Mga Kaugnay na Sipi sa Deuteronomio 22:29

From where comes this¹²This refers to the Mishnah, that if the case came to court after the father’s death the fine is not part of the inheritance but belongs to the girl even if she still is supported by the brothers and her earnings go to them.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine¹⁶In Babylonian sources, this is a tannaitic statement: Ketubot 43a, Qiddušin 16b; Sifra Behar Parašah6(5). The verse, Lev. 25:46, speaks of Gentile slaves. The main import of the verse is that slaves can be bought or inherited following the rules of real estate. As a side remark, it is stated that income due because of daughters does not become part of the estate.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They¹⁷The father’s heirs. have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment¹⁸The act of rape creates the obligation to pay the fine.; Rebbi Yose said, at the end¹⁹The judgment of the court creates the obligation to pay the fine.. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’²⁰If this is an argument of R. Yose against R. Jonah, the reference must be to the Mishnah in general and in particular to the last part, not quoted here, which gives the fine to the girl if court proceedings start after the father’s death. If the fine was due from the moment of rape, it should be part of the estate.”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.²¹Cf. Note 13. The exclusion of the fine from the estate is a biblical decree, independent of when the obligation starts.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state²²An enlarged version of Mishnah 2.: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult²³It is not that an adult rape victim can claim a fine but the verse gives the adult the right to sue for what was done to her as an adolescent.. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there²⁴Mishnah Baba Qama 7:2.: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold²⁵The fine for stealing is double restitution; the fine for selling or slaughtering stolen livestock is fourfold or fivefold restitution. The Mishnah requires the thief to pay fourfold or fivefold to the estate (unless he is the sole heir); but if the obligation does not start with the act of larceny then the fine should depend on the relative times of selling/slaughtering and the father’s death, as explained in the next sentence.”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai²⁶This should read: R. Ḥaggai objected to R. Yose (who holds that any obligation starts only with the court’s action.): In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold²⁷There is no doubt that he stole from the estate and has to make good. But since the injured party is no longer alive, according to R. Yose he should not have to pay the extra penalty for selling or slaughtering. The Babli, Baba Qama 71b, agrees with this reasoning.? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here²⁸The verses, in R. Simeon’s interpretation, determine the obligation to pay a fine irrespective of the recipient of the fine. Therefore, the question of the start of the obligation is secondary., everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

HALAKHAH: “If she did appear in court before she became an adult,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 silver pieces to the girl’s father;” this teaches that the father acquires only by handing over³¹In the Babli, 42b, this is an Amoraic interpretation of R. Simeon’s position.. Rebbi Simeon says, the matter depends on the collection, but the rabbis say, the matter depends on the court procedure. Rebbi Simeon treats it as court decrees³²Money receivable because of a judicial decision is not counted as property to be part of the estate since in many cases the collection of such a judgment depends on the claimant swearing that his claim was not otherwise satisfied and the heirs cannot swear for their deceased father. but the rabbis treat it as a loan³³Outstanding documented loans are property and part of the estate since the debtor would have to prove his case if he claims that the loan had been repaid.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, he forecloses from the best land; in the opinion of the rabbis he forecloses from average land³⁴If the debtor is unable to pay cash and the creditor comes to foreclose real estate, Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:1 states that debts for torts are foreclosed from the most valuable real estate, loans from average, and a ketubah from the least valuable (R. Meïr says, from average.) The value is determined by the going rate for a unit of surface area.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt; in the opinion of the rabbis the Sabbatical year cancels the debt³⁵Only private debts are cancelled by the Sabbatical year, not those created by court order nor those handed over to a court for collection; Mishnah Ševi‘it 10:2. The details of the laws of the Sabbatical relating to this case are explained in Ševi‘it 10:2, Note 69.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon the firstborn takes a double portion; in the opinion of the rabbis the firstborn does not take a double portion³⁶The law of inheritance of the firstborn (Deut. 21:17) states that the father has to give him a double portion (or ²/₃, assuming there are only two sons) “of everything that is found with him”, meaning everything in actual possession at the time of death. Money due for an executable court order is money in possession; money due for an outstanding loan is not money in possession since it is subject to the uncertainties of a court proceeding if foreclosure is needed and the position of the firstborn is not privileged in regard to future income..

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Mana³³⁷R. Mana I.; Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be bought for less than a peruṭah. What is the reason? “Fields will be bought by money³³⁸Anything less than the smallest coin is not money..” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said³³⁹Babli Bekhorot 50a. There, the statement of R. Jehudah bar Pazi is ascribed to R. Ḥanina. In Gen.rabba58(9), the statement of R. Jehudah bar Pazi is in the name of R. Yudan.: Any šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas¹²²Mishnah ‘Arakhin 7:1. If somebody dedicates his field to the Temple, Scripture prescribes that he redeem it proportional to the numbers of years to the next Jubilee. The full rate, for the entire 49 yars of a Jubilee cycle, is 50 šeqel for a field on which a ḥomer (or kur, 30 se’ah) of barley can be sown (75’000 square cubits). Talmudic theory identifies the biblical šeqel with the Roman tetradrachma, which is slightly more than the standard šeqel documented from First Kingdom times, 11.4 g. Since in the vernacular the zūz, the Babylonian half-šeqel, was identified with the Roman denarius, the “sheqel” was identified as two denar. This gave rise to the theory that the biblical “holy šeqel”, which simply was “the king’s weight” and still the Tyrian šeqel in Roman times, was twice the profane šeqel. The rate to be paid for the standard field per year therefore was ⁵⁰/₄₉ = 1 ¹/₄₉ tetradrachma. The rate stated in the Mishnah is 1 ¹/₄₈ tetradrachma. The small difference, ¹/₄₈ - ¹/₄₉ is qolbon (κόλλυβος, Latin collybus,collubus, “exchange of coins; rate of exchange”), the small coin paid as agio to the money-changer to convert the sum into actual coin. The Mishnah shows that a dupondius was ¹/₄₈ of a tetradrachma or half an obolus., in the Prophets pounds³⁴⁰A Roman libra, Greek λίτρα, of 96 denarii or 24 tetradrachmas., and in the Hagiographs centenarii³⁴¹A noun, meaning “100 pieces” formed in vulgar Latin from the classical adjective centenarius, “consisting of a hundred”, in this case 100 librae. The same meaning, 100 lb., is found in Middle High German zëntenaere,zëntner.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron³⁴²Paid by Abraham for the Makhpela cave, Gen. 23:9., which were centenarii. What is the reason? “For full money he shall give it to me.” There is no comparison since here it is written “money” but there “šeqalim”. They objected, is there not the rapist³⁴³Deut. 23:29; the extra fine the rapist of a virgin pays is “50 silver pieces”; cf. Ketubot 3:1, Note 1., for whom “money” is written and you say “šeqalim”?