Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Related for Gittin 103:24

אמר להו רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הא רעה היא לדידהו

whom R. Meir has driven from his house! A certain guardian in the neighbourhood of R. Joshua b. Levi was selling land and buying cattle with the proceeds. [The Rabbi] said nothing to him, being of the same mind as R. Jose, as it has been taught: R. Jose said: All my life I have never called my wife my wife nor my ox my ox but my wife my house and my ox my field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence buying cattle was equivalent to buying land. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Certain orphans who boarded with an old woman had a cow which she took and sold. Their relatives appealed to R. Nahman saying, What business had she to sell it? He said to them: We learnt: IF ORPHANS BOARD WITH A HOUSEHOLDER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that such a householder is on the same footing as a guardian, who has the right to sell cattle. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> [But, they said, the cow] is now worth more<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this should warrant the cancellation of the sale. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [than she sold it for]. [He replied,] It has become more valuable in the possession of the purchaser. But, they said, they have not yet received the money. If so, he replied, we can apply the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi following Samuel. For R. Hanilai b. Idi said in the name of Samuel that the property of orphans is on the same footing as that of the Sanctuary, and is not transferred save on the payment of money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the transaction could still be cancelled. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> The wine of Rabbana 'Ukba the orphan was 'pulled'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a sign of transference of ownership. V. Glos. s.v. Meshikah. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> [by purchasers who bought it at] four <i>zuz</i> [the cask]. The price [of wine] subsequently rose, so that it was worth six <i>zuz</i>. The case was brought before R. Nahman who said: Here the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi applies; for R. Hanilai b. Idi said in the name of Samuel that the property of orphans is on the same footing as that of the Sanctuary, and is not transferred save through money payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the transaction could still be cancelled. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> If purchasers have 'pulled'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a sign of transference of ownership. V. Glos. s.v. Meshikah. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> the produce of orphans [without paying], and [the price subsequently] rises, the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi applies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the orphans can retract. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> If [the price] falls, then surely a layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the purchasers could not withdraw even if the vendor was a layman (v. B.M. 44a), still less then in this case. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> If vendors have sold produce to orphans by 'pulling',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'They made pull to orphans' i.e., the orphans 'pulled' the produce they purchased. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> and [the price subsequently] rose, then we say that the layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the vendors could not withdraw even if the purchaser was a layman, still less here. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> If [the price] falls, the students were inclined to think that here the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi would apply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the orphans could pay the lower price and keep the wine. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> but R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said to them: This would be detrimental to them, since they may one day require produce and no-one will sell to them unless they pay money down. If the orphans give money for produce [without taking delivery] and [the price] subsequently falls, then we say that a layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even a layman could withdraw in such a case. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> If it rises, the students were inclined to think that the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi would apply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the vendors should not be able to retract. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> but R. Shisha b. Idi said to them: This might be detrimental to them,

Tosefta Terumot

[Legal guardians] shall not sell distant [property] in order to purchase [property] that is nearby, or [sell property] of poor quality to buy [property of] good quality. They may not [involve themselves in orphans'] legal matters, [whether] to hold them liable, to confer a benefit, to earn money, [or] to spend money, except if [the guardians] receive permission from the court (beit din). And the legal guardians must make an accounting with the orphans at the conclusion [of the guardianship], the words of Rebbi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says, The court does not designate women [manuscript adds "or minors"] or slaves as legal guardians at the inception [of the guardianship]; however, if [the orphans'] fathers designated these during his lifetime, [the court must] appoint them as legal guardians [after the father dies].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tosefta Terumot

[Legal guardians] shall not sell distant [property] in order to purchase [property] that is nearby, or [sell property] of poor quality to buy [property of] good quality. They may not [involve themselves in orphans'] legal matters, [whether] to hold them liable, to confer a benefit, to earn money, [or] to spend money, except if [the guardians] receive permission from the court (beit din). And the legal guardians must make an accounting with the orphans at the conclusion [of the guardianship], the words of Rebbi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says, The court does not designate women [manuscript adds "or minors"] or slaves as legal guardians at the inception [of the guardianship]; however, if [the orphans'] fathers designated these during his lifetime, [the court must] appoint them as legal guardians [after the father dies].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tosefta Terumot

[Legal guardians] shall not sell distant [property] in order to purchase [property] that is nearby, or [sell property] of poor quality to buy [property of] good quality. They may not [involve themselves in orphans'] legal matters, [whether] to hold them liable, to confer a benefit, to earn money, [or] to spend money, except if [the guardians] receive permission from the court (beit din). And the legal guardians must make an accounting with the orphans at the conclusion [of the guardianship], the words of Rebbi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says, The court does not designate women [manuscript adds "or minors"] or slaves as legal guardians at the inception [of the guardianship]; however, if [the orphans'] fathers designated these during his lifetime, [the court must] appoint them as legal guardians [after the father dies].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tosefta Terumot

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, [with respect to] orphans that were supported at the place of a landowner, or that were supported by their fathers [even though their fathers were not made their legal guardian (אפוטרופוס), see Minchat Yitzchak], or that were supported by the Beit Din, [those that support them] tithe [the produce that the orphans eat] and feed them for the sake of tikkun olam (the betterment of the world). And in the same way, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, an orphan who is a Levite that was raised at the place of a landowner, [separates] tithes (מעשר not מעשה) and feeds him for the sake of tikkun olam. If [the orphan] was learning [a craft] at the place of a Levite or a Kohen or a poor person, behold, he should feed him out of that which is his (i.e., the landowner's). If he was the son of his wife who is a Kohen or Levite or poor person, behold, he feeds him from his (i.e., the orphan's) own portion.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse