Yevamot 132

הדין עמה ור' אמי אמר הדין עמו

Judgment is to be given in her favour;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her own objects must be returned to her. ');">¹</span> and R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour. 'Rab Judah said: Judgment is to be given in her favour because [they represent] assets of her paternal property [which] belong to her. R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour' for, as the Master said, [THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES:] IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES — ARE A PROFIT TO HIM; [AND] SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i> [they are therefore obviously regarded as his own].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Bomberg ed. where an amplified version of this text is given including the clause enclosed here in square brackets. ');">²</span> R. Safra said: Was it stated, 'and they belong to him? The statements surely. only reads, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! In fact, then, they may not belong to him at all. But [is it a fact that] those for whom he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest. ');">³</span>

רב יהודה אמר הדין עמה משום שבח בית אביה דידה הוי ר' אמי אמר הדין עמו כיון דאמר מר אם מתו מתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו הואיל וחייב באחריותן יאכלו אמר רב ספרא מי קתני והן שלו הואיל וחייב באחריותן קתני ולעולם לאו דידיה נינהו

is responsible invariably eat <i>terumah</i>? Surely we learned: An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest may feed her on vetches of <i>terumah</i>. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, though it is his duty to supply her with food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And though he is also responsible for the loss, or theft of the animal. ');">⁴</span> must not feed her on vetches of <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'A.Z. 15a; which shews that even an animal for which a priest is responsible (v. supra n. 2) is not permitted to eat terumah. How, then, could it be said, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT? ');">⁵</span> — How could you understand it thus! Granted that he is liable for theft or loss, is he also liable for accidents, emaciation or reduction In value!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. Such a restricted responsibility, therefore, is incomplete and does not confer the right to terumah. ');">⁶</span>

וכל היכא דחייב באחריותן אכלי בתרומה והתנן ישראל ששכר פרה מכהן הרי זה יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה כהן ששכר פרה מישראל אע"פ שמזונותיה עליו לא יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה

[The case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of zon barzel. ');">⁷</span> in our Mishnah], surely, can only be compared to that in the final clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Baraitha cited. ');">⁸</span> An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest, guaranteeing him its appraised value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if an Israelite appraised a cow from'. I.e., he undertook to make good to the owner any loss in the value of the animal between the date of hire and the date of the return. ');">⁹</span>

ותסברא נהי נמי דמחייב בגנבה ואבדה באונסיה בכחשה ובנפחת דמיה מי מיחייב הא לא דמיא אלא לסיפא ישראל ששם פרה מכהן לא יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה אבל כהן ששם פרה מישראל יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה

may not feed it on vetches of <i>terumah</i>. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, guaranteeing him its appraised value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if an Israelite appraised a cow from'. I.e., he undertook to make good to the owner any loss in the value of the animal between the date of hire and the date of the return. ');">⁹</span> may feed it on vetches of <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal being regarded as the priest's own property, in respect of its feeding on terumah, owing to his responsibility for the return of its full value. Thus it follows that, though an animal would be returned in body, should its value on the day of its return be equal to that of its appraised value, it is nevertheless, owing to the priest's complete responsibility, deemed to be the priest's property so long as it remains in his possession; so also in the case of zon barzel slaves: though they would ultimately be returned to the woman in body, they are regarded, in respect of terumah, as the property of the priest, who accepted full responsibility for them, so long as they remain with him. ');">¹⁰</span> Rabbah and R. Joseph were sitting at their studies at the conclusion of R. Nahman's school session, and in the course of their sitting they made the following statement: [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah; and [another Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi. ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Ammi': Zon barzel slaves procure their freedom when the man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband, who is regarded, in agreement with R. Ammi, as the owner of the slaves. ');">¹¹</span>

