Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 24, 2015 | 讚壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 50

Shulchan Aruch on women collecting ketuba, sons collecting ketuba and daughters collecting mezonot

讜注砖讬转讬谞讛讜 诇讝谞讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讚讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 注砖讬讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬谞讗 注砖讬讬谞讛讜 讘注讬

and I forced them to feed him, for which he is grateful. The Gemara interprets this incident in light of the issue at hand: Granted, if you say that this was not according to the halakha, i.e., the man鈥檚 sons had the right to refrain from sustaining him, due to that reason Rabbi Yonatan had to force them to feed their father; but if you say this is the halakha, i.e., the man鈥檚 sons were required to sustain him, why did he need to force them to provide the sustenance of their own accord? The court could have simply requisitioned the necessary amount from the property. This shows that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ile鈥檃.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛诪讘讝讘讝 讗诇 讬讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛诪讘讝讘讝 讗诇 讬讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖 砖诪讗 讬爪讟专讱 诇讘专讬讜转 讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讘拽砖 诇讘讝讘讝 [讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖] 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

搂 Apropos the ordinances instituted by the Sages in Usha, the Gemara cites another one. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than one-fifth. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One who scatters should not scatter more than one-fifth, lest he render himself destitute and need the help of other people. And an incident occurred involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than one-fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say that Rabbi Yeshevav was the one who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so, and who was the friend? Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讗砖专 转转谉 诇讬 注砖专 讗注砖专谞讜 诇讱

Rav Na岣an said, and some say it was Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov who said: What is the verse that alludes to this maximum amount of charity? 鈥淎nd of all that You shall give me, I will surely give a tenth of it [aser a鈥檃srenu] to You鈥 (Genesis 28:22). The double use of the verb that means to donate one-tenth indicates that Jacob, who issued this statement, was actually referring to two-tenths, i.e., one-fifth.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 注讬砖讜专讗 讘转专讗 诇注讬砖讜专讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗注砖专谞讜 诇讘转专讗 讻讬 拽诪讗

The Gemara asks: But the latter tenth is not similar to the first tenth, as it would be one-tenth of what remained after the first tenth had been removed. Consequently, the two-tenths would not equal one-fifth of the original total. The Gemara answers that Rav Ashi said: Since the verse could have said: I will surely give one-tenth [aser a鈥檃ser], and instead stated: 鈥淚 will surely give a tenth of it [aser a鈥檃srenu],鈥 it thereby alludes to the fact that the latter tenth is like the first one.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜砖诪讜注讜转 讛诇诇讜 诪转诪注讟讜转 讜讛讜诇讻讜转 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 拽讟谞讬诐 讻转讘讜 讜讘讝讘讝讜

With regard to the above statements concerning the Sages鈥 ordinances in Usha, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: And these halakhot continually decrease. The first statement was stated by Rabbi Ile鈥檃, quoting a statement by Reish Lakish in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina. The second halakha was delivered by Rabbi Ile鈥檃 in the name of Reish Lakish, while the third was taught by Rabbi Ile鈥檃 without quoting another Sage. And this is your mnemonic for the order of these halakhot: Minors wrote and dispensed. This alludes to the ruling requiring a father to support his children while they are minors, the ruling about one who wrote a document granting all of his property to his sons, and the ruling about one who dispenses large sums to charity.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 诪转讙诇讙诇 注诐 讘谞讜 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讬讜专讚 注诪讜 诇讞讬讬讜 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讬诇转 讘爪讬专 诪讘专 砖讬转 诇讗 转拽讘讬诇 讘专 砖讬转 拽讘讬诇 讜住驻讬 诇讬讛 讻转讜专讗

Rav Yitz岣k said: In Usha the Sages enacted that a person should treat his son gently, even if he does not want to study, until his son is twelve years old. From this point forward he harasses him in all aspects of his life in order to force him to study. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav say to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, who taught children: With regard to a child less than six years old, do not accept him; if he is six years old, accept him and stuff him like an ox, i.e., just as an ox is force-fed, you should force the students to study Torah.

讗讬谉 住驻讬 诇讬讛 讻转讜专讗 诪讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 注诪讜 诇讞讬讬讜 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇诪拽专讗 讛讗 诇诪砖谞讛

The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction here, as yes, one must stuff him like an ox and teach him intensively; however, if the student refuses to learn, one does not harass him in all aspects of his life until after he is twelve years old. And if you wish, say that this is not difficult for a different reason: This halakha, which prescribes forcing the students to study from the age of six, is referring to the Bible, whereas that halakha, that one should not harass a boy to study until he is twelve, is referring to the Mishna.

讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讘专 砖讬转 诇诪拽专讗 讘专 注砖专 诇诪砖谞讛 讘专 转诇讬住专 诇转注谞讬转讗 诪注转 诇注转 讜讘转讬谞讜拽转 讘转 转专讬住专

This is as Abaye said: My foster mother told me that a six-year-old is ready for Bible study and a ten-year-old is mature enough to study Mishna. Additionally, a thirteen-year-old is sufficiently developed to fast for twenty-four hours like any other adult. And as for a girl, she must start observing fasts when she is twelve years old.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讛讗讬 讘专 砖讬转 讚讟专拽讗 诇讬讛 注拽专讘讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚诪讬砖诇诐 砖讬转 诇讗 讞讬讬 诪讗讬 讗住讜转讬讛 诪专专转讗 讚讚讬讛 讞讬讜专转讗 讘砖讬讻专讗 谞砖驻讬讬讛 讜谞砖拽讬讬讛 讛讗讬 讘专 砖转讗 讚讟专讬拽 诇讬讛 讝讬讘讜专讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚诪讬砖诇诐 砖转讗 诇讗 讞讬讬 诪讗讬 讗住讜转讬讛 讗爪讜转讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讘诪讬讗 谞砖驻讬讬讛 讜谞砖拽讬讬讛

The Gemara cites another statement of Abaye in the name of his foster mother. Abaye said: My mother told me that a six-year-old child who is stung by a scorpion on the day that he completes six years will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? The bile of a white vulture in beer. One should rub him with this mixture and make him drink it. She further said to him: A one-year-old child who is stung by a hornet on the day that he completes a year will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? Palm-tree fiber in water. Again, one should rub him with it and make him drink it.

讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讻诇 讛诪讻谞讬住 讗转 讘谞讜 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 砖砖 专抓 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讙讬注讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讘讬专讬讜 专爪讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬转谞讛讜 讞诇讬砖 讜讙诪讬专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讚讻讞讬砖 讛讗 讚讘专讬讗

Rav Ketina said: Anyone who brings his son to school when he is younger than six years old will run after him and not catch him. In other words, he will worry about his welfare for a long time afterward, as the child will be weakened by his studies. There are those who say that his friends will run after him in their studies and not catch him, i.e., his early start will enable him to be far more successful. The Gemara comments: And both are correct; he will weaken physically and learn well. If you wish, say that these two statements can be reconciled differently: This case is dealing with a weak child, who should not be brought to school at such a young age, whereas that statement is referring to a healthy boy, who can go to school at a tender age and succeed in his studies.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛讗砖讛 砖诪讻专讛 讘谞讻住讬 诪诇讜讙 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讜诪转讛 讛讘注诇 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讜住讗 讚讗讜砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 诪专讛 讚砖诪注转讗 讚讗讜砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 转谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注讬谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讬住转讬讛

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: In Usha the Sages instituted that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property, which is property that belongs to her but whose produce belongs to her husband, in her husband鈥檚 lifetime, and then she died, the husband can repossess it from the purchasers. The Gemara relates: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef found Rabbi Abbahu standing among the congregation [ukhlusa] of Usha. He said to him: Who is the Master who disseminated the halakha that was instituted in Usha? He said to him: Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina. He learned it from Rabbi Abbahu forty times, and from that point onward he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as though it were placed in his pocket.

讗砖专讬 砖讜诪专讬 诪砖驻讟 注讜砖讛 爪讚拽讛 讘讻诇 注转 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转 爪讚拽讛 讘讻诇 注转 讚专砖讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讬讘谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讝讛 讛讝谉 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讻砖讛谉 拽讟谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讝讛 讛诪讙讚诇 讬转讜诐 讜讬转讜诪讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜诪砖讬讗谉

The Gemara discusses a point related to one of the ordinances of Usha. The verse states: 鈥淗appy are they who keep justice, who perform charity at all times鈥 (Psalms 106:3). But is it possible to perform charity at all times? Is one always in the presence of paupers? Therefore, our Rabbis in Yavne taught, and some say it was Rabbi Eliezer: This is referring to one who sustains his sons and daughters when they are minors. As stated above, he is not formally obligated to support them, and therefore when he does so, it is a form of charity that he gives on a constant basis. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said: This is referring to one who raises an orphan boy or an orphan girl in his house, takes care of them, and marries them off.

讛讜谉 讜注讜砖专 讘讘讬转讜 讜爪讚拽转讜 注讜诪讚转 诇注讚 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讛 讛诇讜诪讚 转讜专讛 讜诪诇诪讚讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讛 讛讻讜转讘 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讜诪砖讗讬诇谉 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Sages likewise expounded the verse: 鈥淲ealth and riches are in his house, and his charity endures forever鈥 (Psalms 112:3). How can one鈥檚 wealth and riches remain in his house while his charity endures forever? Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda disputed this issue. One said: This is referring to one who studies Torah and teaches it. He loses nothing of his own, while his charity toward others will endure. And one said: This is one who writes scrolls of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, and lends them to others. The books remain in his possession, but others gain from his charity.

讜专讗讛 讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讬讘讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讚讬讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd see your son鈥檚 sons; peace be upon Israel鈥 (Psalms 128:6), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once your children have children of their own, there is peace upon Israel, as they will not come to require the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [岣litza] or levirate marriage, which are necessary only if a man dies childless. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said: Once your sons have sons there will be peace upon the judges of Israel, as relatives will not come to quarrel with the judges over the inheritance.

讝讛 诪讚专砖 讚专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻讜壮

搂 The Gemara returns to the mishna: This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne: Just as the sons inherit only after the father鈥檚 death, so too, the daughters are sustained from his property only after their father鈥檚 death.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讻讱 讗讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讗讜讜砖 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚砖讘讬拽 讗专注讗 讛讜讗 讚讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛 讚诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗专注讗 诇讗 讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef sat before Rav Hamnuna in the study hall, and Rav Hamnuna sat and said the following halakha: Just as sons inherit only from land, so too, daughters are sustained only from land. When Rav Hamnuna taught this halakha, everyone clamored [avash] against him, i.e., all his listeners whispered their surprise to one another: Is it only one who leaves behind land whose sons inherit from him, whereas in the case of one who does not leave land, his sons do not inherit from him? Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement indicates that sons inherit only land and nothing else.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讚诇诪讗 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Yosef said to Rav Hamnuna: Perhaps the Master was speaking of the marriage document ensuring the inheritance rights of a woman鈥檚 male children, i.e., her sons鈥 right to inherit the sum stipulated in her marriage contract in addition to their share of the father鈥檚 estate alongside any other brothers. Rav Hamnuna said to him: The Master, who is a great man, knows what I said, i.e., that was indeed my intention, while the others failed to understand me properly.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 专讘 讝谉 诪讞讬讟讬 讚注诇讬讬讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻专谞住讛 讛讜讬讗 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪注讬诇讜讬讬讗 讚讗讘 讜讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇驻专谞住讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讗讘

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said: Rav would sustain orphan girls with wheat according to the aliyya if their fathers did not leave land for them. A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Was this sustenance that Rav provided in the form of livelihood, i.e., a dowry so that they could marry, and what is the meaning of the term aliyya? It means: In keeping with the status [illuyya] of the father, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: With regard to the daughters鈥 livelihood, i.e., their dowry, the court assesses the amount they receive from their father鈥檚 estate after his death in accordance with the temperament and social and financial status of the father.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讝讜谞讬 诪诪砖 讛讜讛 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪讚讘专讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖谞讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

Or perhaps it was actual sustenance, i.e., provisions so that they would have food, and what is the meaning of the term aliyya? It indicates that this halakha is one of the good statements said in the upper chamber [aliyya], as Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said: When the Sages sat in the upper chamber to rule on certain halakhot, which they could not do in the study hall at that time due to persecution by gentiles, they instituted that daughters should be sustained from movable property in addition to land.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讬讚讬讛 讚专讘讬 讘谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讜讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讚讬转诪讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讜谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: In the possession of Rabbi Banai, the brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, there was movable property belonging to orphans, deposited with him by their father. The orphan daughters came before Shmuel, who said to Rabbi Banai: Go and sustain the daughters from the property.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜讻讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛转诐 诇驻专谞住讛 讛讜讗讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇驻专谞住讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讗讘

What, is it not correct to say that this means he should provide them with sustenance, and this would indicate that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef, that the Sages instituted an ordinance in the upper chamber that daughters are entitled to their sustenance even from movable property? The Gemara refutes this claim: No, there it is stated in reference to their livelihood, and Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: With regard to livelihood, i.e., the dowry granted to daughters from their father鈥檚 estate, the court assesses the amount they receive in accordance with the status of the father.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讚讜谉 讚讬讬谞讬 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讗讙讘讬 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讘讬讝谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讬诇讜 讗讛讚专讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗驻讚谞讬讬讻讜 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜

The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind that came before the court in Neharde鈥檃, and the judges of Neharde鈥檃 ruled that the daughters must be supported from the movable property that their father had left. Likewise, a case occurred in Pumbedita, and Rav 岣na bar Bizna collected the sum from movable property. Rav Na岣an said to the judges: Go reverse your decisions, and if not, I will collect your houses [appadnaikhu] from you in order to compensate those you ruled against.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 住讘讜专 诇诪讬讝谉 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讗转讜谉 注讘讚讬谉 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗

The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi thought to issue a ruling requiring a man鈥檚 heirs to sustain his daughters from the man鈥檚 movable property. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to them: This is a matter about which Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish did not take action, i.e., they did not issue a ruling to this effect; will you take action in this regard? If those great Sages were not sure enough of the halakha to issue a practical ruling, how can you do so?

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇诪讬讝谉 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讱 砖讗讬谉 诪讚转 讛讚讬谉 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讚转 专讞诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讬专讗讜 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讜讬拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 诇讚讜专讜转

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar thought to issue a ruling requiring a man鈥檚 heirs to sustain his daughters from his movable property. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said before him: My teacher, I know about you that you are not acting according to the letter of the law, but rather out of pity for these daughters, who have no other source of support. However, you should still not do this, lest the students observe and mistakenly establish the halakha accordingly for future generations.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 诪转诪专讬 讚注诇 讘讜讚讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诇讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪专

A certain person came before Rav Yosef to inquire about this matter. Rav Yosef said to the sons of the deceased man: Give the daughter her sustenance from the dates that are laid out to dry on the mats [budya]. These fruits are certainly movable property. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If it was a creditor who came to collect a debt, would the Master give him the right to collect it in this manner? Even a creditor, who may collect his claim by repossessing property that the debtor has sold, cannot take movable property from the possession of orphans. A daughter, who cannot collect her sustenance from property that her father sold, should certainly not have the right to collect her sustenance from movable property that belongs to the male orphans.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讞讝讬讬讗 诇讘讜讚讬讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I did not mean actual dates lying on mats; rather, I spoke of ripe dates ready for plucking, which are fit for mats. Since they are still attached to the ground, they are not considered movable property.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 50

