishnah was transmitted orally, that would make memorization much more difficult; a slight deviation from purely logical organization is therefore justified. The ease of memorization is a recognized principle in the formulation of Tannaïtic material. ” But because he has to enunciate first fruits he formulates it as “real estate.”
It was stated: “And the appearance.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who owns no real estate is freed from the appearance. Rebbi Mana asked: And why do we not say: He who has no real estate is freed from the declaration 26a and Baba Batra 150b it is clear that in old Mishnah texts, the reading was that any real estate obligates its owner “for peah , first fruits, and declaration.” They negate the last term since they read it as referring to the declaration to be made in the Temple that the tithes of the last three years were given as required. Since tithes are due also from a tenant farmer or a sharecropper and, in case the farmer did not give tithes, even from the buyer of grain, and, in addition, the text does not require “tithes from your land,” there is no place for this clause in the Mishnah. The reference in Deut . 26:15 is to את האדמה אשר נתת לנו. Nachmanides quotes an explanation that the “declaration” is the one required for first fruits ( Deut . 26:3–10 ); he is followed by Meïri and R. Yom Tov ben Abraham Al-Išbili. The reference would be to Deut . 26:10 : האדמה אשר נתת לי. There is no verse מן האדמה אשר נתת לנו. , since it is written ( Deut . 26:15 ): “From the land that You gave us.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun taught a tradition in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “He who has no real estate is freed from the declaration, since it is written: From the land that You gave us.”
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who has no real estate is free from the appearance since it is said ( Ex . 34:24 ): “Nobody will illegally desire your land.” It happened that one person left his grain heap; when he returned, he found lions surrounding it. It happened that one left a chicken coop; when he returned, he found torn cats before it. One man left his house open; when he came, he found a snake rolled up on its tail. Rebbi Phineas told the following story: Two brothers in Askalon had Gentile neighbors. These said, if those Jews go up to Jerusalem, we will take all they have. When they went up, the Holy One, praise to Him, alotted to them two angels who came and went in their likeness. When they returned, they sent them valuable presents. They said to them: where have you been? They said to them, in Jerusalem. They said to them: Whom did you leave in your house? They said, nobody. They said: Praised be the God of the Jews Who did not let us act and did not abandon them!
From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired with guaranteed property, by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose 26a–27a ; there, the verse is simply quoted by Ḥizqiah himself. in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written ( 2Chr . 21:3 ): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer 9:9 , Babli Baba Batra 156b , and in Tosephta Baba Batra 10:12 . The corresponding Mishnah, Baba Batra 9:9 reads R. Eliezer in the Yerushalmi and also in the Munich manuscript of the Babli, as well as in the Venice and Lublin prints. It was changed to R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) in modern prints of the Babli, following the reading at one place in Babli Qiddušin , on the authority of Rabbenu Tam ( Tosaphot Baba Batra 156a ) for stylistic reasons. However, the overwhelming majority of manuscript sources must have priority over arguments concerning style. said to them, it happened that a man from Madon 11:1 . The man was in Jerusalem, fell ill, and wanted to distribute his property to people in his home town, other than the legal heirs. was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock, he bought land the size of a sela ‘, i. e., a tetradrachma, a silver coin about the size of a quarter. A pun may be intended, since Hebrew סלע also means “rock”.) near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis 9:9 , R. Eliezer (Bavli in some versions R. Eleazar) explicitly states that bedridden persons are not exempt from the stringent rules of transfer; he does not allow oral bequests. .
There, we have stated 9:9 , where “there”, i. e., Peah , makes sense. : “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits.” What is the use of “any” real estate 26b ) asks the same question after quoting R. Eliezer; the answer given here by R. Mattaniah is there ascribed to Rav Ashi, a late Amora. But the Babli adds another lengthy discussion whose explicit outcome is that movables anywhere can be acquired with a contract for real estate. This is a difference in practice between Yerushalmi and Babli. ? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.
Who is bedridden? Anyone who did not get sick suddenly. It is customary for the relatives to visit him immediately; unrelated persons visit him after three days. If he falls ill suddenly, everybody visits him immediately. A clarification: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose after three days. He said to them: Do you want to sustain the baraita in my case?
“If he reserved any real estate for himself, his gift is permanent,” even if he did not recover. “If he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent” if he did recover.
Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav 9:6 , this is a statement of R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai, given as justification for the rules in the preceding paragraph. : They declared oral instructions by a bedridden person equal to written and delivered ones by a healthy person, on condition that he had died from that particular sickness and that he describes the property and says, give field X to Y. If he says, half of the field to X and half to Y, is that designated? Or only if he says: the Northern half, the Southern half 3:5), the Babli in Ketubot 109b and Giṭṭin 8b accepts “half a field” as complete description which makes the gift valid and collectible. Since the Yerushalmi does not resolve the question, the law remains in doubt and, by the rule that the claimant has to prove his claim, the gift is not collectible. ?
Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah 9:6 , the reading is: R. Jeremiah in the name of Rav. : If he reserved movables, he did not do anything. Come and look: If he reserved any real estate, he has something to live on, but he can live comfortably as a dealer in gems and pearls. Hence, the exclusion of movables by R. Joḥanan does not seem to make sense. ; if he reserved gems and pearls, does he have nothing to live on? Rebbi Yose said, this man knows that the gift of a bedridden person transfers property rights even verbally. Why did he write it with an obligation of acquisition, in order to give it the status of a gift by a healthy person.
If he reserved slaves Batra 150a ) they are defined as movable real estate. In the Babli also it seems that the exclusion of slaves has no legal consequence. , about that R. Judan bar Pazi from Bar Delaiah stated something, but we do not know what he stated.
If he wrote for one and changed his mind and wrote for another 152b ). Hence, somebody must have received the document for the beneficiary. According to Rav, this makes the gift absolute as explained by R. Yose earlier. According to R. Joḥanan (in the Babli, Samuel), since in any case the deed will automaticaly be rescinded if the donor recuperates, the document is not executable as long as the donor lives and, hence, it is rescindable by him. , Rav says he cannot change his mind, Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan say he may change his mind. What does it mean? If his first and second masters were Cohanim and the third an Israel, in the opinion of Rav he may not eat terumah (in ritual purity), the slave of a Jewish non-Cohen (Israel, including Levites) may not eat terumah . In the opinion of Rav, the Israel is the master if the donor dies and, since a gift is retroactive as explained in the second paragraph following, the slave is disqualified from the moment of the symbolic act of acquisition of the first document. , in the opinion of Rav Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of R. Joḥanan he may eat terumah . Everybody agrees that if his first master was an Israel, he may not eat terumah ; maybe the giver will recuperate.
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna, a baraita supports Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan: “ 8:9 ) has quite a different (Babylonian) version: A healthy person who wrote a will (in the abridged form only permitted to bedridden persons), a bedridden one who wrote a gift document (in the language prescribed for healthy people), even though he let somebody acquire for the recipient, they did not do anything (their documents are invalid). But if somebody wrote as agent for another person (who is sick and afraid of his family) a gift document and let it be acquired, his action is valid. A healthy person who wrote a will and a bedridden one who wrote a gift document may change their minds.” A healthy person who wrote a will may change his mind, even as long as he is healthy. Similarly, a bedridden person who wrote a gift document may change his mind, even while he still is bedridden.
What is a will? “It should be granted to me to live 155b ) has למיקם “to get up”. In any case, it is a wish that the testator should live and, in that case, the will should cease to be in force. and get up from bed, but if I should die, my properties should be given to X.” What is a gift? “All my properties are given as a gift to X from now on,” or it must be written: “as of today.”
The sister of Rebbi Gurin wrote her possessions over to her brother. His older brother came, made peace with her, and she wrote her possessions over to him. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said: So says Rebbi Joḥanan, one may change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said, but does Rebbi Joḥanan not agree that if it was written “from today” one may not change his mind? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Rebbi Illaï came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Then Rebbi Immi remembered, and the judgement was reversed.
Rav said may be replaced by part of the inheritance. , if he lets them acquire through her. Samuel says, if he distributes in her presence. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they stated here a relaxation of the laws of ketubah 132 ab), R. Yose ben Ḥanina, while still calling it a relaxation of the rules of ketubah , offers a third possibility: If the husband offered the real estate as settlement of the ketubah and she accepted. This is not accepted in the Yerushalmi, probably to avoid the possibility that the husband exerts undue pressure on his wife in a purely private transaction. , and so stated bar Qappara that a relaxation of the laws of ketubah is proclaimed here. Rebbi Abba said, the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina is that it applies not only to a ketubah of a mina, the minimal ketubah of a previously married woman. Cf. Greek μνᾶ, ἡ, Latin mina , “sum or weight of 100 drachmae ”, derived from Hebrew/Syriac/Accadic מנה. or two hundred, the minimal ketubah of a virgin. , but even regarding a ketubah of one thousand gold denars they proclaimed a relaxation of the laws of ketubah of 200 zuz is easily satisfied by real estate. But for a thousand gold denars, representing a few million $ buying power in today’s money, it is not likely that the full value will be covered by agricultural real estate. .
MISHNAH: He who writes over his properties to his slave makes him free. If he reserved any real estate, he does not make him free 9a ) the document does not refer exclusively to the slave and, therefore, is not a document of manumission. Since the master is now dead, nobody else can be forced to write a document of manumission for the slave. R. Simson’s interpretation is that he writes the deed only to make sure that the slave take care to preserve the estate but he will have reserved the slave himself for his heirs. . Rebbi Simeon says, the slave always becomes free unless the master says, all my properties are given to my slave X except one tenthousandth of them.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa (Assi) in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he reserved some movables, he did not do anything. I say that he reserved the slave’s person.
1:13 : “He who writes over his properties to his slave makes him free. If he reserved any real estate, he does not make him free. Rebbi Simeon says, if he said all my properties are given to my slave X except one tenthousandth of them, then he did not say anything; but [if he said all] except the hamlet X or the field Y then the slave acquired the property and acquired his freedom. When these words were said before Rebbi Yose, he said: : “He who answers correctly should be kissed on his lips.” R. Simson has in addition: “Even if the estate contains only this hamlet or that field,” meaning that the slave acquires himself (his freedom) even if he acquires no other property from the estate of his dead master. This is the interpretation of all medieval authorities. Since R. Yose is the most authoritative of the teachers of his generation, his support of R. Simeon’s position makes that the valid practice, against the anonymous majority opinion of the Mishnah. When the case came before Rebbi Yose, he said ( Prov . 24:26 ): “He who answers correctly should be kissed on his lips.”