יתיב רבה ורב יוסף בשילהי פרקיה דרב נחמן ויתבי וקאמרי תניא כותיה דרב יהודה ותניא כותיה דרבי אמי תניא כותיה דר' אמי עבדי צאן ברזל יוצאין בשן ועין לאיש אבל לא לאשה

but not when the woman [struck out] a tooth or an eye.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXI, 26. ');">¹²</span> ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah': If a wife brought in to her husband appraised goods,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the husband includes in her kethubah, and undertakes to return to her at their appraised value should he divorce her or die. ');">¹³</span> the husband may not sell them even if it is his desire to do so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is his duty to keep them intact so that the objects themselves, not merely their value, may be returned to the woman in due course. ');">¹⁴</span>

תניא כותיה דרב יהודה המכנסת שום לבעלה אם רצה הבעל למכור לא ימכור ולא עוד אלא אפילו הכניס לה שום משלו אם רצה הבעל למכור לא ימכור מכרו שניהם לפרנסה זה היה מעשה לפני רשב"ג ואמר הבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות

Furthermore, even if he brought in to her appraised goods of his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Included them in the amount of her kethubah. ');">¹⁵</span> he may not sell them even if he desired to do so. If either<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'both'. V. Rashi a.l. ');">¹⁶</span> of them sold [any of the appraised goods] for their maintenance. Such an incident was once dealt with by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled that the husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even he. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרב יהודה א"ל רבא לרב נחמן והתניא כותיה דר' אמי אע"ג דתניא כותיה דר' אמי מסתברא טעמא דרב יהודה משום שבח בית אביה

may seize them from the buyers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the woman died; the sale being deemed invalid. That the woman, when her husband dies or divorces her, may seize such property, in the event of a sale by him, is obvious. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wanting in MSS. which read 'R. Nahman stated'. ');">¹⁹</span> stated in the name of R. Nahman: The law is in agreement with Rab Judah. Said Raba to R. Nahman: But surely [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi! Although [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi, Rab Judah's view is more logical, since any asset of a woman's paternal property [should rightly belong to her].

ההיא איתתא דעיילה ליה לגברא איצטלא דמילתא בכתובתה שכיב שקלוה יתמי ופרסוה אמיתנא

A woman once brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In her dowry, as zon barzel. ');">²⁰</span> in to her husband a robe of fine wool [which was appraised and included] in her <i>kethubah</i>. When the man died it was taken by the orphans and spread over the corpse. Raba ruled that the corpse had acquired it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The shroud, wraps. or any article of dress that has covered the body of a corpse is deemed to be the dead man's property, and no living person may derive any benefit from it. V. Sanh. 47b. ');">²¹</span> Said Nanai son of R. Joseph son of Raba to R. Kahana: But, surely, Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 7. ');">²²</span>

אמר רבא קנייה מיתנא אמר ליה נאנאי בריה דרב יוסף בריה דרבא לרב כהנא והאמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרב יהודה אמר ליה מי לא מודה רב יהודה דמחוסר גוביינא וכיון דמחוסר גוביינא ברשותיה קאי

stated in the name of R. Nahman that the law is in agreement with Rab Judah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That zon barzel property, such as the robe was, belongs to the wife'! ');">²³</span> The other replied: Does not Rab Judah admit that the robe had still to be collected [by the wife]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course he does. The robe does not come into the actual possession of the woman until her claim is proved and the robe surrendered to her by the husband or his heirs. ');">²⁴</span> Since it had still to be collected it remained in the husband's possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The orphans were, therefore, entitled to use it as part of the dead man's shroud. The woman's claim upon it is undoubtedly valid, but has not any greater force than that of the holder of a mortgage. V. infra note 3. ');">²⁵</span>

רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ

[In this ruling] Raba acted in accordance with his view [elsewhere expressed]. For Raba stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 46a q.v. for notes. V. also Keth. 59b, Git. 40b, B.K. 89b. ');">²⁶</span> Consecration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 46a q.v. for notes. V. also Keth. 59b, Git. 40b, B.K. 89b. ');">²⁶</span> leavened food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 46a q.v. for notes. V. also Keth. 59b, Git. 40b, B.K. 89b. ');">²⁶</span> and