Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Exodo 21:1: Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin, Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma & Jerusalem Talmud Makkot

For whom is it needed⁹The clause in the Mishnah that the husband has only the usufruct of any inheritance coming to his wife during the marriage.? For Rebbi Meïr! Even though for Rebbi Meïr the hand of the slave is his master’s hand¹⁰Similarly, R. Meïr holds that a wife cannot act legally except as her husband’s representative. It would seem reasonable that a wife can retain separate property by prenuptial agreement (cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1), but for R. Meïr one would expect that a wife can only acquire an inheritance as representative for her husband. Therefore, it is essential that the Mishnah state that an inheritance becomes the wife’s sole property for which the husband has to act as administrator. Cf. Nedarim 11:8, Note 70; Ma‘aser Šeni 4:4, Note 95; Babli Nedarim 88b, Qiddušin 23b. and if the wife acquired title the husband should have acquired it; he agrees that his rights over it¹¹The inheritance. are restricted to the use of the yield. There, we have stated¹²Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5.: “The finds of his underage son and daughter or of his Canaanite slave¹³It is not required that the slave be Phoenician. Any non-Jewish slave who became semi-Jewish by circumcision (for a male) and immersion in a miqweh is called “Canaanite slave”. In the theory of the Babli, the Canaanite slave’s body is the property of his master; therefore, if the slave lifts a find to acquire it, it is legally his master whose hand took it. or slave-girl as well as his wife’s find belong to him,” for he can direct them to do other work. Why do we say: “The finds of his adult son and daughter or of his Hebrew slave¹⁴While the rules for the treatment of Hebrew slaves (Ex. 21:1–11) are a frequent topic in the Talmudim, the subject is purely theoretical since the institution of Hebrew slavery disappeared with the end of the First Commonwealth. It is asserted that only the working capability of the slave is the master’s, not his body. Therefore, if he lifts a find to acquire it, it is not the master’s hand which lifts the find. or slave-girl belong to them,” because he cannot direct them to do other work¹⁵Obviously, the master can direct the Hebrew slave to perform any task he asks of him; but he cannot direct him not to use his hands for anything else.. But his wife he cannot direct to do other work¹⁶In Chapter 5, an exhaustive list was given of work the husband can demand from his wife. The wife’s body certainly is not her husband’s property. Therefore, one does not understand why her find should be her husband’s. and you say that her find belongs to him! Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is another reason for his wife. What is the other reason for his wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai says, because of quarrel¹⁷One has such a poor opinion of Jewish husbands that one is afraid he would be offended if the wife would not share her find with him [mentioned also in Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1. 15)]. This is the only explanation offered in the Babli, 96a; it is called “because of jealousy”.. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but that she should not smuggle away¹⁸Meaning: stealing. any of her husband’s property and say, I found it. Think of it, if another person gave it to her as a gift¹⁹The gift can be given on condition that the husband have no right to it. Should the wife not be believed if she says she received a gift?! A gift is public knowledge, a find is not public knowledge. Think of it, if she found it in the presence of witnesses! This because of that²⁰R. Yose will agree that in the case of a find in the presence of other people his reason is invalid. He holds that, nevertheless, the rabbinic decree giving the find to the husband stands because ịt would be impractical to admit exceptions.. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, if they²¹This refers to the adult children to whom the Mishnah in Baba Meṣi‘a assigns their finds. This is qualified; the Mishnah applies only if the children are financially independent. In the Babli, this is formulated that “they are not dependent on their father’s table.” Cf. Peah 4:6, Note 107; Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1.3); Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 12b. are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him.

Do not robberies and injuries fall under the same rules²⁶The same question is asked in the Babli, 2b. In contrast to the Babli, here it is understood that torts do not necessarily follow the same rules as disputes over money, and it is not obvious that a panel of three judges would be sufficient for these.? It was found that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: These are the procedures which you shall put before them. It serves to explain to you the plain sense of the verse²⁷Ex. 21:1. As in Ex. 21–23, pure money matters are treated first, then torts. The order of the Mishnah follows the order of topics in these chapters.. This follows Rebbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta.

HALAKHAH: “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles³⁶Hab. 3:6. The usual translation is: “He saw and made peoples jump” (by an earthquake).,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money³⁷In the Babli, 38a, a statement of R. Abbahu, applies to those Gentiles who violate the Noahide commandments. Cf. Lev. rabba 13(2); Tanḥuma Buber Šemini 10; Deut. rabba Eqeb 1 (some mss.).. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran³⁸Deut. 33.2. The list of peoples living around Sinai is traditionally interpreted as a list of those to whom the Torah was offered first but who declined, and only Israel did accept (Babli Avodah zarah 2b; Sifry Deut.343; Pesiqta dR. Cahana Berakhah, ed. Buber 199b; Tanḥuma Berakhah 4 (Buber 3); Pseudo-Jonathan Deut. 32:2); Midrash Tannaïm Deut. 32:2.,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor³⁹This statement possibly is fragmentary; cf. the formulations in the sources indicated in the preceding two Notes.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws⁴⁰It 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.. Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁴¹Tosephta 4:2.: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.