תּלמוד אויף דברים 21:17

“And slaves.” ¹⁷This paragraph is partially quote and partially reformulation of a paragraph in Qiddušin 4:2, Notes 107–111. Rebbi Simon the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses and its father and mother are like two witnesses. Rebbi Abbahu said, can a person be suspected to say about one who is not his son that he is his son¹⁸Why should not his father alone be empowered to recognize his child?? Maybe it was said about the property of a convert¹⁹If he has no Jewish children, he has no heirs in Jewish law and all Jews are potentially entitled to inherit from him. If then he recognizes an otherwise unknown person as his son, he potentially damages other people’s claim; the recognition needs two witnesses, viz., father and mother. But once he is married in Jewish law, the Torah gives the father the sole power to recognize his child; Deut. 21:17.? He told him, but all our teachers in the Diaspora testify that in this form we heard it from Rav Ada bar Abuh²⁰In E and Or zarua‘ I §340 (end): Rabba bar Abuh. This seems to be the correct attribution.. Rav Ḥisda said: That is, if the baby is not moving. But [the case of] a baby which is moving refers to what Rebbi Joḥanan said: property rights on jumping calves and lambs which move from place to place cannot be proven by possession²¹Therefore, such a child is a foundling; his parents cannot act as witnesses since by their testimony they declare themselves his relatives and thus disqualify themselves. This conclusion is the opposite of the one reached in the longer text in Qiddušin; it parallels the conclusion reached by the Babli, 36a..

³⁴In the Babli, Ketubot 79b, this is a baraita. Since first generation Amoraim disagree over the rule, it seems that the Yerushalmi also presents this as a baraita. The offspring of a paraphernalia animal belongs to the husband, that of a paraphernalia slave girl belongs to the wife. Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua said, the offspring of a paraphernalia animal is like that of a paraphernalia slave girl³⁵In the Babli, the formulation is: “the offspring of a paraphernalia slave girl is like that of a paraphernalia animal.” In the Babli, the child of the slave girl belongs to the husband; in the Yerushalmi, everything belongs to the wife.
In the Babli, the straight argument of Ḥanania is that the husband has the usufruct. In the Babli, the argument of the rabbis is that if the slave girl dies, the wife is left with nothing but if an animal dies, she is left with the value of the hide. There is no reason to transfer the argument of the Babli to the Yerushalmi. From the next paragraph it seems rather that the rabbis hold that the wife’s slaves belong to her father’s household and have to be treated as family heirlooms, and any increase in their number is increase of the value of the stock (which is the wife’s), not yield (which is the husband’s).. Rebbi Eleazar said to the colleagues, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua. Rav and Samuel, Rav follows the rabbis, but Samuel follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua³⁶In the Babli (Note 34) only Samuel’s opinion (opposite in meaning to his position here) is noted, without opposition.. Samuel objected to Rav: According to you who says, they belong to the wife, should the first-born not take a double portion³⁷The first-born takes a double portion of the inheritance (Deut. 21:17, reading פי שנים as “double”, not “2/3”.) However, the first-born takes a double portion only from what is available at the father’s death. For example, property leased to others is available, debts collectable are not available (since the payor may default. Most modern authorities hold that sovereign debt is available.) In the Babli, Baba Batra 123b, an anonymous baraita is quoted which in a different form is a Tosephta, Bekhorot 6:16, that the first-born gets a double interest in the calf of a cow who was pregnant at the father’s death. This must mean that the calf is increase of the value of the stock, of which the first-born gets adouble portion, not yield after the father’s death, of which he would get only a simple portion. It does not make any sense that Rav denies the young of the animal to the wife when he gives the first-born a double portion.? Think of it, if she brought them when they were small and they grew up, are they not the wife’s, and you agree with me that the first-born takes a double portion³⁸Here everybody agrees that this represents increase in the stock, not yield.!

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..