Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Related for Bava Batra 252:14

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אף אינו נידון כבן סורר ומורה דאמר קרא (דברים כא, יח) כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה עד שיהא בן משעת הויה

he used to say to them: Go to my son Shikhath, Who is firstborn and his spittle heals'. — Might he not have been the firstborn of his mother [only]? — There is a tradition that the spittle of the firstborn of a father is healing, but that of the firstborn of a mother is not healing. R. Ammi said: A <i>tumtum</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] one whose sexual organs are undeveloped or concealed. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> [firstborn] who, having been operated upon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who was torn'. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> was found to be a male, does not receive a double portion [as heir], for Scripture says. <i>And if the firstborn son be hers that was hated</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 15. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> [which implies that he cannot be regarded as firstborn] unless<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> he was a <i>son</i> at the <i>beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the moment'. ');"><sup>43</sup></span></i> of [his] being.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] being', 'existence', comes from the same root as [H] 'and if&nbsp;… be', in the text cited. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Neither is he tried as a 'stubborn and rebellious son';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 28-21. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> for Scripture says,<i> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. v. 28. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> [which implies that] he must have been<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until he shall be'. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> a <i>son</i> at the<i> beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3. ');"><sup>48</sup></span></i> of[his] being.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. I.e. n. 4. The Heb. for have in the text cited, is [H] of the same root as [H] ');"><sup>49</sup></span>

Tosefta Kiddushin

"[Be betrothed to me] with the understanding that if I die you will not bound to a levir"—she is betrothed but his stipulation is invalid, for he stipulated against what was written in the Torah, and anyone who stipulates against what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is invalid. "With the understanding that I will have no responsibility for you for clothing or sex"—she is betrothed but his stipulation is invalid. This is the pneumonic: Anyone who stipulates against what is written in the Torah regarding a monetary matter—his stipulation stands; with a non-monetary matter—his stipulation is invalid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tosefta Ketubot

Rabbi Yehudah says: [The husband] can always eat the fruits' fruit [i.e. the interest's interest, even if he said in the ketubah that he gives up access to the fruit from her property]. How so? He can sell the fruit and buy with [that money] land, and he can eat the fruit. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah say: If she dies, he inherits it [the fruit, even if he said he wouldn't have access to it in the ketubah], for she made a stipulation against what was written in the Torah and anyone who stipulates against what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is null and void.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull Chapter