讜注砖讬转讬谞讛讜 诇讝谞讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讚讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 注砖讬讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讬谞讗 注砖讬讬谞讛讜 讘注讬

and I forced them to feed him, for which he is grateful. The Gemara interprets this incident in light of the issue at hand: Granted, if you say that this was not according to the halakha, i.e., the man鈥檚 sons had the right to refrain from sustaining him, due to that reason Rabbi Yonatan had to force them to feed their father; but if you say this is the halakha, i.e., the man鈥檚 sons were required to sustain him, why did he need to force them to provide the sustenance of their own accord? The court could have simply requisitioned the necessary amount from the property. This shows that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ile鈥檃.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛诪讘讝讘讝 讗诇 讬讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛诪讘讝讘讝 讗诇 讬讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖 砖诪讗 讬爪讟专讱 诇讘专讬讜转 讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讘拽砖 诇讘讝讘讝 [讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖] 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

搂 Apropos the ordinances instituted by the Sages in Usha, the Gemara cites another one. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than one-fifth. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One who scatters should not scatter more than one-fifth, lest he render himself destitute and need the help of other people. And an incident occurred involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than one-fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say that Rabbi Yeshevav was the one who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so, and who was the friend? Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讗砖专 转转谉 诇讬 注砖专 讗注砖专谞讜 诇讱

Rav Na岣an said, and some say it was Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov who said: What is the verse that alludes to this maximum amount of charity? 鈥淎nd of all that You shall give me, I will surely give a tenth of it [aser a鈥檃srenu] to You鈥 (Genesis 28:22). The double use of the verb that means to donate one-tenth indicates that Jacob, who issued this statement, was actually referring to two-tenths, i.e., one-fifth.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 注讬砖讜专讗 讘转专讗 诇注讬砖讜专讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗注砖专谞讜 诇讘转专讗 讻讬 拽诪讗

The Gemara asks: But the latter tenth is not similar to the first tenth, as it would be one-tenth of what remained after the first tenth had been removed. Consequently, the two-tenths would not equal one-fifth of the original total. The Gemara answers that Rav Ashi said: Since the verse could have said: I will surely give one-tenth [aser a鈥檃ser], and instead stated: 鈥淚 will surely give a tenth of it [aser a鈥檃srenu],鈥 it thereby alludes to the fact that the latter tenth is like the first one.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜砖诪讜注讜转 讛诇诇讜 诪转诪注讟讜转 讜讛讜诇讻讜转 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 拽讟谞讬诐 讻转讘讜 讜讘讝讘讝讜

With regard to the above statements concerning the Sages鈥 ordinances in Usha, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: And these halakhot continually decrease. The first statement was stated by Rabbi Ile鈥檃, quoting a statement by Reish Lakish in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina. The second halakha was delivered by Rabbi Ile鈥檃 in the name of Reish Lakish, while the third was taught by Rabbi Ile鈥檃 without quoting another Sage. And this is your mnemonic for the order of these halakhot: Minors wrote and dispensed. This alludes to the ruling requiring a father to support his children while they are minors, the ruling about one who wrote a document granting all of his property to his sons, and the ruling about one who dispenses large sums to charity.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 诪转讙诇讙诇 注诐 讘谞讜 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讬讜专讚 注诪讜 诇讞讬讬讜 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讬诇转 讘爪讬专 诪讘专 砖讬转 诇讗 转拽讘讬诇 讘专 砖讬转 拽讘讬诇 讜住驻讬 诇讬讛 讻转讜专讗

Rav Yitz岣k said: In Usha the Sages enacted that a person should treat his son gently, even if he does not want to study, until his son is twelve years old. From this point forward he harasses him in all aspects of his life in order to force him to study. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav say to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, who taught children: With regard to a child less than six years old, do not accept him; if he is six years old, accept him and stuff him like an ox, i.e., just as an ox is force-fed, you should force the students to study Torah.

