Jerusalem Gittin

Mishnah

1 Someone who brings a bill of divorce from overseas must be able to say: “It was written and signed before me.” Rabban Gamliel says, even someone who brings from Reqam and Ḥeger. Rabbi Eliezer says, even from Kefar Ludim to Lydda. But the Sages say that the only one who has to be able to say that it was written and signed before him is one who brings from overseas or takes one overseas. One who brings from one province to another overseas has to say that it was written and signed before him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even from one district to the next.

Halakhah

“Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas, would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not familiar with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rabbi Yohanan said, that is a leniency so that she will not be left abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rabbi Yose said, the difficulty that you impose on her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. If the husband came and protested, his protest would be void. Rabbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty that you impose on her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if the husband came and protested, his protest would be void. This means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that perhaps he gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rabbi Abun said, he is not suspected of harming her in God’s eyes. In court, he is suspected of harming her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

If the bill of divorce contained documentation of a gift and the messenger said, it was written and signed before me, is the husband’s protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void only about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If the document of manumission contained documentation of a gift and the messenger said, it was written and signed before me, is the master’s protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void only about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If someone signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If someone signed all his property over to two people in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Immi: Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rabbi Mana did not specify. Rabbi Abin specified: Rabbi Yohanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other. But Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rabbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rabbi Yohanan: “Since testimony of two witnesses is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three witnesses it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rabbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rabbi Eleazar is not correct. For the one who says, the argument of Rabbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person. As testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For the one who says, the argument of Rabbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

Only if he says, it was written before me during the day and signed during the day. Only if he says, it was written before me especially for her and signed expressly for her. It was asked before Rabbi Yohanan: Does he have to know the names of the witnesses when they sign? He said to them, did the Gentiles Luciani sign it? And you say so? A baraita supports Rabbi Yohanan: “All bills of divorce coming from overseas are valid even if their names sound Gentile since Jews outside the Land of Israel bear Gentile names.” He said only, outside the Land. Therefore not in the Land of Israel. What about this? Rabbi Bevai in the name of Rabbi Issi: unless he writes, at a Jewish place. If there is no Jewish place, in the synagogue. If there is no synagogue, he assembles ten people there. Rabbi Abun said, it would be better to certify the signatures than to assemble ten people there. What about this? Even in a Jewish store.

If he did not say: “it was written and signed before me”? Shouldn’t an Amora have asked this question? He said to him, that is what Rabin ben Rav said: If he brought a bill of divorce, gave it to her, but did not tell her: “It was written and signed before me”? A case came before Rabbi Yohanan, who said to him, take it from her and say in front of two witnesses: “It was written and signed before me.” Does Rabbi Yohanan follow Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is not a valid bill of divorce unless he tells her when it is delivered that it is her bill of divorce? Can the position of Rabbi Yohanan be derived from Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar? Would Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that if he told her when it is delivered that it was her bill of divorce it would not be a bill of divorce? But here, even if he tells her when it is delivered that it is her bill of divorce, it is not a valid bill of divorce unless he tells her in front of two witnesses: “It was written and signed before me.” But Rabbi Yohanan might hold that a woman cannot be believed if she says, I received a bill of divorce from my husband’s agents. But we did state: “The wife herself can bring her bill of divorce.” Wouldn’t you have to worry that she might have received the bill from a representative of the husband? How should this be understood? The reasoning of Rabbi Yohanan is to make her known as a divorcee in front of two witnesses.

A case came before Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi seems to contradict itself. There, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not familiar with the fine points of bills of divorce, but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no rabbinic scholars were found outside the Land, but now that there are rabbinic scholars found outside the Land, they are competent. But did we not state, “and one who brings there”? And even if you say that no rabbinic scholars are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One rules strictly in a simple case because of the complicated case, but one does not rule leniently in the complicated case because of the simple one. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Simeon bar Abba: This ruling of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, applies after the fact. But before the act even Rabbi Joshua ben Levi agrees.

Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav, Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Abba bar Ḥana: Two who brought a bill of divorce do not have to declare: It was written before us and signed before us. Rabbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They have to. The man himself who brought the bill of divorce does not have to deliver the bill in the presence of two witnesses in order to declare her a divorcee in the presence of two. “If he gave her the bill, took it from her, and threw it into the sea or into a river. If later he says to her that it was an empty papyrus or a paid bond, he cannot be believed to disqualify her.” Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: If he cannot disqualify her, who can? He said to him, since she was declared a divorcee in the presence of two witnesses, he cannot be believed to disqualify her. If he gave her a bill of divorce which was found to be invalid, they forced him to give her a replacement. This case came before the rabbis and they declared it valid. Did we not say, he cannot be believed to disqualify her? There, the flaw was not proved. Here the flaw was proved. For example: Ḥinena, the son of Rabbi Asi, was a doctor and threw a bill of divorce to his wife. She cried. Her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus. The case came before the rabbis and they took it into account. But did not Rabbi Yasa say in Rabbi Yohanan’s name: If the designation was checked and found to be based on the testimony of women or children, the designation is invalid? There, the designation was not mentioned. But here the name “bill of divorce” was mentioned. And some want to say, if he asserted that it was a valid bill of divorce, but she cried, her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land. But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco is to acquire it for me, Rabbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rabbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rabbi Ezra asked before Rabbi Mana: If a man and his wife held on to a bill of divorce. She says, I acquired it, but he says, you did not acquire. Does this refer to the disagreement between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? Since they disagreed: If a creditor and borrower both hold on to a bond. The creditor says it is mine. I had lost it. The borrower says, it is mine because I paid it off. The document should be verified by its signatories, according to Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they should split. Rabbi Eleazar said, everything depends on who actually holds the signatures of the witnesses. Where do they disagree? When it was written lengthwise and both hold part of the signatures of the witnesses. He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion that it is not a bill of divorce if the whole document is in her hand but a thread is in his hand, for it is written: “He must deliver it into her hand,” only when the whole document is in her hand.

Rabbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Just as you hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another overseas has to say, “it was written and signed before me,” so I hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another in the Land of Israel has to say, “it was written and signed before me.” Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, it happened that one brought a bill of divorce from the harbor of Caesarea. The case came before Rabbi Abbahu who said yes, he has to say that it was written and signed before him. But is the harbor of Caesarea not part of Caesarea? Rabbi Abin said, it was from a ship that was departing, and it was stated thus: One who brings a bill of divorce from a ship is like one who brings from outside the Land and has to say that it was written and signed before him.

If there was one district which was divided into two, one does not have to say it was written and signed before me. Similarly if two were combined to form one.

Mishnah

2 Rabbi Judah says, from Reqam to the east and Reqam belongs to the east, from Ascalon to the south and Ascalon belongs to the south, from Acco to the north and Acco belongs to the north. Rabbi Meir says, Acco belongs to the Land of Israel in matters of bills of divorce.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Judah says, from Reqam to the east,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan told the people of Sepphoris: You say in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, even a person who brings a bill of divorce from Babylonia does not have to say “it was written and signed before me.” But I am saying that it is necessary, for there is a Mishnah: “Rabbi Judah says, from Reqam to the east and Reqam belongs to the east.” And even if you say that they disagree with Rabbi Judah and say that Reqam does not belong to the east, what about from Babylonia to here? Rav said, we consider ourselves as in the Land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce. But Samuel said, even from one city quarter to another. He asked him to change his opinion, when Cahana told him, what would happen to the earlier cases of women who remarried? He said to him, what do you have in your hand? He held Rabbi’s opinion as it was stated: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was neither written nor signed in his presence, she must leave her husband and incur the thirteen penalties, the words of Rabbi. But the Sages did not agree in this matter.

Everybody agrees that if the husband comes and protests, his protest is invalid. That is, if he protested after she remarried. If he protested before she remarried and then she remarried? Let us consider the following: It happened that somebody brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Ishmael. He asked him, where are you from? He answered, from Kefar Simai in the region of Acco. He said to him, then you have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence.” you do not need witnesses. After that person left, Rabbi Ilai said to him, my teacher, is not Kefar Simai in the Land of Israel, closer to Sepphoris than to Acco? He answered, since the matter was resolved in a permissive way. It stands. What does this mean: “since the matter was resolved in a permissive way. It stands”? Rabbi Zeʿira said, that if the husband came and protested, his protest would be invalid. But does a person who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel for delivery in the Land of Israel have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence”? Therefore, there can be no difference whether he protested after she remarried or before she remarried and then she remarried.

Rabbi Jacob bar Ada, Bar Athlay in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rabbi Meir in matters of bills of divorce. Rabbi Zeʿira was looking at him. He asked him, why are you looking at me? Was it not said that practice follows the lenient opinion in rabbinic matters? They thought this applied to a single opinion against a single opinion, but not a single opinion against the Sages, but here it applies even to a single opinion against the Sages.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: If one sold a slave into Acco, the slave was set free. Rabbi Ishmael, the father of Rabbi Yudan, asked: Even from Acco to Acco? This follows what Rabbi Aḥa bar Jacob said in the name of Rabbi Immi: From two actions of Rabbi we learn that Acco is partly of the Land of Israel and partly outside the Land. Rabbi was in Acco when he saw them eating clean bread. He asked them, how did you knead the dough? They said to him, a student came here and instructed us that egg water does not prepare. We are boiling eggs and use their water to knead. They thought he was talking about cooking water of eggs when he spoke only of the eggs themselves. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said, at that moment they decreed that a student may not issue rulings. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna: If a student gives instructions even according to practice, his instructions have no authority.

It was stated: A student who gave practical rulings in front of his teacher has committed a sin punishable by death. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Nadab and Abihu died only because they issued a ruling in the presence of their teacher Moses. It happened that a student gave practical rulings in front of his teacher Rabbi Eliezer. He said to his wife Imma Shalom: That student will not live out the week. He died before the week was over. His students said to him: Rabbi, you are a prophet. He said to them “I am neither a prophet nor the disciple of a prophetAmos 7:14” but I have received a tradition that any student who gives practical rulings in front of his teacher has committed a sin punishable by death. It was stated: A student is forbidden to give practical rulings during the lifetime of his teacher unless he is at least twelve mil away from him, the breadth of the camp of Israel. What is the reason? “They encamped along the Jordan from Beth Jeshimoth to Abel Shittim in the plains of MoabNumbers 33:49.” how far is this? Twelve mil. For example: Rabbi Tanḥum ben Jeremiah was in Ḥefer. They asked him and he gave practical rulings. They said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that a student may not give practical rulings during the lifetime of his teacher unless he is at least twelve mil away from him, the breadth of the camp of Israel. And your teacher Rabbi Ḥana is in Sepphoris! He said to them, may this happen to me if I knew! From that moment on he stopped issuing rulings.

Rabbi was in Acco when he saw a man on the rock. He said to him, “are you not the son of the priest X, was your father not a priest?” He said to him, “my father had high ambitions, but he married a woman unfit for him and made me ineligible for the priesthood.”

The villages in the territory of Sepphoris close to Acco, the villages in the territory of Acco close to Sepphoris, what do you do with them? Like Acco, like Sepphoris?

Mishnah

3 Someone who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel does not have to say, “It was written and signed before me.” If the document is contested, it should be confirmed by its signers. If someone brings a bill of divorce from overseas and is unable to say: “it was written and signed before me,” it should be confirmed by its signers. Bills of divorce and slaves’ bills of manumission are equal in the requirement about those who carry and bring. This is one of the respects in which bills of divorce have the same rules as bills of manumission.

Halakhah

“Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel,” etc. Who protests? Rav Ḥisda said, the husband protests. Rabbi Yose said, the buyers protest, so that she cannot recover property from them. Rabbi asked: So far, this concerns a protest which does not concern the text of the bill. A protest which concerns the text of the bill is in dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and the rabbis there. In the opinion of the rabbis there, there is no distinction between a protest concerning and one not concerning the body of the bill. A protest not concerning the text of the bill is void, a protest concerning the text of the bill is valid.

As it was stated: “If someone brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was not written and signed in his presence, he returns the bill to its place of origin, presents it to a court and has its signatures notarized. Then he does not have to say, ‘it was written and signed before me,’ but he says, ‘I am appointed as an agent by the court.’”

Mishnah

4 Any document signed by a Samaritan is invalid, except bills of divorce and bills of manumission. It happened that they brought before Rabban Gamliel at Kefar Othnay a bill of divorce whose witnesses were Samaritans and he declared it valid. All documents confirmed by a Gentile recorder’s office are valid, even if they are signed by Gentiles, except bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rabbi Simeon says, all are valid. They said it only when they were made by private individuals.

Halakhah

“Any document signed by a Samaritan is invalid,” etc. They are suspected of dishonesty about money. About money they were disqualified. They are not suspected of incest and adultery. And testimony in capital criminal cases has the same status as testimony about incest and adultery. Then even if both of them are Samaritans? There is a difference, for they are not familiar with the fine points of bills of divorce. Then even one Samaritan witness should be disqualified! Rabbi Abin said, explain it if a Jew signed last. Rabbi Yose said, that is according to the opinion that the witnesses may sign separately, not in the presence of each other. But according to the one who says that witnesses may sign only in the presence of each other, it is valid even if the Samaritan signed last.

If a bond was signed by four witnesses and it turned out that the first two were relatives or disqualified, it is valid and is confirmed by the remaining testimony. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Yasa: This follows the one who says that witnesses sign only in the presence of each other. But according to the one who says that witnesses may sign without being in the presence of each other, even if the Jew signed last it is invalid. And would it not be remote testimony? One cannot say that since Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah that disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity.

Why are Samaritans disqualified? Rabbi Yohanan said, because they are lions’ converts. But if someone converted not for Heaven’s sake and then converted for Heaven’s sake, does one not accept him? Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Because the child is a bastard if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman. But did not Rabbi Aqiba say, they are genuine converts? Because they require levirate marriage from women who are betrothed but not yet fully married and free fully married women. But do not the rabbis say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law? Because they are not familiar with the fine points in writing bills of divorce. But does not Rabban Gamliel accept their bills of divorce? Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Because they intermingled with the priests of the high places: “He chose priests from the borderline of the people1 Kings 12:31,.” Rabbi Ila said, from the “thorns” of the people, that is, from the disqualified of the people.

Rabbi Aḥa said, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. Then even if both witnesses are Samaritan? Did one not say that they are not familiar with the fine points in writing bills of divorce? But Rabbi Simeon validates their bills of divorce! Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: It turns out that Rabbi Simeon agrees with Rabbi Eleazar. Just as Rabbi Eleazar said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid, so Rabbi Simeon said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid. But then even if it was made by private individuals? This explains why Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa had to say, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. A bond was executed in Beth Shean, whose witnesses were Gentiles. Rabbi Yose says, Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree, one said it is invalid, the other said it is valid. Rabbi Abbahu explained: Rabbi Yohanan said it is invalid, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is valid. What is Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That a Jew should not lose money. But if that one would not lose money, the other would lose money! Rabbi Yudan said, it must be to avoid closing the door to borrowers, because tomorrow someone might try to borrow and be unable to do so.

Mishnah

5 If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave,” if he wants to change his mind in either case he can retract, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, only for women’s bills of divorce but not for slaves’ documents of manumission because one may confer a benefit on a person in his absence but impose a disadvantage on him only in his presence. Because he has the right to choose not to support his slave, but he has no right to choose not to support his wife. He said to them, but he disqualifies his slave for priestly offerings the same way he disqualifies his wife! They answered him, because he is his property. If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave” and dies, they must not be delivered after his death. “give this mina to Mr. X” and dies, they must deliver it after his death.

Halakhah

If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife,” etc. Elsewhere you say that “give” means “bring,” but here you say that “give” means “acquire”! So is the Mishnah: “Acquire this bill of divorce for my wife. Acquire this document of manumission for my slave.” The formulation of the Mishnah says so: “Because one may confer a benefit on a person in his absence but impose a disadvantage on a person only in his presence.” Rabbi Meir says, it is a disadvantage for either of them, but the Sages say it is a benefit for the slave but a disadvantage for the wife. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rabbi Yohanan asked: Consider this, if he was the slave of a rich person, would it not be a disadvantage for the slave? The colleagues said, Rabbi Yohanan asked: Consider this, if she was the wife of a man suffering from boils, would it not be a benefit for the woman? You have only the following: If one sells his slave without the slave’s knowledge, is the sale of the slave not valid? If one divorces his wife without her knowledge, is the divorce valid because she was acquired by him? Rabbi Abin said, he is his property but he disqualifies him for priestly offerings.

“If someone says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I will free him, he is free, he acquired.” Rabbi Inaia in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rabbi says, he acquired, but for the Sages he did not acquire. Give this document of manumission, and he died, Rabbi says, he did not acquire but the Sages say, he did acquire. One forces the heirs to fulfill the instructions of the deceased.” Rabbi Zeʿira said, they disagree if he did not specify. How should this be understood? If he said, “free him,” Rabbi will agree. If he said, “write and deliver,” the Sages will agree. But we are dealing with the case that he said “give.” Rabbi says, one who says “give” is like one who said “write and deliver,” but the Sages say, one who says “give” is like one who said “free him.”

“If someone said that all his property should be given to X, a priest, and the estate contained slaves, even if the priest said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat priestly offerings. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them,’ the heirs acquired them.” Rabbi Zeʿira said, they disagree if he did not specify. How should this be understood? If he accepted at the outset, Rabban Gamliel will agree. If he did refuse at the outset, the rabbis will agree. But we are dealing with the case that he did not specify. Rabbi says, nobody says ‘it is impossible’ unless he had accepted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible,’ his final response proves his intention at the start.

“If someone says, give this mina to X because I owe it to him, bring this mina to X for the pledge which he has from me, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so but he himself is responsible until X receives what he is owed.” Rabbi Ila said, a gift is like a debt. “Give this mina to X, bring this mina to X, give this gift document to X, if he wants to change his mind he can do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should return it to the sender, and if that one had died he should give it to the latter’s heirs.” “Acquire this mina for X, accept this mina for X, acquire this gift document for X, accept this gift document for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should deliver it to his heirs. But if he acquired after X’s death he should return it to the sender since nobody can acquire documents after his death.” “If someone says, this mina is for X, take this mina for X, this mina is to be in your hand for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so” because if someone acquires for another person it cannot be changed.

Explanation: Rabbi Dositheos ben Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yose ben Kipper went there to collect money for a colleague when they were slandered. They came and wanted to take it back from them. They answered, we already acquired it. They said, we wish for you to accept it in good faith. They answered, we are unpaid trustees. They approached Rabbi Dositheos ben Rabbi Yannai who told them, there it is, all of it. They took Rabbi Yose ben Kipper, whipped him with ropes, and took it from him. When they returned here, he went to his father and told him, look what your son did to me! He asked him, what did he do to you? He answered, if he had taken my position, they could not have taken anything from us. He asked him, why did you act in such a way? He said, I saw that they were a unanimous court, their hats were a cubit wide, they were directing blows, my brother Yose was bound and the whip rose and fell. I said, does my father have another Dositheos? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, you say that for someone who cannot give a warranty in good faith. But if someone gives a warranty in good faith, one takes from this one and gives to the other.

If someone canceled a debt to another person. Rabbi Ḥanania and Rabbi Mamal: one said the debt is canceled. The other said the debt is not canceled unless he handed over the bond.

“‘Give this mina to X,’ then he died. If the heirs want to prevent the delivery they are powerless. It goes without saying that this applies if he said, acquire for him, if he said, accept by my orders.” Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, this baraita refers to a sick person. If he is sick, does he not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him? Rabbi Mana said, I confirmed this by what Rabbi Abba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They treated verbal instructions by a sick person as if they were written and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered, he did not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him.

“‘Give this mina to Mr. X’ and he dies, they must deliver it after his death.” Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Mamal: The Mishnah refers to a sick person.

Mishnah

1 If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, “it was written before me,” but not “it was signed before me,” or “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me,” “it was written before me but signed only partially before me,” “it was partially written before me but signed completely before me,” it is invalid. If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me,” it is invalid; if two people say, “it was written before us” but only one says, “it was signed before me,” it is invalid; but Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “it was written before me” but two say, “it was signed before us,” it is valid.

Halakhah

“If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. One understands “it was written before me” but not “it was signed before me,” but “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”? Is not a bill of divorce validated by its signatures? That must follow Rabbi Judah, for Rabbi Judah invalidates forms. Following Rabbi Judah outside the Land as for one who divorces in the Land of Israel. Are there forms of bills of divorce outside the Land for divorces outside the Land? It is necessary for him to know that it is a bill of divorce and that he be appointed as an agent; he would not know that it was a bill of divorce unless it was written completely before him. Rabbi Ḥanin stated: He is permitted to go in and out.

Rabbi Yose asked: If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me,’ it is invalid.” That is, because one said, “it was written before me” and another, “it was signed before me”; this implies that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing,” it is valid. Rav Ḥisda asked: half of an institution and half as biblical decree? If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me,’ it is invalid.” That is, because one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”; this implies that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband for an hour,” it is valid.

Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Abun asked: If he said “it was written and one witness signed before me,” and two testify about the signature of the second witness. Rabbi Immi the Babylonian said, nothing can be more valid than this. Rabbi Abba did not say so but: If he said “it was written and one witness signed before me, and I am the second witness.” He is like a party interested in his testimony.

If there were four signatures and he said, “it was written and signed by two witnesses before me; I do not know anything about the other two.” That is the disagreement of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, who disagreed: If he said to ten people, sign the bill of divorce, and some signed on that day and some the next day. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid, for the remainder are only because of the condition. Rabbi Yohanan said it is invalid unless all sign on the same day.

Rabbi Immi said, where do they disagree? If the document is presented by him personally. But if it is presented by another person, even the rabbis will agree that it is valid. Rabbi Ḥananiah agrees with Rabbi Immi. Rabbi Zeʿira said, where do they disagree? If the document is presented by another person. But if it is presented by him personally, even Rabbi Judah will agree that it is invalid. Rabbi Zeʿira objected to Rabbi Immi: If the document is presented by him personally, does Rabbi Judah declare it valid even in the first case? Rabbi Immi brought his father-in-law Rabbi Jonah who stated for him: If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me,” it is invalid, but Rabbi Judah declares it valid. Rabbi Abin said, the formulation of a baraita supports Rabbi Zeʿira: In that case, Rabbi Judah declares it valid. But it is difficult following Rabbi Zeʿira: If the document is presented by another person, that is when they do not treat the messenger as two. When do they treat him as two? When he testifies to both writing and signing.

Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If it is presented by him personally. Rabbi Zeʿira was looking at him. He asked, why are you looking at me? Even if it is presented by another person. It means that Rabbi Yasa before he changed his mind followed Rabbi Immi. Rabbi Mana said, even after he changed his mind it can be explained following him. There is a difference between two witnesses to the writing and two witnesses to the signing. Signing before two witnesses is empowered, writing before two is not empowered.

Mishnah

2 If it was written during the day and signed during the day, at night and signed at night, at night and signed during the day, it is valid. During daytime and signed at night it is invalid. Rabbi Simeon declares it valid since Rabbi Simeon says that all documents which were written during the day and signed at night are invalid except for women’s bills of divorce.

Halakhah

“If it was written during the day and signed during the day,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan said, it is invalid because of the usufruct. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish told him, then you should also be suspicious of the bills of divorce brought from overseas; maybe they were written during the day and signed at night! He answered him, there the forgery is intrinsic, here it is extrinsic.

Rabbi Yohanan said, Rabbi Simeon stated this only for the night; but on the next day even Rabbi Simeon will agree. But Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no difference, whether night, or the next day, or after many days. What is the next day? Rabbi Ḥanania and Rabbi Mana, one said the next day, the other said the day after the next. The statement of Rabbi Yohanan about Rabbi Simeon is difficult! So says Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: It turns out that Rabbi Simeon agrees with Rabbi Eleazar. Just as Rabbi Eleazar said, even if there are no witnesses signed on it, it is valid, so Rabbi Simeon said, even if there are no witnesses signed on it, it is valid. Rabbi Samuel, the brother of Rabbi Berekhiah, said: Here, if he wants the document to be signed, there if she does not want the document to be signed. If he said to ten people, sign the bill of divorce, and some signed today and some the next day. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for the remainder are signing only because of the condition. Rabbi Yohanan said it is invalid unless all sign on the same day. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: There was a case that one said to ten people, sign the bill of divorce, and some signed on that day and some the next day. The case came before the rabbis who reluctantly declared it valid. This supports Rabbi Yohanan from the position of the rabbis and disagrees with Rabbi Simeon. This supports Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish from the position of Rabbi Simeon and disagrees with the rabbis.

Mishnah

3 One writes with anything, with ink, with vermilion, with gum, and with copper sulfate, and anything that leaves a record. One does not write with drinks, or fruit juice, or anything not permanent. One writes on anything, on a leaf of the olive tree, on a cow’s horn if one delivers the cow to her, on a slave’s hand if one delivers the slave to her. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, one does not write on anything living nor on food.

Halakhah

“One writes with anything,” etc. “He shall write,” not engrave. “He shall write,” not dropping points. “He shall write,” not pouring. “He shall write,” not engrave; some Tannaim state that he may even engrave. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. “He shall write,” not dropping points; Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom and Rabbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. “He shall write,” not pouring. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Easterners are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of the writing. What if one did that on the Sabbath? There, we have stated: “Writing on top of writing is not prosecutable.” Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink or vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is guilty. Rabbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis from there: He is doubly guilty, once for erasing and once for writing.

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rabbi Yohanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not have been the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rabbi Mana said, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be accepted. If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing it is valid. If somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it is invalid.

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give it to me,” is invalid. “On condition that you return it to me,” is valid. Is that not the prior case? Rabbi Yose said, after you went to court. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, “after you have acquired all the rights for which it was made, return it to me.” Similar to that: Etrogim were scarce over there. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog to his son and said to him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it on a golden cup and said, the writing is yours but the space between the lines belongs to me? Is that writing? Torn leather is valid, if it was torn it is invalid. If it was not torn by the tear of a court, but if it was torn by the tear of a court. What is the tear of a court? Between the text and the witnesses.

“On a leaf of the olive tree.” Is that not like torn? Rabbi Zeʿira said, Bina bar Shila stated: Even if he only wrote: “I X am divorcing my wife,” it is valid. This follows what Rabbi Ila said, if he detailed it is invalid, if he did not detail it is valid.

“On a cow’s horn.” The Mishnah in case he says to her, here is your bill of divorce. But if he says to her, here is your bill of divorce and the remainder is for your ketubah, her bill of divorce and the payment of her ketubah were received together. If he said to her, here is your bill of divorce and the payment of your ketubah together? Rabbi Ezra asked before Rabbi Mana: If he delivered the halter to her, what? In commercial law, the purchase is acquired, do you say so here? Or is it a difference since it is written: “he shall deliver into her hand,” until it is completely in her hand!

What is Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is not food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is detached, so everything detached. Are stalks of food in Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to him, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rabbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he wanted it to rain on an animal and the rain dropped from the animal on food. There, Rabbi Yose said “a scroll,” since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, “any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure.” Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: “a vessel.”

Mishnah

4 One does not write on anything connected to the ground. If he wrote on anything connected, detached it, signed, and delivered it, it is valid, but Rabbi Judah declares it invalid unless both writing and signing took place when it was detached. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra says, one writes neither on erased papyrus nor on diphthera because these can be falsified but the Sages declare them valid.

Halakhah

“One does not write on anything connected to the ground,” etc. This does not disagree with Rabbi Yohanan, since Rabbi Yohanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. Samuel bar Abba asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected it again, detached it, and delivered it to her; what does Rabbi Judah say? Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Abin asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected again, signed, and detached it, and delivered it to her; what do the rabbis say?

Rabbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? About bills of divorce. But for contracts even Rabbi Judah will agree. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it makes no difference; they disagree both about bills of divorce and contracts. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. It is difficult for Rabbi Eleazar: If the witnesses sign on the erasure, do the Sages declare it valid? Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Mana: The Sages follow the argument of Rabbi Eleazar, for he explains that the document is on the erasure and the witnesses on a smooth surface. Samuel said, everything is on the erasure. Doesn’t Rabbi Judah say it correctly? Rabbi Abba said, it is recognizable whether there was an erasure once or twice.

Mishnah

5 Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, or a minor. The wife may write her bill of divorce and a man his receipt, for the certification of the bill of divorce is only effected by its signatures. Everybody is acceptable to bring the bill of divorce except an insane person, a deaf-mute, a minor, a blind person, or a Gentile.

Halakhah

“Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if a sane person watches over them. Rabbi Yohanan asked: But isn’t it written: “He shall write for her,” in her name? Samuel said, it is necessary that one reserve the essential text for him. This follows what Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid.

Mishnah

6 If the minor received it and became an adult, the deaf-mute and started talking, the blind person and gained sight, the insane and became sane, the Gentile and converted, it remains invalid. But if a hearing person became deaf-mute, then regained his hearing, a seeing person became blind, then regained his vision, a sane person became insane, then regained his sanity, it is valid. This is the principle: Whenever the beginning and the end were in full competence, it is valid.

Halakhah

“If the minor received it and became an adult,” etc. A case came before Rabbi Immi that a slave brought a bill of divorce; he declared it valid. Rabbi Abba said to him, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya state that if a slave brought a bill of divorce, it would be invalid? Rabbi Assi said, if not for Rabbi Abba, we would have permitted a married woman! Even if you say that Rabbi Assi did not accept what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, didn’t he accept what the rabbis said? Let us hear from the following which Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It is reasonable that a slave could accept a bill of manumission for delivery but he should not accept a bill of divorce as we do. They thought, he formulated “he should not accept,” therefore, if he transgressed and accepted, it would be valid. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: It happened that she was a Cohen’s wife and they were not afraid of a hint of invalidity.

Mishnah

7 Even women who cannot be believed if they say that a woman’s husband died are trustworthy to bring her bill of divorce: Her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her sister-in-law, and her husband’s daughter. What is the difference between divorce and death? The writing is the proof. A woman may herself bring her own bill of divorce, but she is still required to say that it was written and signed before her.

Halakhah

“Also those women who cannot be believed if they say that a woman’s husband died,” etc. Would you believe her if it was written but not signed in her presence? If she did not say, “it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence,” would you permit her to remarry? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, that parallels what Rabbi Abun said, he is not suspected of harming her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspected of harming her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests, his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

Think of it, if she stayed in Rome ten years and remarried! Rabbi Yohanan said, the Mishnah if he said to her, you shall only be divorced by this document at place X.

Mishnah

1 Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used for divorce. In addition, if he wrote a bill to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used for divorce. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one with, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.

Halakhah

“Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife,” etc. Who is dictating? School teachers. What does “in addition” mean? There it was not written as a bill of divorce but here it was written as a bill of divorce. What does “in addition” mean? There it was written neither in his name nor in her name but here it was written in his name but not in her name. What does “in addition” mean? There it was written in his name but not in her name but here it was written in his name and in her name but it was not written for divorce from the start.

Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rabbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rabbi Yohanan implied that none are invalid since Rabbi Yohanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rabbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rabbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, isn’t it logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage takes hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce, and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rabbi Eleazar bar Yose asked before Rabbi Yose: Concerning what you say that one bill of divorce is invalid for two women, shouldn’t two bills of divorce be invalid for two women? He asked him, what is the question? He answered, didn’t we state: “If two people sent two identical bills of divorce which were intermingled, he gives both documents to both women.” There, it is a divorce for this one and a divorce for the other one; the mix-up caused the problem. But here, neither this one is divorced in her name nor is that one divorced in her name.

After it was delivered to her, couldn’t it be considered as if written in her name from the start? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abin bar Ḥiyya: It follows Rabbi Simeon, as it was stated: “If one said to a craftsman, make me two bells, one for the ground and one for an animal, make me two mats, one to sit on and one for a tent, make me two sheets, one to lie on and one for a pattern, only if he designated them in purity. Rabbi Simeon declares them pure unless he designated them for impurity.” As he said there, only if it was a utensil from the start, so he says, unless it was a divorce in her name from the start.

Rabbi Ḥanania in the name of Rabbi Abin bar Ḥiyya, this is Rabbi’s opinion. Rabbi Yohanan said, and it was stated so: “All conditions invalidate a bill of divorce, the words of Rabbi. But the Sages say, what invalidates orally invalidates in writing, and what does not invalidate orally does not invalidate in writing.” “You are permitted to marry anybody except Mr. X,” because this invalidates orally it invalidates in writing. “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz”; because this does not invalidate orally it does not invalidate in writing. Rabbi Yudan said, when do they disagree? If he rescinded his condition. But if he did not rescind his condition, even Rabbi agrees. Otherwise, we would have to say that all conditions which were stated for bills of divorce do not follow Rabbi. Rabbi Ḥinena said, there when he writes “on condition,” here if he gives “on condition.” Rabbi Ezra asked before Rabbi Mana: Does this imply that Rabbi does not recognize formulaic texts? He answered him, about whom do you ask? About Rabbi! He follows Rabbi Judah, for Rabbi Judah invalidates formulaic texts. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, everybody agrees that all conditions invalidate a bill of divorce. A case came before Rabbi Jeremiah and he acted following Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rabbi Yose said to him, does one neglect Rabbi Yohanan and act following Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered him, is Rabbi Yohanan’s instruction an instruction but Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish’s instruction not an instruction? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is not that Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan, but he understood a baraita and acted accordingly. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, not that Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish fights against Rabbi Yohanan when he disagrees with him only to extract a ruling from him. If he finds a baraita, he depends on it; if he does not find a baraita, he retracts his opinion before Rabbi Yohanan’s opinion.

Mishnah

2 If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time. For bonds, he has to leave space for the lender, the borrower, the sum, and the time. For commercial deeds, he has to leave space for the buyer, the seller, the sum, the field, and the time, because of good order. Rabbi Judah invalidates all of these. Rabbi Eleazar validates all of them except women’s bills of divorce, for it is said: “He shall write for her,” in her name.

Halakhah

“If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rabbi Yose asked Rabbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rabbi Zeʿira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rabbi Judah declares invalid! Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Zeʿira: Rabbi Judah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

What is “the good order”? Rabbi Sabbatai in the name of Ḥizqiah: Because of the good order of Jewish women, so that they are not frequently divorced. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is valid, and you say so? If it were invalid, then the explanation would be acceptable. Rabbi Abun said, for the good order of the scribe, that his livelihood be guaranteed.

Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Judah for bills of divorce and Rabbi Eleazar in commercial documents. Couldn’t we say, practice follows Rabbi Eleazar? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Eleazar for bills of divorce and Rabbi Judah in commercial documents. Couldn’t we say, practice follows Rabbi Judah? But because Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rabbi Eleazar; in order not to let you think that here it is the same, it was necessary to state that practice follows Rabbi Judah for bills of divorce and Rabbi Eleazar in commercial documents.

Mishnah

3 If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it, if he finds it on the spot it is valid, otherwise it is invalid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a box, if he recognizes it, it is valid. If somebody transports a bill of divorce from an old or sick man, he delivers it to her under the presumption that the man is alive. The daughter of an Israelite who is married to a Cohen and whose husband went overseas, may eat heave under the presumption that he is alive. If somebody sends his purification offering from overseas, it is sacrificed under the presumption that he is alive.

Halakhah

“If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it,” etc. What does “on the spot” mean? Rabbi Yohanan said, as long as nobody passed by there. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: as long as three people did not pass by there. If a Gentile passed by there? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana transported a bill of divorce; he lost it and a Saracen found it. The case came before Rabbi Yohanan; they declared the bill valid. This means that if a Gentile passed by it is valid. Could we say that he had a mark to identify it? But wasn’t it stated: There are no marks for bills of divorce. That is, if he said, two or three lines. But here, the ה in it had a spot. Rabbi Ezra asked before Rabbi Mana: Why is it invalid here? I say, it was another husband whose name was like his name. Think of it, if they checked out that entire place and did not find another man whose name was like his name! But it is because of the severity of adultery. But didn’t we state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry”? Rabbi Mana told him: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid, the other invalid. He lost the valid one and threw away the invalid. When he found it, I say that what he found was the invalid bill.

Bar Qappara stated: Even if he left the man when he was 100 years old and spent another 100 years on the way, he delivers it to her under the presumption that he is alive.

But didn’t we state: From where that “if somebody says to his wife, this is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, or he says to his slave girl, this is the document of your manumission one hour before my death, each would be immediately forbidden to eat heave?” There, she is disabled immediately, but here she will only be disabled when he has died.

Mishnah

4 Rabbi Eleazar ben Parṭa said three things before the Sages and they confirmed his words: People in a city which was surrounded by palisades, on a ship in emergency at sea, or a person about to be judged, are presumed to be alive. But on people in a city conquered from palisades, a ship lost at sea, or a person led to execution, one puts the restrictions of the living and the dead: neither an Israelite’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israelite may eat heave.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Jabne: About people in a city which was surrounded by palisades.” What are palisades? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: For example if bells, chains, and dogs, and geese, and chickens, and soldiers surround the town. And Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, it happened that a blind woman was able to flee from there. If there was one breach, it saved all. If there were hiding places, it is questionable. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda, Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, in the name of Rabbi Yudan the Prince: Only if there were palisades of that government. But palisades from another government are like robbers.

They added three additional cases: One who was dragged away by a wild animal, one who was swept away by a river, and one buried by a collapse. One puts the restrictions of the living and the dead on her: neither an Israelite’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israelite may eat heave.

Mishnah

5 If somebody is transporting a bill of divorce in the Land of Israel when he falls sick, he may send it by somebody else. If the husband had told him, take from her such and such, he cannot send it by somebody else since he does not want to see his valuables in somebody else’s hand.

Halakhah

“If somebody is transporting a bill of divorce in the Land of Israel when he falls sick,” etc. Because he falls sick; therefore not if he did not fall sick.

This does not disagree with what Rabbi Yohanan said, since Rabbi Yohanan said, if an agent handed over to another agent, the first one is responsible. Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya: Because of a condition of the divorce. What is the difference between them? If the husband came earlier and took it. If you say, because of a condition of the divorce, that is understandable. If you say, because I do not want to see my valuables in somebody else’s hand, his valuables are not in somebody else’s hand. Is it the same for preliminary marriages? What is the difference between divorces and preliminary marriages? One can divorce through the agency of anybody. One cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody.

Mishnah

6 If somebody transports a bill of divorce overseas and falls sick, he assembles a court to send it and declares before them: “it was written and signed before me.” The later messenger does not have to say: “it was written and signed before me,” but he says: “I am an agent of the court.”

Halakhah

“If somebody transports a bill of divorce overseas and falls sick,” etc. Rabbi Mana said, this is only necessary if he already has arrived in the Land of Israel. In case you say, since he arrived in the Land of Israel it should be treated as a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel, and for bills of divorce from the Land of Israel one does not have to say: “it was written and signed before me.”

