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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 19, 2015 | 诇壮 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 76

讞讚讗 讘诪拽讜诐 转专转讬 讜讞讚讗 讘诪拽讜诐 转专转讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 砖诇讗 转转讗专住 讛注诪讚 讛讙讜祝 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 砖讜转讛 讘讻讜住 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讘讜讚拽讜 讜讛讗讬 专讗讛 讜谞讬驻讬讬住 讛讜讗 讗讚专讘讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讬驻讬讬住 讘诪讜诪讬谉 讜讛注诪讚 诪诪讜谉 注诇 讞讝拽转讜

one presumption opposed by two others. And we do not say that one presumption is decisive when it is opposed by two. However, if the husband brings proof that that she was blemished before she was betrothed, we cannot say: Establish the state of the woman鈥檚 body according to its presumptive status, since it has been established that the blemishes existed prior to the betrothal. What claim is there in the woman鈥檚 favor? Only the presumption that a person does not drink from a cup unless he first examines it, and this man has undoubtedly seen her blemishes and been appeased. The Gemara responds: On the contrary, there is a presumption that a person does not become appeased with regard to blemishes, and therefore the money is established according to its presumptive status and do not obligate the husband to pay for the marriage contract.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讬砖讗 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚讱 讜住讬驻讗 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱

Rav Ashi said that the contradiction between the first and last clauses of the mishna can be resolved in the following manner: The first clause is similar to a claim made by one who says: My father has one hundred dinars in your possession. When the blemishes were discovered he had not yet married her, and therefore the payment for the marriage contract would go to the woman鈥檚 father, and not to her. And the latter clause is referring to a married woman who claims the marriage contract for herself, and it is therefore as though she says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The presumptive status of her body enables her to claim money only for herself, not on behalf of someone else, including her father.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 注诪讛 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 砖注诇 讛讗讘 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讛讜讗

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, raised an objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: Rabbi Meir concedes with regard to blemishes that naturally come with her from her father鈥檚 house, and which did not develop after the marriage, that the father must bring proof that she did not have them before the betrothal, even if she was already married when they were discovered. But why does Rabbi Meir agree in that case? It is similar to the case where someone says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, along with the presumptive status of her body; therefore, the burden of proof should be upon the husband.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬转讬专转 讬转讬专转 诪讗讬 专讗讬讛 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚专讗讛 讜谞讬驻讬讬住 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case of a woman who has an additional toe. She was obviously born with that blemish. The Gemara is puzzled by this response: If the baraita is speaking about an additional toe, what proof could the father possibly bring to argue that the toe grew after the marriage? The Gemara answers: He can provide proof that the husband saw the extra toe before the betrothal and he became appeased about it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讞诇讬祝 驻专讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜诪砖讱 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讘注诇 讛驻专讛 诇诪砖讜讱 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 注讚 砖诪转 讛讞诪讜专 注诇 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖讛讬讛 讞诪讜专讜 拽讬讬诐 讘砖注转 诪砖讬讻转 驻专讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, where the two animals involved in this transaction are not in the same location, one of the parties acquires one of the animals by means of pulling it, which transfers the other animal to the other party through acquisition by means of the exchange. And in this case the owner of the donkey pulled the cow, but before the owner of the cow could pull the donkey in turn, the donkey died. The owner of the cow claimed that the donkey died before the other one pulled the cow, which means the exchange transaction never took effect. In that case, the owner of the donkey must bring proof that his donkey was alive at the time when the cow was pulled. If he is unable to bring proof to this effect, the owner of the cow retains his animal.

讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讻诇讛 讛讬 讻诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗

Rav Yehuda adds: And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. Shmuel learned this halakha concerning an acquisition by means of barter from the case of a bride. The Gemara inquires: Which halakha involving a bride serves as the basis for the halakha that Shmuel taught? If we say

讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪讬讬转讬 讗讘 专讗讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽 讛讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 专讗讬讛 讜诪讜拽讬诐

that his proof is from the halakha with regard to a bride who is still in her father鈥檚 house, when the burden of proof is upon the father, is it comparable? There, the father brings proof and takes money away from the husband, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and maintains possession of the cow. Consequently, perhaps this case is different, and he should not be obliged to provide proof.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜讗讻转讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讘注诇 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪专注 诇讬讛 诇讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗讘 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪讜拽讬诐 讞讝拽讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛

Rabbi Abba said: The proof is from the case of a bride in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, that is, one who has entered her husband鈥檚 domain. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And yet the cases are still not comparable: There, the husband brings proof and undermines the presumption that was in favor of the father, i.e., the presumptive status of the daughter鈥檚 body, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and thereby maintains the presumptive status of the donkey鈥檚 body and consequently maintains the cow in his possession. Perhaps, therefore, he should not have to bring proof.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Shmuel鈥檚 proof is from the halakha of a bride in her father鈥檚 house, but with regard to the money used for betrothal, not for the marriage contract. The father must bring proof in order to retain the betrothal money.

讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗讜 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜讚讗讬 讗讘诇 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explains: And do not say that this is only according to the one who says in general that betrothal money was not given with the understanding that it is to be lost, that is, the money was handed over only for the purpose of betrothal and it must be returned if the betrothal is canceled. Rather, say that this is even according to the one who says that in the case of betrothal money that was given to be lost, this applies only to a betrothal whose status is certain. According to this opinion, if a husband later divorces his wife or dies she does not have to restore the betrothal money. But with regard to a mistaken betrothal, if the father brings proof then yes, he may keep the money; if he does not bring proof he may not retain ownership of the betrothal money. This supports Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that in an uncertain case the one in possession of the money must bring proof in order to retain his ownership.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讟专讬驻讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion with regard to presumptions from a baraita about a different issue: In a case of a needle that is found in the thick wall of a slaughtered animal鈥檚 second stomach, if it has pierced the stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the stomach is pierced from both sides, meaning that the needle pierced a hole completely through the wall of the stomach, it has the status of an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and one is consequently prohibited to eat from it. Furthermore, if a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle, it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughtering of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If no drop of blood is found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughtering, which means the animal is kosher.

讛讜讙诇讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讛讜讙诇讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讜讗讬 讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞 讚诪讬 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽

If a scab appeared over the wound on that spot, it is certain that the incident happened three days before the slaughtering. The significance of this fact is that if the animal was sold to a butcher after this point in time, the butcher can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal. If a scab did not appear over the wound, and the seller claims that the animal was injured while in the possession of the butcher who purchased the animal, while the butcher claims that it was wounded when he bought it, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And therefore, if the butcher had already given the money, he needs to bring proof and then he can take his money back from the seller.

讜讗诪讗讬 讘注诇 讘讛诪讛 诇讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜谞讜拽讬诐

The Gemara returns to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: But why should this be the halakha? Let the owner of the animal, i.e., the seller, bring proof and establish the validity of the sale, just as the owner of the donkey must provide proof in order to maintain possession of the cow. Why is the burden of proof upon the butcher?

讘讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞讗 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 驻住拽讗

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case when where the butcher had not yet given the money, but was going to pay at a later time. Therefore, the seller is the one claiming money from the butcher, and he must offer proof in order for the transaction to be upheld. The Gemara poses a question: Why was it stated without qualification? The wording of the baraita implies that either side must bring proof. This baraita appears to refute the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 转爪讬讬转讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚讻讬讬诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖谞讜诇讚 住驻拽 讘专砖讜转讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讻诇讛

Rather, when Rami bar Ye岣zkel came, he said: Pay no attention to those rules formulated by my brother Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. In actuality, this is what Shmuel said: In whosesoever鈥檚 domain the uncertainty came into being, the burden of proof rests upon him. In the case of the exchange of the cow for the donkey, it is the owner of the cow who must provide proof. And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. If the bride was in her father鈥檚 domain he must provide proof; if she was living with her husband the burden of proof is upon him.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讻讜壮 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞 讚诪讬 讘注诇 讘讛诪讛 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽 讜讗诪讗讬 住驻讬拽讗 讘专砖讜转 讟讘讞 讗讬转讬讬诇讬讚

The Gemara raises an objection: A needle that is found in the thick wall of an animal鈥檚 second stomach鈥the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And if the butcher had not already given the money, the owner of the animal needs to bring proof, and only then can he take his money. The Gemara asks: But why? The uncertainty was formed in the butcher鈥檚 possession. According to Rami Bar Ye岣zkel鈥檚 opinion, it should be the butcher鈥檚 responsibility to provide proof.

讚讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞 讚诪讬 讜诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讞讬讜转讗

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case where the butcher had already given the money. Since the butcher is the one demanding money from the seller, he must provide proof. The Gemara poses a question: But why was it stated without qualification? How is it known that the tanna was referring to this particular case? The Gemara answers: The ordinary situation is that as long as a person has not given money, the other person will not give him the animal. It can therefore be assumed that the butcher paid for the animal before he was allowed to slaughter it, which means it is he who is claiming the return of the money.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘住转专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? With regard to hidden blemishes. But he cannot claim to have been unaware of visible blemishes. Rav Na岣an said:

  • 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 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 76

讞讚讗 讘诪拽讜诐 转专转讬 讜讞讚讗 讘诪拽讜诐 转专转讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 砖诇讗 转转讗专住 讛注诪讚 讛讙讜祝 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 砖讜转讛 讘讻讜住 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讘讜讚拽讜 讜讛讗讬 专讗讛 讜谞讬驻讬讬住 讛讜讗 讗讚专讘讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讬驻讬讬住 讘诪讜诪讬谉 讜讛注诪讚 诪诪讜谉 注诇 讞讝拽转讜

one presumption opposed by two others. And we do not say that one presumption is decisive when it is opposed by two. However, if the husband brings proof that that she was blemished before she was betrothed, we cannot say: Establish the state of the woman鈥檚 body according to its presumptive status, since it has been established that the blemishes existed prior to the betrothal. What claim is there in the woman鈥檚 favor? Only the presumption that a person does not drink from a cup unless he first examines it, and this man has undoubtedly seen her blemishes and been appeased. The Gemara responds: On the contrary, there is a presumption that a person does not become appeased with regard to blemishes, and therefore the money is established according to its presumptive status and do not obligate the husband to pay for the marriage contract.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讬砖讗 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚讱 讜住讬驻讗 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱

Rav Ashi said that the contradiction between the first and last clauses of the mishna can be resolved in the following manner: The first clause is similar to a claim made by one who says: My father has one hundred dinars in your possession. When the blemishes were discovered he had not yet married her, and therefore the payment for the marriage contract would go to the woman鈥檚 father, and not to her. And the latter clause is referring to a married woman who claims the marriage contract for herself, and it is therefore as though she says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The presumptive status of her body enables her to claim money only for herself, not on behalf of someone else, including her father.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 注诪讛 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 砖注诇 讛讗讘 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讛讜讗

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, raised an objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: Rabbi Meir concedes with regard to blemishes that naturally come with her from her father鈥檚 house, and which did not develop after the marriage, that the father must bring proof that she did not have them before the betrothal, even if she was already married when they were discovered. But why does Rabbi Meir agree in that case? It is similar to the case where someone says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, along with the presumptive status of her body; therefore, the burden of proof should be upon the husband.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬转讬专转 讬转讬专转 诪讗讬 专讗讬讛 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚专讗讛 讜谞讬驻讬讬住 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case of a woman who has an additional toe. She was obviously born with that blemish. The Gemara is puzzled by this response: If the baraita is speaking about an additional toe, what proof could the father possibly bring to argue that the toe grew after the marriage? The Gemara answers: He can provide proof that the husband saw the extra toe before the betrothal and he became appeased about it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讞诇讬祝 驻专讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜诪砖讱 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讘注诇 讛驻专讛 诇诪砖讜讱 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 注讚 砖诪转 讛讞诪讜专 注诇 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖讛讬讛 讞诪讜专讜 拽讬讬诐 讘砖注转 诪砖讬讻转 驻专讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, where the two animals involved in this transaction are not in the same location, one of the parties acquires one of the animals by means of pulling it, which transfers the other animal to the other party through acquisition by means of the exchange. And in this case the owner of the donkey pulled the cow, but before the owner of the cow could pull the donkey in turn, the donkey died. The owner of the cow claimed that the donkey died before the other one pulled the cow, which means the exchange transaction never took effect. In that case, the owner of the donkey must bring proof that his donkey was alive at the time when the cow was pulled. If he is unable to bring proof to this effect, the owner of the cow retains his animal.

讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讻诇讛 讛讬 讻诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗

Rav Yehuda adds: And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. Shmuel learned this halakha concerning an acquisition by means of barter from the case of a bride. The Gemara inquires: Which halakha involving a bride serves as the basis for the halakha that Shmuel taught? If we say

讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪讬讬转讬 讗讘 专讗讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽 讛讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 专讗讬讛 讜诪讜拽讬诐

that his proof is from the halakha with regard to a bride who is still in her father鈥檚 house, when the burden of proof is upon the father, is it comparable? There, the father brings proof and takes money away from the husband, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and maintains possession of the cow. Consequently, perhaps this case is different, and he should not be obliged to provide proof.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜讗讻转讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讘注诇 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪专注 诇讬讛 诇讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗讘 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪讜拽讬诐 讞讝拽讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛

Rabbi Abba said: The proof is from the case of a bride in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, that is, one who has entered her husband鈥檚 domain. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And yet the cases are still not comparable: There, the husband brings proof and undermines the presumption that was in favor of the father, i.e., the presumptive status of the daughter鈥檚 body, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and thereby maintains the presumptive status of the donkey鈥檚 body and consequently maintains the cow in his possession. Perhaps, therefore, he should not have to bring proof.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Shmuel鈥檚 proof is from the halakha of a bride in her father鈥檚 house, but with regard to the money used for betrothal, not for the marriage contract. The father must bring proof in order to retain the betrothal money.

讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗讜 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜讚讗讬 讗讘诇 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讟注讜转 讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explains: And do not say that this is only according to the one who says in general that betrothal money was not given with the understanding that it is to be lost, that is, the money was handed over only for the purpose of betrothal and it must be returned if the betrothal is canceled. Rather, say that this is even according to the one who says that in the case of betrothal money that was given to be lost, this applies only to a betrothal whose status is certain. According to this opinion, if a husband later divorces his wife or dies she does not have to restore the betrothal money. But with regard to a mistaken betrothal, if the father brings proof then yes, he may keep the money; if he does not bring proof he may not retain ownership of the betrothal money. This supports Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that in an uncertain case the one in possession of the money must bring proof in order to retain his ownership.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讟专讬驻讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion with regard to presumptions from a baraita about a different issue: In a case of a needle that is found in the thick wall of a slaughtered animal鈥檚 second stomach, if it has pierced the stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the stomach is pierced from both sides, meaning that the needle pierced a hole completely through the wall of the stomach, it has the status of an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and one is consequently prohibited to eat from it. Furthermore, if a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle, it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughtering of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If no drop of blood is found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughtering, which means the animal is kosher.

讛讜讙诇讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讛讜讙诇讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讜讗讬 讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞 讚诪讬 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽

If a scab appeared over the wound on that spot, it is certain that the incident happened three days before the slaughtering. The significance of this fact is that if the animal was sold to a butcher after this point in time, the butcher can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal. If a scab did not appear over the wound, and the seller claims that the animal was injured while in the possession of the butcher who purchased the animal, while the butcher claims that it was wounded when he bought it, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And therefore, if the butcher had already given the money, he needs to bring proof and then he can take his money back from the seller.

讜讗诪讗讬 讘注诇 讘讛诪讛 诇讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜谞讜拽讬诐

The Gemara returns to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: But why should this be the halakha? Let the owner of the animal, i.e., the seller, bring proof and establish the validity of the sale, just as the owner of the donkey must provide proof in order to maintain possession of the cow. Why is the burden of proof upon the butcher?

讘讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞讗 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 驻住拽讗

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case when where the butcher had not yet given the money, but was going to pay at a later time. Therefore, the seller is the one claiming money from the butcher, and he must offer proof in order for the transaction to be upheld. The Gemara poses a question: Why was it stated without qualification? The wording of the baraita implies that either side must bring proof. This baraita appears to refute the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 转爪讬讬转讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚讻讬讬诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖谞讜诇讚 住驻拽 讘专砖讜转讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讻诇讛

Rather, when Rami bar Ye岣zkel came, he said: Pay no attention to those rules formulated by my brother Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. In actuality, this is what Shmuel said: In whosesoever鈥檚 domain the uncertainty came into being, the burden of proof rests upon him. In the case of the exchange of the cow for the donkey, it is the owner of the cow who must provide proof. And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. If the bride was in her father鈥檚 domain he must provide proof; if she was living with her husband the burden of proof is upon him.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讻讜壮 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞 讚诪讬 讘注诇 讘讛诪讛 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 专讗讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽 讜讗诪讗讬 住驻讬拽讗 讘专砖讜转 讟讘讞 讗讬转讬讬诇讬讚

The Gemara raises an objection: A needle that is found in the thick wall of an animal鈥檚 second stomach鈥the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And if the butcher had not already given the money, the owner of the animal needs to bring proof, and only then can he take his money. The Gemara asks: But why? The uncertainty was formed in the butcher鈥檚 possession. According to Rami Bar Ye岣zkel鈥檚 opinion, it should be the butcher鈥檚 responsibility to provide proof.

讚讬讛讬讘 讟讘讞 讚诪讬 讜诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讞讬讜转讗

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case where the butcher had already given the money. Since the butcher is the one demanding money from the seller, he must provide proof. The Gemara poses a question: But why was it stated without qualification? How is it known that the tanna was referring to this particular case? The Gemara answers: The ordinary situation is that as long as a person has not given money, the other person will not give him the animal. It can therefore be assumed that the butcher paid for the animal before he was allowed to slaughter it, which means it is he who is claiming the return of the money.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘住转专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? With regard to hidden blemishes. But he cannot claim to have been unaware of visible blemishes. Rav Na岣an said:

Scroll To Top