Êxodo 21:8 Passagens Relacionadas

Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Just as he cannot sell her into servitude after marriage, so not into servitude after servitude²⁷⁶Babli 18b. In Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin3, this is ascribed to R. Yose the Galilean and derived from the singular used in Ex. 21:7.. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s reason? “By his being unfaithful to her.²⁷⁷He reads בְּבִגְדוֹ as verbal form derived from the root בגד “to be unfaithful, traitorous”, referred to the father. In the Babli, 18b, this is R. Aqiba’s opinion.” Once he can be unfaithful to her, he cannot be unfaithful to her a second time. How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s reason? “She being in his garment²⁷⁸He reads בְּבִגְדּוֹ as nominal form derived from בגד “garment”, referring to the master as husband. They hold that the girl sold into servitude is emancipated even by preliminary marriage. In the Babli this is the position taken by R. Eliezer; anonymous in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b,Jochai, p. 166.;” from the moment that [her master] spread his garment on her, her father no longer has any power over her.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated⁷¹Babli 41b; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 10 (Horovitz-Rabin p. 283); Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai21:28, Midrash Tannaïm(Midrash Haggadol Ex. 21:28, ed. Margaliut p. 484.): “But the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place⁷³As the formulation of the Babli makes explicit, since any damages caused by a tame animal are paid from its body and a bull which killed a human is stoned and its carcass forbidden for usufruct, there is nothing from which either damages or fine might be paid.? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human⁷⁴The bull was attacking another animal when a human intervened and was killed. In that case, the bull is not condemned to be stoned and is not forbidden for usufruct., etc.⁷⁵A list of similar situations as given later in the paragraph. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself⁷⁶Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it⁷⁷As stated in Mishnah 9, the bull’s meat becomes forbidden only when it is stoned. If the owners slaughter it immediately after the attack, before the court had time to intervene, the meat is valuable and its proceeds are available to cover damages.. But some want to say, from what⁷⁸Reading מִן “from” instead of מאן “who” (I. Lewy). we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel⁴⁰It is stressed in Ex. 21:1 that the laws of that Chapter is before them; it applies only to intra-Israelite lawsuits. An application to suits involving Gentiles is illegitimate (Sifry Deut. 16; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 1). Gentile law does not recognize payment for half the damages., still birth but killed a viable [child]⁷⁹Killing a fetus or a newborn which is not viable is forbidden but not prosecutable as murder; the same holds for killing a ṭerepha, a terminally ill person., he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”⁷²Ex. 21:28.’⁷⁶Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,⁸⁰Ex. 21:30.” the verse speaks of the notorious⁸¹Therefore, the notion of weregilt is not applicable to the tame bull; the exemption needs no verse.. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned⁸²Ex. 21:29. This verse imposes weregilt for the killing of a free person by a notorious bull.,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.⁸³Ex. 21:32. This verse imposes a fine for the killing of a slave.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious⁸⁴Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull.. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned⁷²Ex. 21:28.”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”⁸⁴Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull..