underaged

Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose. Is there not written: The two men who have the lawsuit shall stand before the Eternal? Now men, is not two the minimum of “men”? If so, why does it say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,… So we find that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against somebody who is not a widow. Then why does the verse say two? It is free to be combined and one may infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a (judge) [witness]; consequently a woman may not be a (witness) [judge].

Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose. Is there not written: The two men who have the lawsuit shall stand before the Eternal? Now men, is not two the minimum of “men”? If so, why does it say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,… So we find that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against somebody who is not a widow. Then why does the verse say two? It is free to be combined and one may infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a (judge) [witness]; consequently a woman may not be a (witness) [judge].

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Yose. It is said here two,[by the mouth of two witnesses], and it is said there two, two men remained in the camp. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. Then why is it said (two) [and the two men shall stand]? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; [one is silent while the other talks], one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one the judge is friendly, to the other he is unfriendly, lets one sit and the other stand. [They said in the name of Rebbi Ismael, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.]

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Yose. It is said here two,[by the mouth of two witnesses], and it is said there two, two men remained in the camp. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. Then why is it said (two) [and the two men shall stand]? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; [one is silent while the other talks], one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one the judge is friendly, to the other he is unfriendly, lets one sit and the other stand. [They said in the name of Rebbi Ismael, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.]

MISHNAH: If somebody was married to two underage orphan girls and died, intercourse or ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. The same holds for two deaf-mutes. An underaged girl and a deaf-mute: Intercourse of neither of them frees her co-wife.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

MISHNAH: If a bull of a sane person gored the bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person, he is liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored the bull of a sane person, he is not liable. If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian. If the deaf-mute became hearing, the insane normal, the underaged of age, it returns to be tame, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. A bull of the stadion is not to be killed since it is said: “if it gores,” not that others train it to gore.

HALAKHAH: “If a bull of a sane person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The bull of a deaf-mute, the bull of an insane, the bull of an underaged.

Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore. It was stated: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable, after judgment was rendered he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable.”

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can one argue for him an argument which does not apply to him? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift.

It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.

It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: One divides for the underaged because of the adults. But if the underaged found something additional and protested? Rebbi Abbahu said, they have to swear for them. Rebbi Mana said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except in this case. The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya says, without contract brothers are co-owners up to three generations. Rebbi [Yose] bar Abun said, also Rav Hamnuna did instruct in this sense.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: One divides for the underaged because of the adults. But if the underaged found something additional and protested? Rebbi Abbahu said, they have to swear for them. Rebbi Mana said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except in this case. The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya says, without contract brothers are co-owners up to three generations. Rebbi [Yose] bar Abun said, also Rav Hamnuna did instruct in this sense.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yasa. Is there not written: The two men shall stand? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left. Since there one speaks of men but not women, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge and may not be a witness.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yose. Is there not written: The two men shall stand? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against a married woman. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left. Since there one speaks of men but not women nor underaged, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge; consequently a woman may not be a witness.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yose. Is there not written: The two men shall stand? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against a married woman. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left. Since there one speaks of men but not women nor underaged, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge; consequently a woman may not be a witness.