תלמוד על בבא מציעא 1:1

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.

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear¹²Following the principle that the defendant in a suit for money can by biblical law only be forced to swear if he admits that part of the claim is justified; based on Ex. 22:8, where the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה “if he agrees that this is so.” In Baba Meṣi‘a(1:1, 7d 1. 24; Babli 3a) the reason of the older R. Ḥiyya is “that what he admits himself should not have greater force than the testimony of witnesses.”. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there¹³Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:1. If two people come to court, each grabs half of a toga and asserts ownership of the entire piece because he found it, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it (so the court should not force obvious perjury) and takes half of the piece since “it is money in dispute”.: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴The student of the older R. Ḥiyya’s son Ḥizqiah. that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me!¹⁵Baba Meṣ‘ia 1:1, 7d 1. 33; Babli 3a; both in the name of R. Joḥanan. Rabbinic institutions do not imply anything for biblical law. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle¹⁶The older R. Ḥiyya, half-brother to both of Rav’s parents. agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following17: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed¹⁸In Baba Batra 10:2 (by the editorial team of Neziqin, different from the editors of the rest of the Yerushalmi) and the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a4b, the “Sages” are identified as R. Aqiba. In the Babli, Ben Azzai is replaced by R. Simeon ben Eleazar, 2 generations younger than Ben Azzai and R. Aqiba. In both sources, the reason of R. Aqiba is given that the borrower, in agreeing to pay more than he could be forced to by the existing document, is like a person returning what the other had lost, not directly answering the lender’s claim.. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim¹⁹In our Mishnah, why should the divorcing husband not be forced to swear that he does not have to pay 200 zuz even if there are no witnesses, since he agrees that he owes 100? {The heirs, not being able to swear, would have to pay.}? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina²⁰Since this amount is not in dispute, the husband cannot be considered as agreeing to part of the claim; no oath is due.. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant²¹This is the standard formulation, Babli Baba Qama 46b..

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another person came and grabbed it from before them, the one who grabbed is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, they did not say that our four cubits should acquire it for us.