讗讬谉 住驻讬 诇讬讛 讻转讜专讗 诪讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讚 注诪讜 诇讞讬讬讜 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇诪拽专讗 讛讗 诇诪砖谞讛

The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction here, as yes, one must stuff him like an ox and teach him intensively; however, if the student refuses to learn, one does not harass him in all aspects of his life until after he is twelve years old. And if you wish, say that this is not difficult for a different reason: This halakha, which prescribes forcing the students to study from the age of six, is referring to the Bible, whereas that halakha, that one should not harass a boy to study until he is twelve, is referring to the Mishna.

讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讘专 砖讬转 诇诪拽专讗 讘专 注砖专 诇诪砖谞讛 讘专 转诇讬住专 诇转注谞讬转讗 诪注转 诇注转 讜讘转讬谞讜拽转 讘转 转专讬住专

This is as Abaye said: My foster mother told me that a six-year-old is ready for Bible study and a ten-year-old is mature enough to study Mishna. Additionally, a thirteen-year-old is sufficiently developed to fast for twenty-four hours like any other adult. And as for a girl, she must start observing fasts when she is twelve years old.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讛讗讬 讘专 砖讬转 讚讟专拽讗 诇讬讛 注拽专讘讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚诪讬砖诇诐 砖讬转 诇讗 讞讬讬 诪讗讬 讗住讜转讬讛 诪专专转讗 讚讚讬讛 讞讬讜专转讗 讘砖讬讻专讗 谞砖驻讬讬讛 讜谞砖拽讬讬讛 讛讗讬 讘专 砖转讗 讚讟专讬拽 诇讬讛 讝讬讘讜专讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚诪讬砖诇诐 砖转讗 诇讗 讞讬讬 诪讗讬 讗住讜转讬讛 讗爪讜转讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讘诪讬讗 谞砖驻讬讬讛 讜谞砖拽讬讬讛

The Gemara cites another statement of Abaye in the name of his foster mother. Abaye said: My mother told me that a six-year-old child who is stung by a scorpion on the day that he completes six years will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? The bile of a white vulture in beer. One should rub him with this mixture and make him drink it. She further said to him: A one-year-old child who is stung by a hornet on the day that he completes a year will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? Palm-tree fiber in water. Again, one should rub him with it and make him drink it.

讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讻诇 讛诪讻谞讬住 讗转 讘谞讜 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 砖砖 专抓 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讙讬注讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讘讬专讬讜 专爪讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬转谞讛讜 讞诇讬砖 讜讙诪讬专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讚讻讞讬砖 讛讗 讚讘专讬讗

Rav Ketina said: Anyone who brings his son to school when he is younger than six years old will run after him and not catch him. In other words, he will worry about his welfare for a long time afterward, as the child will be weakened by his studies. There are those who say that his friends will run after him in their studies and not catch him, i.e., his early start will enable him to be far more successful. The Gemara comments: And both are correct; he will weaken physically and learn well. If you wish, say that these two statements can be reconciled differently: This case is dealing with a weak child, who should not be brought to school at such a young age, whereas that statement is referring to a healthy boy, who can go to school at a tender age and succeed in his studies.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛讗砖讛 砖诪讻专讛 讘谞讻住讬 诪诇讜讙 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讜诪转讛 讛讘注诇 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讜住讗 讚讗讜砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 诪专讛 讚砖诪注转讗 讚讗讜砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 转谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注讬谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讬住转讬讛

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: In Usha the Sages instituted that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property, which is property that belongs to her but whose produce belongs to her husband, in her husband鈥檚 lifetime, and then she died, the husband can repossess it from the purchasers. The Gemara relates: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef found Rabbi Abbahu standing among the congregation [ukhlusa] of Usha. He said to him: Who is the Master who disseminated the halakha that was instituted in Usha? He said to him: Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina. He learned it from Rabbi Abbahu forty times, and from that point onward he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as though it were placed in his pocket.

讗砖专讬 砖讜诪专讬 诪砖驻讟 注讜砖讛 爪讚拽讛 讘讻诇 注转 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转 爪讚拽讛 讘讻诇 注转 讚专砖讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讬讘谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讝讛 讛讝谉 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讻砖讛谉 拽讟谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讝讛 讛诪讙讚诇 讬转讜诐 讜讬转讜诪讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜诪砖讬讗谉

The Gemara discusses a point related to one of the ordinances of Usha. The verse states: 鈥淗appy are they who keep justice, who perform charity at all times鈥 (Psalms 106:3). But is it possible to perform charity at all times? Is one always in the presence of paupers? Therefore, our Rabbis in Yavne taught, and some say it was Rabbi Eliezer: This is referring to one who sustains his sons and daughters when they are minors. As stated above, he is not formally obligated to support them, and therefore when he does so, it is a form of charity that he gives on a constant basis. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said: This is referring to one who raises an orphan boy or an orphan girl in his house, takes care of them, and marries them off.

讛讜谉 讜注讜砖专 讘讘讬转讜 讜爪讚拽转讜 注讜诪讚转 诇注讚 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讛 讛诇讜诪讚 转讜专讛 讜诪诇诪讚讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讛 讛讻讜转讘 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讜诪砖讗讬诇谉 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Sages likewise expounded the verse: 鈥淲ealth and riches are in his house, and his charity endures forever鈥 (Psalms 112:3). How can one鈥檚 wealth and riches remain in his house while his charity endures forever? Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda disputed this issue. One said: This is referring to one who studies Torah and teaches it. He loses nothing of his own, while his charity toward others will endure. And one said: This is one who writes scrolls of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, and lends them to others. The books remain in his possession, but others gain from his charity.

讜专讗讛 讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讬讘讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讚讬讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd see your son鈥檚 sons; peace be upon Israel鈥 (Psalms 128:6), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once your children have children of their own, there is peace upon Israel, as they will not come to require the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [岣litza] or levirate marriage, which are necessary only if a man dies childless. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said: Once your sons have sons there will be peace upon the judges of Israel, as relatives will not come to quarrel with the judges over the inheritance.

讝讛 诪讚专砖 讚专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻讜壮

搂 The Gemara returns to the mishna: This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne: Just as the sons inherit only after the father鈥檚 death, so too, the daughters are sustained from his property only after their father鈥檚 death.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讻讱 讗讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讗讜讜砖 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚砖讘讬拽 讗专注讗 讛讜讗 讚讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛 讚诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗专注讗 诇讗 讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef sat before Rav Hamnuna in the study hall, and Rav Hamnuna sat and said the following halakha: Just as sons inherit only from land, so too, daughters are sustained only from land. When Rav Hamnuna taught this halakha, everyone clamored [avash] against him, i.e., all his listeners whispered their surprise to one another: Is it only one who leaves behind land whose sons inherit from him, whereas in the case of one who does not leave land, his sons do not inherit from him? Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement indicates that sons inherit only land and nothing else.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讚诇诪讗 讻转讜讘转 讘谞讬谉 讚讻专讬谉 拽讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Yosef said to Rav Hamnuna: Perhaps the Master was speaking of the marriage document ensuring the inheritance rights of a woman鈥檚 male children, i.e., her sons鈥 right to inherit the sum stipulated in her marriage contract in addition to their share of the father鈥檚 estate alongside any other brothers. Rav Hamnuna said to him: The Master, who is a great man, knows what I said, i.e., that was indeed my intention, while the others failed to understand me properly.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 专讘 讝谉 诪讞讬讟讬 讚注诇讬讬讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻专谞住讛 讛讜讬讗 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪注讬诇讜讬讬讗 讚讗讘 讜讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇驻专谞住讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讗讘

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said: Rav would sustain orphan girls with wheat according to the aliyya if their fathers did not leave land for them. A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Was this sustenance that Rav provided in the form of livelihood, i.e., a dowry so that they could marry, and what is the meaning of the term aliyya? It means: In keeping with the status [illuyya] of the father, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: With regard to the daughters鈥 livelihood, i.e., their dowry, the court assesses the amount they receive from their father鈥檚 estate after his death in accordance with the temperament and social and financial status of the father.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讝讜谞讬 诪诪砖 讛讜讛 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪讚讘专讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖谞讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 谞讬讝讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

Or perhaps it was actual sustenance, i.e., provisions so that they would have food, and what is the meaning of the term aliyya? It indicates that this halakha is one of the good statements said in the upper chamber [aliyya], as Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said: When the Sages sat in the upper chamber to rule on certain halakhot, which they could not do in the study hall at that time due to persecution by gentiles, they instituted that daughters should be sustained from movable property in addition to land.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讬讚讬讛 讚专讘讬 讘谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讜讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讚讬转诪讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讜谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: In the possession of Rabbi Banai, the brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, there was movable property belonging to orphans, deposited with him by their father. The orphan daughters came before Shmuel, who said to Rabbi Banai: Go and sustain the daughters from the property.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜讻讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛转诐 诇驻专谞住讛 讛讜讗讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇驻专谞住讛 砖诪讬谉 讘讗讘

What, is it not correct to say that this means he should provide them with sustenance, and this would indicate that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef, that the Sages instituted an ordinance in the upper chamber that daughters are entitled to their sustenance even from movable property? The Gemara refutes this claim: No, there it is stated in reference to their livelihood, and Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: With regard to livelihood, i.e., the dowry granted to daughters from their father鈥檚 estate, the court assesses the amount they receive in accordance with the status of the father.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讚讜谉 讚讬讬谞讬 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讗讙讘讬 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 讘讬讝谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讬诇讜 讗讛讚专讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗驻讚谞讬讬讻讜 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜

The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind that came before the court in Neharde鈥檃, and the judges of Neharde鈥檃 ruled that the daughters must be supported from the movable property that their father had left. Likewise, a case occurred in Pumbedita, and Rav 岣na bar Bizna collected the sum from movable property. Rav Na岣an said to the judges: Go reverse your decisions, and if not, I will collect your houses [appadnaikhu] from you in order to compensate those you ruled against.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 住讘讜专 诇诪讬讝谉 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讗转讜谉 注讘讚讬谉 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗

The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi thought to issue a ruling requiring a man鈥檚 heirs to sustain his daughters from the man鈥檚 movable property. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to them: This is a matter about which Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish did not take action, i.e., they did not issue a ruling to this effect; will you take action in this regard? If those great Sages were not sure enough of the halakha to issue a practical ruling, how can you do so?

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇诪讬讝谉 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讱 砖讗讬谉 诪讚转 讛讚讬谉 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讚转 专讞诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讬专讗讜 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讜讬拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 诇讚讜专讜转

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar thought to issue a ruling requiring a man鈥檚 heirs to sustain his daughters from his movable property. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said before him: My teacher, I know about you that you are not acting according to the letter of the law, but rather out of pity for these daughters, who have no other source of support. However, you should still not do this, lest the students observe and mistakenly establish the halakha accordingly for future generations.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 诪转诪专讬 讚注诇 讘讜讚讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诇讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪专

A certain person came before Rav Yosef to inquire about this matter. Rav Yosef said to the sons of the deceased man: Give the daughter her sustenance from the dates that are laid out to dry on the mats [budya]. These fruits are certainly movable property. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If it was a creditor who came to collect a debt, would the Master give him the right to collect it in this manner? Even a creditor, who may collect his claim by repossessing property that the debtor has sold, cannot take movable property from the possession of orphans. A daughter, who cannot collect her sustenance from property that her father sold, should certainly not have the right to collect her sustenance from movable property that belongs to the male orphans.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讞讝讬讬讗 诇讘讜讚讬讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I did not mean actual dates lying on mats; rather, I spoke of ripe dates ready for plucking, which are fit for mats. Since they are still attached to the ground, they are not considered movable property.

Scroll To Top