סקר
ללומדים דף יומי בלילה - איזה דף אתם לומדים?




 

Steinsaltz

And Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages deemed movable property to be considered a significant reserving of property for oneself with regard to the emancipation of a slave, so that a slave is not emancipated when his owner gives him all of his other property. But they did not deem movable property that one withheld from his sons and earmarked for his wife to be considered a significant reserving of property with regard to her marriage contract. If one granted all of his property to his sons but reserved any amount of land for his wife, she forfeits her marriage contract. By not protesting the gift, she has conceded that she will collect her marriage contract only from the land he reserved for her. Nevertheless, if he reserved only movable property for his wife, she does not forfeit her marriage contract. Rabbi Elazar’s ruling with regard to a slave indicates that the expression: Reserves any amount of land, does not necessarily exclude movable property.

Rav Yosef replies: There, with regard to the slave, by right the mishna should not have taught the halakha with regard to land, but it should have taught the halakha with regard to all property. But since the former clause of the mishna teaches a halakha with regard to land, the mishna mentions land in the subsequent clause as well. The Gemara cites the former clause (Pe’a 3:6): Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of any amount of land is obligated in pe’a and in first fruits; and if the debtor possesses any amount of land the creditor can write a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] for it so that his loans will not be canceled in the seventh year; and he can acquire property that does not serve as a guarantee along with it by means of money, by a deed, or by taking possession of it. Rav Yosef concludes: Due to this reason, the mishna teaches the halakha with regard to land.

Abaye raises an objection to Rav Yosef’s statement that the term any amount should be understood literally: And anywhere that the term: Any amount, is taught, does the amount not have a measure? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥullin 135a): Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the sheared wool of each sheep, with the wool weighing one hundred dinars and half of one hundred dinars, i.e., one hundred and fifty dinars, renders the owner obligated in the mitzva to give the first sheared wool to the priests. And the Rabbis say: Five sheep, each of whose sheared wool yields wool weighing any amount. And we say: And how much is signified by the term: Any amount? Rav says: A total weight of one hundred dinars and half of one hundred dinars, provided that the one hundred and fifty dinars are divided equally between the five sheep. This indicates that the term any amount can denote a certain minimal amount.

Rav Yosef replies: There, with regard to the first sheared wool, by right the mishna should not have taught the halakha with regard to any amount. But since the first tanna, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, states a large measure, the Rabbis also state that they require a small measure, and therefore they call this measure any amount. But with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, the term any amount should be understood literally.

§ It is obvious that if one said: I give my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires all of his utensils, excluding his wheat and barley. If one said: I give all my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires even the wheat and barley, and he acquires even the upper millstone, since it is occasionally removed from its place. He acquires all the property that is not land or houses, except for the lower millstone, which is never moved. If he said: I give everything that can be moved to so-and-so, that person acquires even the lower millstone, as it is possible to move it.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the legal status of a Canaanite slave like that of land, or is his status like that of movable property? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (68a): A landowner who sells the city has sold with it the houses, and the ditches and caves, and the bathhouses, and the olive presses and the irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But when the seller said to the buyer: I am selling it and everything that is in it, then even if there were animals or Canaanite slaves in the city, they are all sold. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, explains the proof: Granted, if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property, due to that reason he is not sold in the first case. But if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, why is he not sold with the city?

Rav Ashi replied: Rather, what do you say? Do you maintain that his legal status is like that of movable property? If there is no difference in legal status between Canaanite slaves and movable property, what is the reason that the mishna emphasizes in the second case that even the Canaanite slaves are sold? Rather, what have you to say to explain this? One must explain that movable property that moves by itself is different from movable property that does not move by itself, and therefore one might have thought that although the sale includes movable property, Canaanite slaves are not included in the sale. In the same manner, even if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, land that moves is different from land that does not move. Therefore, the legal status of Canaanite slaves cannot be proved from this mishna.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Pe’a 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says: He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it.

And Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages deemed movable property to be considered a significant reserving of property for oneself with regard to a slave, so that the slave is not emancipated when the owner gives him all of his other property. But they did not deem movable property that one withheld from his sons and earmarked for his wife to be considered a significant reserving of property with regard to her marriage contract. And Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is the reason for this? Rav Naḥman explained: A Canaanite slave is considered movable property, and reserving movable property is considered a significant reserving with regard to movable property. But a woman’s marriage contract is a document concerning land, since the payment of the marriage contract is collected from land, and reserving movable property is not considered a significant reserving with regard to land. Rav Naḥman states that a Canaanite slave is considered movable property.

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר