Rujukan Talmud untuk Ulangan 26:11: Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim, Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot & Berakhot

“And song.” Song is mentioned here and it is said there (Ez. 33:32): “Behold, you are for them like an erotic song.¹²¹As it stands, the text is unintelligible. R. Isaac Simponti and after him R. Simson of Sens and Yalqut Šim‘oni Torah §938 read: נאמר כאן טוב ונאמר להלן יפה קול ומטיב נגן “it says here (Deut. 26:11) good things, and it is said there (Ez. 33:32): “a beautiful voice and good in music.” Frequently only the first words of a verse are quoted while the reference is to another part of the verse.
Yalqut Šim‘oni Torah §938 adds another derivation which ostensibly is taken from Babli Arakhin 11a but represents a text tradition quite different from the Venice Talmud text.”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Simeon says, in the circumstances where he was empowered,” etc. You say, at her entrance they are his: If she sold them they are not sold, if she gave them to a sharecropper he has the reward from it⁴¹The text may mean: He takes it away from him. In the first interpretation, the standing crop given to the sharecropper is counted as part of the latter’s compensation., if she dedicated them as First Fruits they are not dedicated⁴²Since nobody can dedicate anything which is not his property and not in his possession. You say, at her exit they are hers, if he sold them they are not sold, if he gave them to a sharecropper she has the reward from it, if he dedicated them as First Fruits, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since they disagreed: ⁴³The next few sentences are from Bikkurim 1:6, Notes 119–121. Cf. Sifry Deut. #301.(Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave to you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since he said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule⁴⁴This is the common Sadducee-Karaite opinion that the wife is never mentioned in Num. 27:7–11 (only that the children inherit from their mother, Num. 36:3). In the Babli, Giṭṭin 47b. it is supposed that R. Simeon ben Laqish accepts that the wife is mentioned obliquely in Num. 27:11 and his disagreement with R. Joḥanan is about a technicality; the opinion attributed here to R. Simeon ben Laqish is attributed in the Babli, 84a, to Rav. In Bekhorot 52b, it is asserted without dissent that the husband’s right of inheritance is biblical. (Maimonides, Hilkhot Naḥalot 6:8, asserts that the husband’s right of inheritance from his wife is only rabbinic practice.). In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it never was dedicated. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is dedicated and the holiness is removed⁴⁵If the First Fruits were dedicated during the marriage then the act of divorce removes the husband’s ownership and with it the dedication..

¹¹⁹Sifry Deut. #301. The verse is the last in the paragraph about First Fruits.“It is written (Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property¹²⁰Since a person called “a person’s house” is his wife. The property here is the wife’s separate property, not her dowry which becomes the husband’s property subject to the wife’s claim in case of dissolution of the marriage. and makes the declaration.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule¹²¹For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the husband inherits from his wife by rabbinic institution, in exchange for the obligations which the husband takes upon himself in signing the ketubah. This opinion is not mentioned elsewhere; Sifry Num. 137 derives the husband’s inheritance from the verses of the law of inheritance, Num. 27:6–11. In the Babli, Giṭṭin 47b, the disagreement between R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan is reduced to the question whether buying usufruct, without buying the underlying real estate, transfers property rights since during the marriage the husband has the usufruct also of the wife’s separate property..