משנה: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג לא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג אִם מֵתוּ מֵתוּ לָהּ וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתָן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אִם מֵתוּ מֵתוּ לוֹ וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא חַייָב בָּאַחֵרָיוֹתָן אֵילּוּ יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. MISHNAH: If a widow [married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah [married] to a simple priest, brought him slaves as paraphernalia or as mortmain1Mortmain (“inalienable property”, ‘iron flock’, in German law eisern Vieh) whose value was determined in the marriage contract (ketubah) as dos aestimata, upon marriage became the husband’s property. At the termination of the marriage their value was due back to the wife.
Paraphernalia [from the Greek παράφερνα, Middle Latin paraphernalia(bona), as a legal term relevant here “bride’s goods beyond her dowry,” equivalent to Late Latin parapherna “bride’s property.” (For the etymology of מְלוֹג, Ashkenazic מְלוּג, cf. Note 45, also Chapter 4, Note 86). These goods are dos non aestimata, property not entered in the marriage contract, of which the husband has administration for the duration of the marriage. He must maintain the value of this property and is compensated by receiving its usufruct but has no property rights.
Since in any irregular union (such as described in the Mishnah) the wife of a Cohen is barred from all sanctified food, her property is barred with her. But the property of a Cohen is entitled to share in his sanctified food (Lev.22:11).
The expression צאן ברזל “iron flock” for “inalienable, private property” may also be compared to Latin peculium“private property” which is derived from pecus, -oris “cattle” but used as a legal term for property in general.: The slaves of separate property may not eat heave2And all other sanctified food that may be eaten outside the Temple precinct., the slaves of mortmain may eat heave. These are slaves of paraphernalia: If they died, they died as her property, if they increased, they increased as her property. Even though he is responsible for their upkeep, they may not eat heave. These are slaves of mortmain: If they died, they died as his property, if they increased, they increased as his property. Since he guarantees them, they may eat heave.
הלכה: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל כול׳. מְנַיִין לְכֹהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְקָנָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְייַן כַּסְפּוֹ וגו׳. מְנַיִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁקָּֽנְתָה עֲבָדִים וַעֲבָדֶיהָ עֲבָדִים שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְייַן כַּסְפּוֹ. אַף קִנְייָנוֹ שֶׁקָּנָה קִנְייָן אוֹכֵל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲבָל בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת [שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא] לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן קִנְייָנוֹ הוּא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. עֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא רְשׁוּת לְרַבּוֹ בָּהֶן וּמֵת. כָּל־הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. וְהָכָא לֹא קִנְייָן קִנְייָנוֹ הוּא. HALAKHAH: “A widow [married] to a High Ptiest,” etc. From where that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition4Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.,” etc. From where that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves [bought] slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat5Note the incongruous plural in Lev. 22:11. Up to here the text is a baraita; Babli 66a, Sifra Emor Parasha5(1).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “They shall eat4Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.”, they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property6Anything a slave buys is his owner’s property. Usually, what he otherwise acquires is also his owner’s property. But if he received something as a gift (e. g., money to buy his freedom) with the express stipulation that his master shall have no claim to it, then it is the slave’s direct property. If the slave received other slaves as such a gift, these are not the master’s acquisition and are barred from eating sanctified food.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them7They are ownerless. Since a slave can become free only by an act of manumission, these slaves are not freed by the death of their master and can be taken by anybody.. In that case, [that slave] is not his property’s property8The slave’s slave is not the slave’s master’s property..
רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. הָרָאוּי לוֹכַל מַאֲכִיל וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עֶבֶד עָרֵל שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים. אִין תֵּימַר קְנָס. אֵין כָּאן קְנָס. וְאִין תֵּימַר הָרָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל מַאֲכִיל. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat9Cf. Note 4. They read יאכלו as יַאֲכִלוּ. In Sifra Emor Parashah 5(6), this is a tannaitic argument of R. Simeon.. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat10Since the divorcee becomes desecrated by her marriage to any priest, she never can herself eat heave nor cause her slaves to eat.. Rebbi Joḥanan says, because of a fine11By qiddushin, the divorcee was acquired by the priest. Her property was acquired with her. Therefore, by biblical standards her slaves could eat but it is a traditional fine imposed on irregular marriages that they should not confer the same advantages as a regular one.. What is the difference between them? If an uncircumcised slave12He cannot eat sanctified food (Ex. 12:48); the rules are spelled out in Halakhah 8:1. buys slaves. If you say, it is a fine, here there is no fine13On condition that the slave remain uncircumcised in a way accepted in Jewish law.. If you say the one who may eat enables to eat, this one, since he is not able to eat, cannot enable to eat.
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. בְּעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרזֶל פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה מִכּוֹחוֹ וְאַתְּ אָֽמְרָת אָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג הֲרֵי הֵן אוֹכְלִין תְּרוּמָה מִכּוֹחוֹ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. מִשֶּׁלָּךְ נָֽתְנוּ לָךְ. בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. וְהֵן אָֽמְרוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל. וְהֵן אָֽמְרוּ. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְדֵין. מַתְניתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר. עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן לָאִשָּׁה אֲבָל לֹא לָאִישׁ. וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן לָאִישׁ אֲבָל לֹא לָאִשָּׁה. מַה עֲבַד לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קַל הוּא בְשִׁחְרוּר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׂה עַבְדוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי. מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. שִׁיחְרְרוֹ מְשׁוּחְרָר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֶחָד עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְאֶחָד עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אֵינָן בְּיוֹם וְיוֹמַיִים וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן בֵּין לָאִישׁ בֵּין לָאִשָּׁה. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְעוֹלָם אוֹ בְשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָּׁעָה. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְעוֹלָם וְלֹא מְכָרָן לְשָׁעָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְכוּרִין. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָׁעָה אֲבָל לֹא מְכָרָן לְעוֹלָם. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָעוֹשֶׂה שָׂדֶהוּ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ עַל חוֹבוֹ. מְכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְכוּרָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָחוּשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. לָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא עָֽלְתָ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁתְּהֵא אִשָּׁה מְחַזֶּרֶת עַל בָּתֵּי דִינִים. אָֽמְרוּ. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כְּרַבָּנִן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הֲוֵי בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָׁעָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אֲבָל אִם מְכָרָן לְעוֹלָם דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold16Tosaphot in Giṭṭin 41a, s. v. אשה, are of the opinion that the Babli concurs.. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold17If the wife is not from a priestly family, then her slaves can eat only because he made her his wife. He cannot sell them since nobody can sell what is not his; Tosephta 9:1.. From your own they18The developers of rabbinic doctrine. gave to you. It would be logical that one19A paraphernalia slave who is not property of a Cohen. should not eat heave. But they said that he eats20As if he were the property of a Cohen., and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye”21If a slave loses a body part through his owner’s fault, he gains his freedom (Ex. 21:26). Paraphernalia slaves are property of the wife but not the husband. This part of the baraita is quoted in the Babli. Baba Qama 89a. from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves22This baraita holds that they are the husband’s property; therefore, he must have the absolute power to sell them, against R. Joḥanan. are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit23The Babli agrees without a dissenting opinion., as we have stated24Quoted as tannaitic text also in Giṭṭin 4:4 (fol. 45b), as amoraic in the Babli, Baba Qama 11b. 33b; Baba Meṣi‘a 44b.: If somebody mortgages25Greek ὑποθήκη “mortgage”. a slave and later sold him, he is not sold26The creditor can foreclose on the slave in the hands of the buyer.; if he freed him, he is freed27The creditor has to sue the borrower for damages; he cannot put his hand on the ex-slave.. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days”28Ex. 21:20. The exemption for the owner who hits his slave which provided that he is not prosecutable if the slave survives for two days is not available to either wife or husband. This baraita defines “owner” as a person who has both the right to and disposition of his property.
This text is also in the Babli Baba Qama 89b. and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time29“Selling temporarily” is not selling the property but leasing the use of the property for a limited period.? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: 30Ševi‘it 10:1 (Notes 22–24), in a slightly different version Babli Giṭṭin41a. If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself31The buyer has to insure himself against the possibility that the creditor or the wife at the dissolution of her marriage will foreclose the property and he will have to sue the seller for restitution of the sale price.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman32Without a male protector. Then the law has to protect her. should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel33Since the wife has a lien on the mortmain slaves, the husband cannot alienate them without her consent, just as he cannot alienate real estate put up as collateral for her ketubah.
Rosh (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel) in his commentary on this Yerushalmi (Yebamot 7 #1) holds that the husband is prevented even from leasing the property without his wife’s consent. Rif (R. Isaac Fasi), Giṭṭin #472 holds that the husband may not sell but may lease for a limited time.. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.
ווְלַד בְּהֵמַת מְלוֹג לְבַעַל. װְלַד שִׁפְחַת מְלוֹג לָאִשָּׁה. חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר. װְלַד בְּהֵמַת מְלוֹג כִּװְלַד שִׁפְחַת מְלוֹג. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר לַחֲבֵרָייָא. הֲווֹן יָֽדְעִין דּוּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. רַב כְּרַבָּנִן וּשְׁמוּאֵל כַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מָתִיב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר מִשֶּׁלָּאִשָּׁה הֵן. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִטּוֹל הַבְּכוֹר פִּי שְׁנַיִם. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהִכְנִיסָתָן קְטַנִּים וְגָֽדְלוּ הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה הֵן. וְאַתְּ מוֹדֶה לִי שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. 34In the Babli, Ketubot 79b, this is a baraita. Since first generation Amoraim disagree over the rule, it seems that the Yerushalmi also presents this as a baraita. The offspring of a paraphernalia animal belongs to the husband, that of a paraphernalia slave girl belongs to the wife. Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua said, the offspring of a paraphernalia animal is like that of a paraphernalia slave girl35In the Babli, the formulation is: “the offspring of a paraphernalia slave girl is like that of a paraphernalia animal.” In the Babli, the child of the slave girl belongs to the husband; in the Yerushalmi, everything belongs to the wife.
In the Babli, the straight argument of Ḥanania is that the husband has the usufruct. In the Babli, the argument of the rabbis is that if the slave girl dies, the wife is left with nothing but if an animal dies, she is left with the value of the hide. There is no reason to transfer the argument of the Babli to the Yerushalmi. From the next paragraph it seems rather that the rabbis hold that the wife’s slaves belong to her father’s household and have to be treated as family heirlooms, and any increase in their number is increase of the value of the stock (which is the wife’s), not yield (which is the husband’s).. Rebbi Eleazar said to the colleagues, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua. Rav and Samuel, Rav follows the rabbis, but Samuel follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua36In the Babli (Note 34) only Samuel’s opinion (opposite in meaning to his position here) is noted, without opposition.. Samuel objected to Rav: According to you who says, they belong to the wife, should the first-born not take a double portion37The first-born takes a double portion of the inheritance (Deut. 21:17, reading פי שנים as “double”, not “2/3”.) However, the first-born takes a double portion only from what is available at the father’s death. For example, property leased to others is available, debts collectable are not available (since the payor may default. Most modern authorities hold that sovereign debt is available.) In the Babli, Baba Batra 123b, an anonymous baraita is quoted which in a different form is a Tosephta, Bekhorot 6:16, that the first-born gets a double interest in the calf of a cow who was pregnant at the father’s death. This must mean that the calf is increase of the value of the stock, of which the first-born gets adouble portion, not yield after the father’s death, of which he would get only a simple portion. It does not make any sense that Rav denies the young of the animal to the wife when he gives the first-born a double portion.? Think of it, if she brought them when they were small and they grew up, are they not the wife’s, and you agree with me that the first-born takes a double portion38Here everybody agrees that this represents increase in the stock, not yield.!
תַּנֵּי הִכְנִיסָתָן יְלָדִים נוֹטְלָתָן נְעָרִים. הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים. הָיָה אֶחָד יָפֶה כִכְתוּבָּתָהּ נוֹטְלָתוֹ בִכְתוּבָּתָהּ. הָיָה אֶחָד וּמֶחֱצָה יָפֶה כִכְתוּבָּתָהּ רַב הוּנָא וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. חַד אָמַר. הוּא נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלוֹ. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלָתוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. אֲפִילוּ הָיָה יָפֶה אֶחָד וּמֶחֱצָה בִכְתוּבָּתָהּ הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא עָלַת עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ אֲחֵרִים בְּכֵלֶיהָ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. הִכְנִיסָתָן בְּדָמִים נוֹטְלָתָן בְּדָמִים. It was stated39Tosephta 9:1. The Tosephta deals with mortmain slaves and states that the wife has the right at the dissolution of the marriage to take the offspring of her slaves, even if their value today is greater than the value at which they were recorded in the marriage contract. She will have to indemnify her ex-husband for the difference in value but, since they are family heirlooms, he has no right to retain them against her will. This right extends to inanimate objects.: If she brought them when they were small, she takes them when they are lads. If she brought him two vessels40As mortmain property.. If one of them was worth the value of her marriage contract, she takes it for her marriage contract41Ketubah in this connection denotes the entire value of the marriage contract, the statutory ketubah sum, the value of mortmain property, and the additional fee he agreed to pay in case of a dissolution of the marriage. For this reason the translation does not simply state “ketubah”. We are dealing with a state of rampant inflation, as it was recorded during the military anarchy of the Roman empire, where the sum stated in the contract would have lost most of its buying power over time.. If one and a half was the value of her marriage contract, [disagreement of] Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob. One of them said, he pays for the second vessel and takes it; the other one says, she pays for the second vessel and takes it42They are not mentioned in the Babli, 66b/67a. There, Rav Jehudah holds that the wife always has the right to take her dowry back and pay the difference but Rebbi Ammi (Immi) holds that it is the husband’s choice what to give her, in contrast to the position he is quoted for in the Yerushalmi. In the final decision after a lenghty discussion, the Babli sides with the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said before Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa43The colleague of R. Immi in their separate place of study in Tiberias.: Even if one was worth one and a half times the value of her marriage contract, she pays for the second vessel and takes it, because it is unthinkable that others should use her vessels. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: A baraita says so: If she brought them for their monetary value, she takes them for their monetary value44Tosephta 9:1. Therefore, in times of inflation it is preferable to specify the property, not the monetary value, in marriage contracts..
רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַהוּ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. מְלִיג. מְלִיג. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked Rebbi Mana: What is the etymology of “mĕlōg slaves”? He said to him, as you say: strip off, strip off45In Gen. rabba 45(2) the etymology appears in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish and it is explained that Hagar was a paraphernalia personal slave of Sarah whom Abraham had to feed but could not get services from. In the interpretation of Arukh, the simile here is the other way: since the husband has the usufruct of the property he is like somebody who strips the feathers off a chicken but cannot eat the meat.
The root מלג means “strip off (feathers, hair, etc.)” in Syriac. Ostensibly the word is Accadic mulūgu“paraphernalia”, which appears in the same meaning as an Eastern Semitic loanword mlg in Ugaritic (Canaanite); languages long dead by Talmudic times.
The relation between Arabic ملج מַלַגַ “to drink from the breast (baby)”, to Greek ἀμέλγω, Latin mulgeo, “to milk”, is not clear. But possibly the notion of “milking” associated with property of one kind contrasted with the notion of “flock” associated with another goes back to ancient images from times when property mainly consisted of livestock.!
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַמְּקַבֵּל צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי. הַװְלָדוֹת [פְּטוּרִין]. װְלָדֵי װְלָדוֹת חַייָבִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. הַװְלָדוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹן. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. הַװְלָדוֹת לַשֵּׁינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹן הַװְלָדוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹן. בְּרָם הָכָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ לַשֵּׁינִי הַװְלָדוֹת לַשֵּׁינִי. 46Mishnah Bekhorot 2:4. It is not totally clear what mortmain conditions for a shepherd are; cf. the extensive discussion in S. Lieberman, תוספתא כפשוטה בבא קמא-בבא מציעא New York 1988, pp 217–219.
The Yerushalmi Baba Meṣi‘a 5:7, quoting Tosephta Bekhorot 5:1,14, explains: “What is a mortmain flock? If [the owner] had 100 sheep and said [to the shepherd]: these are stipulated to be worth 100 gold denars, their lambs, their milk, and their shearings are yours, if they die, you are responsible, and for each one you give me a tetradrachma at the end, it is forbidden.” It is forbidden to the shepherd to receive a flock under these conditions from a Jew since most owners will structure the contract so they will make money, which turns the final payment (which accompanies the return of the flock to the owner) into a money-making proposition which looks like interest since the shepherd pays for the use of the flock which he received on credit. It is forbidden to pay interest to Jews. The same kind of contract is permitted with Gentiles. There, we have stated: “If somebody receives [a flock] under mortmain conditions from a Gentile, the young are free, the young’s young are obligated.”47The parallel text is in Baba Meṣi‘a 5:7 (fol. 10b). Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There you say, the young are for the first, and here you say, the young are for the second48In the Mishnah in Bekhorot, lambs are exempt because they belong to the Gentile even though the entire flock is the shepherd’s responsibility whereas the Mishnah here states that mortmain lambs belong to the husband who also carries the same responsibility as the shepherd.! Rebbi Yosa said, there, because the property rights are with the first, the young belong to the first. But here, because the property rights are with the second, the young belong to the second49The contract of the shepherd specifies that the flock must be returned intact at a specified time; the interest of the Gentile is there all the time. In the case of marriage, if the wife predeceases her husband, he inherits from her; his obligation to return the dowry is conditional..