Raba answered: In each case (the ruling follows] from the context.1 R. Judah reasons: Concerning a murderer it is written, As when a man goeth into a wood with his neighbour, etc.,2 implying whoever can go into a 'wood', and a blind person too can enter a wood. Now, should you say that 'seeing him not' teaches the inclusion of the blind, that could be deduced from 'a wood'. Hence 'seeing him not' must exclude the blind. But R. Meir maintains: It is written, [Whoso killeth his neighbour] without knowing,3 [which implies] whoever that can know, whereas a blind person cannot know. Now, should you say that 'seeing him not' excludes the blind, that would follow from, 'without knowing'. Consequently, 'seeing him not' must teach the inclusion of the blind.4
MISHNAH. IF A MAN IS UNDER A VOW THAT HIS SON-INLAW SHALL NOT BENEFIT FROM HIM,5 AND HE DESIRES TO GIVE MONEY TO HIS DAUGHTER, HE MUST SAY TO HER, 'THIS MONEY IS GIVEN TO YOU AS A GIFT, PROVIDING THAT YOUR HUSBAND HAS NO RIGHTS THEREIN, (FOR ONLY THAT IS YOURS] WHICH YOU MAY PUT TO YOUR PERSONAL USE.'6
GEMARA. Rab said: We learnt this only if he says to her, 'WHICH YOU MAY PUT TO YOUR PERSONAL USE.' But if he says, 'Do what you please,' the husband acquires it.7 Samuel said: Even if he declares, 'Do what you please,' the husband has no rights therein. R. Zera demurred to this:
Original footnotes renumbered.
- So cur. edd. Ran reads: In this case (sc. of a murderer) the ruling follows from the context.
- Deut. XIX, 5.
- Ibid. 4; i.e., by throwing a stone without knowing where it will fall.
- Thus their dispute does not centre on the question whether partial knowledge is as full knowledge or not, and hence has no bearing on our Mishnah.
- The text is uncertain.
- Lit., 'put into your mouth.'
- For since she is able to put it to any use, her rights are automatically transferred to her husband.
With whom does this ruling of Rab agree? With R. Meir, who said: The hand of a woman is as the hand of her husband.1 But the following contradicts it: How is a partnership formed in respect of an alley way?2 One [of the residents] places there a barrel [of wine] and declares, 'This belongs to all the residents of the alley way': and he transfers ownership to them through his Hebrew slave, male or female, his adult son or daughter, or his wife.3 But if you say, her husband acquires it, the 'erub4 has not left the husband's possession?5 — Raba replied: Although R. Meir said, The hand of a woman is as the hand of her husband, he agrees in respect to 'partnership',6 that since his object is to transfer it to others, she can acquire it from her husband. Rabina objected before R. Ashi: The following can acquire it on their behalf: his adult son or daughter, his Hebrew slave, male or female. But the following can not acquire it on their behalf: his son or daughter, if minors, his Canaanite slave, male or female, and his wife!7 — But, said R. Ashi, the Mishnah8 holds good [only] when she possesses a court in that alley way,9 so that since she can acquire part ownership [in the 'erub] for herself,10 she can also acquire it on behalf of others.
MISHNAH. BUT EVERY VOW OF A WIDOW AND OF HER THAT IS DIVORCED … SHALL STAND AGAINST HER.11 HOW SO? IF SHE DECLARED, BEHOLD, I WILL BE A NAZIRITE AFTER THIRTY DAYS', EVEN IF SHE MARRIED WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS, HE CANNOT ANNUL IT.
Original footnotes renumbered.
- I.e., she has no independent rights, v. Kid. 23b.
- By a legal fiction a partnership was formed by all the Jewish residents of an alley in respect thereto, that it might rank as a private domain, and carrying therein be permitted on the Sabbath. This was effected by placing in it some food of which all the residents became joint-owners, v. 'Er. 73b.
- Who accept it from him on behalf of the residents.
- Lit., 'mixture', 'combination', the technical terms for the thing deposited (v. Glos.).
- And that law is contained in an anonymous Mishnah, the author of which is R. Meir.
- Shittuf. The technical term for the partnership created for the purposes of the Sabbath law.
- The reference is the same as above. This shews that the wife, having no powers of acquisition apart from her husband, cannot be the medium of transference, and thus contradicts the Mishnah just quoted. This difficulty arises in any case, but Rabina adduces it here to refute the distinction posited by Raba.
- In 'Er.
- E.g., if she had inherited it before marriage, and the groom had written a deed renouncing all rights therein.
- Because that is in the husband's own interest, for carrying is forbidden in the alley unless every resident — and the wife ranks as one in her own rights, since she possesses a court — is part owner of the 'erub, whereas the other teaching (a Baraitha) refers to the case where she has no court of her own.
- Num. XXX, 10.