If the messenger fell sick. Rabbi Ḥanina said, a case came before the son of Rabbi Abba and he sent to ask Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Yasa and Rabbi Immi. They instructed him that the first messenger does not have to say: “it was written and signed before me,” but he says, “I am an agent of the court.”

Does he have to deliver the entire agency to him? Rabbi Jeremiah said, he has to deliver the entire agency to him. Rabbi Abin bar Cahana said, he need not deliver the entire agency to him. Rabbi Abin bar Cahana brought it from this: “The later messenger does not have to say: ‘it was written and signed before me,’ but he says: ‘I am an agent of the court.’” Rabbi Jeremiah said, Rabbi Abin bar Cahana retracted this, because of: “The later messenger does not have to say: ‘it was written and signed before me,’ but he says: ‘I am an agent of the court.’”

Mishnah

7 If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account, he can proceed on the assumption that they are alive and does not worry whether the Cohen or Levite died or the poor person became rich. If they died, he has to receive permission from the heirs; if the loan was executed in court he does not need permission.

Halakhah

“If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rabbi Yose; as we have stated there: “Rabbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rabbi Meir obligates.” Did Rabbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow! Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. But didn’t we state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances? A case came before Rabbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israelite and told him, separate from my part for my account. He said to him, didn’t we state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rabbi Zeʿira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rabbi Zeʿira’s argument is from the following: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israelite and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate, but from his own he may separate.

There is no “he does not worry,” since he has to worry that the poor person might have become rich. It was stated so: “If somebody lends money to a poor and rich person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost.”

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The Mishnah speaks of the heirs in priesthood and Levitic status. But concerning the poor, the poor has no inheritance. Bar Qappara stated: No person is immune from this; if not he then his son, if not his son then his grandson. This means, he can change the terms. Can the creditor change the terms? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody lends money to a first rich and then poor person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost and the poor acquired what is in his hand.” This implies that the creditor cannot change the terms.

Does this not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan given before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. He explains it for a documented loan. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A loan given before witnesses can be collected from heirs, on condition that they inherited real estate. As those from the house of Rav Neḥemiah, who lent money to the public. The case came before the rabbis who said, the public is neither all rich nor all poor.

Mishnah

8 If somebody sets aside produce to be used for future heave and tithes, or money to be used for Second Tithe, he can refer to them on the presumption that they exist. If they were lost, one worries about them for 24 hours back, the words of Rabbi Eleazar. Rabbi Judah says, three times a year one has to check the wine: At the time of the east wind after Tabernacles, when the vines blossom, and when fluid starts to enter unripe grapes.

Halakhah

“If somebody sets aside produce,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar ben Antigonos in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Yannai: This means that nothing is in disorder for 24 hours but the last day. Rabbi Yohanan said: Nothing is in order for 24 hours but the first day, as we have stated there: “If a miqweh was measured and found deficient.” Ḥinena the son of Rav Assi bar Mamal in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: That is to negate the words of Rabbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “If they were lost, one worries about them for 24 hours back, the words of Rabbi Eleazar.”

There, we have stated: “If someone buys wine from Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon prohibit doing so, for the wine bag might spring a leak and it may turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” Does the Mishnah here not follow Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon? Rabbi Zeʿira said, there it was not in order from the start. But here it is not in order from now to the future.

For freshly pressed wine one can allow for up to forty days presuming that it is wine; Rabbi Judah says, up to a break point. You find that there is a leniency and a restriction following Rabbi Judah, and a leniency and a restriction following the rabbis. A leniency following Rabbi Judah, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed, and a restriction if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave. A leniency following the rabbis, if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave, and a restriction, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed that he cannot give heave. Rabbi Simon asked: If the fortieth day arrived and he did not check. He was lazy for two or three days, then he came and found it to be vinegar. Is it retroactively considered to be vinegar or only from there on to the future? What is the difference? If he had transgressed and given heave. If you say that retroactively it is considered to be vinegar, his heave is heave. From there on to the future it is not heave. If he had checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. When he returned, he found it to be vinegar. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rabbi Abbahu said, I heard that from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi; Rabbi Yohanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is wine, after that it is in doubt. Do they differ in the treatment of doubt? What Rabbi Yohanan said refers to the case that he came and found it to be stale vinegar. What Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said refers to the case that he came and found it to be strong vinegar. Or their difference equals another difference, for what we have stated there: “A rusty or broken needle is pure.” It was stated: He put it down smooth, then he came and found it rusty. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rabbi Abbahu said, that is what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said; Rabbi Yohanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is impure, after that it is in doubt. Rabbi Ila, Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Eleazar in the name of all rabbis who frequent the House of Study: Concerning wine and needle practice follows Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

Rabbi Crispus asked: Does he check every year or only once every three years? Let us hear from the following: If somebody sells unspecified wine to another person, he has to warrant it until after Tabernacles. Rabbi Yudan said, explain it for those Galileans who harvest only after the beginning of Tabernacles and you cannot deduce anything. That which was said, “old from the preceding year, very old aged three years,” should we say because of the tasting? This means that any time it is declared old he has to warrant it for two years. This means that very old wine has to be warranted until Tabernacles. This means that he has to check every year. How does he check? May one check one amphora on which all others depend that they would not become vinegar? Rabbi Shammai said, there are people who knock on the barrel from the outside and know what is inside.

Mishnah

1 If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife and caught up with the agent, or he sent another agent after him and said: the bill of divorce I gave you is annulled, it is annulled. If he met his wife or he sent an agent to her and said: the bill of divorce I sent to you is annulled, it is annulled. After the bill of divorce came into her possession, he can no longer annul it.

Halakhah

“If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. This disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan, since Rabbi Yohanan said that a person invalidates the agent appointed by him by a declaration. He explains it by the stringency of the rules of incest. If he appointed an agent to deliver the bill of divorce, the latter has to deliver it in the presence of two witnesses; the agent is not counted as one of the two. If another agent went to invalidate the bill of divorce, he has to invalidate it in the presence of two witnesses and the agent is counted as one of the two. If he met him on the road and asked him, what about the bill of divorce I gave you? He answered, I delivered it to her. While they were talking there, he dropped it. He said, didn’t you tell me that you delivered it to her? He explained, I delivered it to her and she said, keep it for me. What? Can he be believed since it is in his power to divorce, or can he not be believed because it is in his hand? If the agent fell sick, how do you treat this? By the rules of divorces or the rules of preliminary marriages? By the rules of divorces one can divorce through the agency of anybody. By the rules of preliminary marriages one cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody.

Mishnah

2 In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul the bill of divorce; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do that because of the public good. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.

Halakhah

“In earlier times, he could go to court,” etc. Doesn’t this disagree with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said that nobody can annul an agency by speech. Explain it in a fully constituted court.

“Because of the public good.” They say in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Some say in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not remain anchored. He who said, that she should not remain anchored, is afraid that she turns out to be anchored if she thought that he annulled when he did not annul. He who said, that she should not risk bastardy, is afraid that her children will be bastards if she thought that he did not annul when he annulled, she goes and marries without a bill of divorce. If she thought that he annulled when he did not annul, another man comes and marries her preliminarily; the preliminary marriage is valid but she thinks it is invalid. She waits until her first husband dies, then she goes and marries another man; the result is that her children will be bastards. Rabbi Mana said, I went with a caravan and heard Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Rav Huna said, even the one who said that she should not remain anchored also agrees that she should not risk bastardy.

If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly. What is the reason of Rabbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul but they said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But isn’t it from the Torah that one may give as heave olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe they said not only that one may not give heave in this way but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rabbi Hoshaiah bar Abba said to Rabbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor meant?

“Mr. X and all his names.” Think of it, if his name was Reuben and he went away under the name of Simeon. But: “I am X and every other name which I have.” “In addition, they said if he had two wives, one in Judea and one in Galilee, and he is known by two names, one in Judea and one in Galilee. He used his name in Judea to divorce the one in Galilee and his name in Galilee to divorce the one in Judea. Neither one is divorced.” This baraita if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Galilee or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Judea. But if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Judea, or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Galilee, she is divorced. Rabbi Ilai said, according to the rules he has to say: “I am X with every other name which I have in Galilee.” If he was at another place, he can divorce either one he wishes. Rabbi Yose said, one says that if he did it. But to start out he has to follow Rabbi Ilai. Rabbi Abin said, if he is known by another name at another place, he has to mention all three.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rabbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rabbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi ...: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But didn’t Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rabbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

For example Doso, Dodo’s brother, divorced his wife. The case came before the rabbis who said that she should pay the fee. But didn’t we state: “the husband pays the fee”? Rabbi Ilai in the name of Samuel: If she forgives him her ketubah.

Mishnah

3 A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only by an oath. When they avoided letting her swear, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should make a vow on the instruction of the orphans for anything they would decide on and collect her ketubah, and that witnesses sign the bill of divorce because of the public good. Hillel instituted prozbol for the public good.

Halakhah

“A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only,” etc. Earlier they swore falsely and buried their children, since it is written: “For vain vows I struck your children.” In addition, they fear vows more than oaths. If she transgressed and swore? Rav Huna said, if she swore, she swore. Rav said to his daughter-in-law: If I were not a person who readily makes concessions, even the cover on your head would be my property. Samuel said, she acquires the garments which she is wearing. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “Neither his wife’s garments nor his children’s are his property.”

Rav Huna said, why did they require a date on the bill of divorce? Because of an actual case. It so happened that a man was married to his sister’s daughter who committed adultery when she was still married. He predated the bill of divorce and said, it is better for her to be judged as single rather than as a married woman.

Rav Huna said, I asked before Rabbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes are from their words. But following him who says tithes are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rabbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, didn’t they become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah? Rabbi Yose turned and said, “this is the word of the abandonment, remit”Deuteronomy 15:2 as long as abandonment is followed in the Land as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed in the Land as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. “This is the word of the remission, remit!”Deuteronomy 15:2 Rabbi says, two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? “For all its inhabitants.”Leviticus 25:10 In the time when they lived on it, not when they went from it into exile. If they lived on it but did intermingle, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee was operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were abolished.

Mishnah

4 If a slave was kidnapped and ransomed, if it was as a slave he shall serve, if as a free person he shall not serve; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in any case he shall serve. A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.

Halakhah

“If a slave was kidnapped and ransomed,” etc. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Ḥizqiah: It would be logical that even as a slave he should not have to serve. And why did they say, he has to serve? That a slave should not run away to the kidnappers. Rabbi Zeʿira said, a baraita implies this: “His master pays his ransom and frees him.” They said that only about his master, not anybody else. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Yasa: It would be logical that even as a free person he should have to serve. Why did they say that he does not have to serve? Not to damage the reputations of free persons. Rabbi Yose said, but it is so: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in any case he shall serve; just as Israel are obligated to ransom free persons so they are obligated to ransom slaves.” The first Tanna is of the opinion that they are obligated to ransom free persons but they are not obligated to ransom slaves. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Yossi ben Shaul said in the name of Rabbi: A person who had given up hope to recover his slave is not entitled to enslave him but has to write him a bill of manumission. Rabbi Yohanan heard this and said, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly. Didn’t they infer the rules of a bill of manumission from women? Just as a woman is not freed if the husband has given up hope, but she needs a bill of divorce from him, so a slave is not freed if the master has given up hope, but he needs a bill of manumission.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If a slave fled from the kidnappers to his master, the master may not enslave him but has to write him a bill of manumission. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If somebody declares his slave as ownerless he can neither enslave him nor write him a bill of manumission. Rabbi Zeʿira said to him, everybody says that he needs one; do you say that he does not need one? Would he hinder him from eating the Passover sacrifice? As it was stated: “The slave of any man, acquisition of his money, if you circumcise him.” Anytime he serves his master, he prevents his master from eating the Passover; if he does not serve his master, he does not prevent his master from eating the Passover.

If the master blinded the slave’s two eyes simultaneously, or broke two of his teeth simultaneously, the slave obtains his freedom in this way. One after the other, he obtains his freedom from the first injury and the master has to pay for the second. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Following the opinion that the master does not have to write a bill of manumission for him. But following the opinion that the master has to write a bill of manumission for him, can you say that he has to pay him? Not only does this apply to one who gains his freedom for a tooth or an eye, from where also that he may gain his freedom by a cap, or הרנירק טיאונוס, or the king’s freedom? The verse says, “he shall send him to freedom,” in any way. What is the status of his children? The children of him who leaves for a tooth or an eye are slaves, the children of him who leaves by the loss of hope are free. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, that is unreasonable; it is the other way around. The children of one who leaves for a tooth or an eye are free because the Torah freed him. The children of one who leaves by the loss of hope are slaves because the Torah did not free him.

If a convert died and Jews plundered his property, if there were slaves, either adult or underage, they gain their freedom. Abba Shaul said, the adults gain their freedom, the minors do not become free. Why? They are no longer property after their owner’s death. Then even adults? Rabbi Abba said, since adults are competent to acquire themselves, they gain their freedom. Minors, who are not competent to acquire for themselves, do not gain their freedom. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Abba Shaul. The opinions of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi are contradictory. There, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yossi ben Shaul in the name of Rabbi said: A person who has given up hope to recover his slave is not entitled to enslave him. They said, what Rabbi Joshua said about enslaving, if he did not give, he did not give; perhaps practice would be to enslave him, therefore he has to write him a bill of manumission. And here, he says so! We heard that Rabbi Yohanan said, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly, perhaps practice follows Abba Shaul. The slave girl of Rabba bar Zuṭra ran away and he gave up hope to recover her. He went to ask Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. They said, he is not entitled to enslave her. What about writing her a bill of manumission? They said to him, if you wrote, you did the right thing. Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose: A slave who married as a free person in the presence of his master gained his freedom. Rabbi Yohanan said, yesterday I was sitting and formulating: If somebody writes a document of preliminary marriage for his slave or a document of definitive marriage for his girl slave, Rabbi says, they acquired, but the Sages say, they did not acquire. The first Tanna follows Rabbi: he acquired.

Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rabbi Yohanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rabbi Ḥaggai objected before Rabbi Yose: Doesn’t a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rabbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. Rabbi Yohanan’s argument is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can’t the creditor come and foreclose? Rabbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rabbi Yohanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rabbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rabbi Nasa’s name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rabbi Meir. Just as Rabbi Meir imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

Mishnah

5 A person who is half slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, you provided for his master but you did not provide for him. He can marry neither a slave woman nor a free woman: shall he be alone? But the world was created only for procreation and increase, as it is said: “He did not create it to be empty, He formed it to be settled.” For the public good one forces his master to manumit him and he writes a bond for half his value. The House of Hillel changed and instructed following the House of Shammai.

Halakhah

“A person who is half slave and half free,” etc. How is it possible that anyone be half slave and half free? Explain it either following Rabbi, since Rabbi said that a person can free half of his slave, or following everybody in the case of a slave belonging to two partners, when one of them manumitted his part. If he found anything of value, on his master’s day it belongs to his master, on his own day it belongs to him. But wouldn’t he turn it over to his master on the next day? If he entered a preliminary marriage. On his master’s day, one would not consider his marriage, on his own day one would consider his marriage. But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say in Rabbi Yohanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce.

There, we have stated: “One does not marry women on a holiday.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase. They asked before Rabbi Yose: May a slave marry a woman on a holiday? He told them, let us hear from the following: “Shall he be alone? But the world was created only for procreation and increase!” And Rabbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Anybody commanded to be fruitful and increase is forbidden to marry on a holiday.

Mishnah

6 If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles or outside the Land, the slave gains his freedom. One does not ransom kidnap victims for more than the going rate because of the public good. One does not smuggle kidnap victims out because of the public good; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, because of the welfare of the kidnap victims. One does not buy Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot from Gentiles for more than their worth because of the public good.

Halakhah

“If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles,” etc. To a Gentile even in the Land. Who frees him? His original owner pays for him and the second frees him. “Or outside the Land,” even to a Jew. Let us say that if the second owner knew, both of them split the price; otherwise the first pays for him and the second frees him. “I X ben Y sold my slave Z to Antioch,” he gains his freedom. But if he is in Lydda, he did not gain his freedom. It was stated: A slave goes outside the Land with his master. Therefore, if he sold him there, he is sold. If he came from outside the Land to the Land with the intention to return, one forces him to return. With the intention not to return, one does not force him to return. If he fled from outside the Land to the Land, he may return him. If he fled from the Land to outside the Land, Rabbi Josiah in the name of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya said, it is permitted. The great Rabbi Hoshaiah said, it is permitted. Rabbi Marinos, the son of the great Rabbi Hoshaiah said, it is forbidden. Rabbi Zeʿira said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he usually flees there. But he who says, it is forbidden, if he does not usually flee there. Rabbi Yose said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he can return him from there; but he who says, it is forbidden, if he cannot return him from there.

There could be terms. If he entered into terms with him, it is permitted. That means, with adults. With minors, the terms can be with their masters. That is, if the master was a Jew. If he was Gentile? Rabbi Tevele sold his slave and entered into terms with his master. Rabbi Isaac the goldsmith had slaves who fled to Bnoton. He came and asked Rabbi Immi who instructed him that a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable. The slave girl of Rabbi Abba bar Ada fled to Cilicia. He came and asked Rabbi Mana, who instructed him following Rabbi Immi: a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable.

“One does not ransom kidnap victims for more than the going rate because of the public good. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, because of the welfare of the kidnap victims.” That they should not be put in chains. “One does not smuggle kidnap victims out because of the public good.”

It was stated: “It is prohibited to buy from a Gentile who sells Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot.” But wasn’t it stated: “It happened that a Gentile in Sidon sold phylacteries and mezuzot. The case came before the Sages who said that it was permitted to buy from him.” That one was a Gentile who reverted to his error.

Mishnah

7 If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation, he cannot take her back; because of a vow, he cannot take her back. Rabbi Judah says, for any vow known in public, he cannot take her back; not known in public, he can take her back. Rabbi Meir says, for any vow which needs investigation by a Sage, he cannot take her back; if it does not need investigation by a Sage, he can take her back. Rabbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other. Rabbi Yose ben Judah said, it happened in Sidon that one said to his wife, a qonam if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back, for the public good.

Halakhah

“If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation,” etc. And it was stated: “Why did the Sages say that he who divorces his wife because of bad reputation cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of bad reputation, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the accusations were baseless and he said, if I had known that the accusations were baseless, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her children bastards. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.”

It was stated: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife because of a vow cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of a vow, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the vow was void and he said, if I had known that the vow was void, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rabbi Zeʿira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage! Rabbi Zeʿira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which was not public knowledge! “Rabbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other.” The law should be that he can take her back even if it was a vow which needs investigation by a Sage, for the Elder uproots the vow. Why did they forbid a vow which needs investigation by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage.

Mishnah

8 If somebody divorces his wife because she is a she-ram, Rabbi Judah says, he cannot take her back, but the Sages say, he may take her back. If she was married to another man, had children by him, and requests her ketubah, Rabbi Judah says, he tells her: Your silence would be better than your talking.

Halakhah

It was stated: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife as a she-ram cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife as a she-ram, when she went, married another man, and bore him children, and he said, if I had known that she can have children, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rabbi Zeʿira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since there are women she-rams who are married and since their husbands are satisfied with them they keep them.

“Rabbi Judah says, he cannot take her back,” and you say so? Rabbi Yohanan said, there is no Rabbi Judah but Rabbi Meir. It was stated thus in Rabbi Meir’s name: Your silence would be better than your talking.

Mishnah

9 If somebody sells himself and his children to Gentiles, one does not buy him back, but one buys his children back after their father’s death. If somebody sold his field to a Gentile and then a Jew bought it back from him, the buyer brings first fruits because of the public good.

Halakhah

“If somebody sells himself and his children to Gentiles,” etc. The Mishnah, if he sold himself repeatedly. But if he sold himself once, one buys him back, but if he sold himself to the games, one does not buy him back. There was a case of one who sold himself to the games; the case came before Rabbi Abbahu, who said, what can we do? He did it for his livelihood.

The Mishnah is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rabbi Meir: “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.”Leviticus 25:46 This groups slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose said before Rabbi Yasa, the following supports Rabbi Meir: “The land shall not be sold permanently,”Leviticus 25:23 absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rabbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold,” because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rabbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rabbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rabbi Simeon.

Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Even though Rabbi Meir said that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes, he agrees that he has property rights. What are property rights? Rabbi Abba said, the usufruct; as we have stated: “the buyer brings First Fruits because of the public good,” otherwise he could have brought First Fruits by the word of the Torah.

If somebody bought a field during a Jubilee period. Rabbi Ila said, he acquired ownership of the ground, Abba bar Mamal said, he did not acquire ownership of the ground. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected to Rabbi Ila: In your opinion, since you say that he acquired ownership of the ground, why can’t he dig cisterns, ditches, and caves? He said to him, the Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance,” as it was. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa brought this topic before them and did not know that they still disagreed: Rabbi Yohanan said, he brings and recites; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not bring and recite. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose said before Rabbi Yose: Everybody agrees that he brings. Where do they disagree? Rabbi Yohanan said, he brings and recites; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he brings but does not recite.

Mishnah

1 For tort victims one estimates with best quality land, for a creditor with average quality, and for a woman’s ketubah with lowest quality. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also for a woman’s ketubah with average quality.

Halakhah

“For tort victims one estimates with best quality land,” etc. “By an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property.” Rabbi Abba bar Pappaios said before Rabbi Yose, what case are we dealing with? If to qualify as damages, isn’t that what we stated “his neighbor’s ox” but not the ox of Temple property? If for bodily damages, isn’t that what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: A private person can claim damages but not the Temple? But we must be dealing with one who said, I obligate myself to give 100 minas to the Temple, when his ox went and did damage. You should not say, the Temple is a creditor and should collect from average quality land. Therefore, it was necessary to say that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land, by an inference de minore ad maius, for Temple property.”

Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “Full and partial damages are collected from encumbered property.” One understands full damages. Aren’t partial damages collected from the animal’s body? Rabbi Yose said, explain it when it was a docile ox which did damage and then his owner went and sold it. Its body was already encumbered to the injured party. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he converted it into a loan. Then it should be foreclosed only by average quality land! Since the debt originated in a damage claim, he may collect from best quality.

“His field,” except if it was mortgaged. “His vineyard,” except Temple property. What case are we dealing with? If somebody caused damage and then dedicated to the Temple, that is what we have stated: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas.” If somebody dedicated to the Temple and then caused damage, that is what we have stated: “‘His neighbor’s ox’ but not the ox of Temple property.” Rabbi Yudan said, explain it if an ox of Temple property grazed on a private field. Rabbi Mana told him, we require Temple real estate and you say “on a private field”? But we must be dealing with one who said: I am obligating myself for 100 minas to the Temple; then went and caused damage. You should not say that between damages and a loan given before witnesses damages are privileged, and here damages are privileged against the Temple; therefore it was necessary to say “his vineyard,” except Temple property.

“His field,” except movables. “His vineyard,” except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession. “‘His field,’ except movables.” About those who did not claim movables from the start. Is this different from what we stated: There is not only real estate; from where if he wanted to pay money? The verse says: “Money he shall return to its owner.” What did you mean to say that real estate is primary? Or should we say that money is primary? Then it should be irrevocably given to the claimant from the start! Don’t we see rabbis who irrevocably give him real estate! “‘His vineyard,’ except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession.” Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Nisa: If his father dug a cistern which caused injury during his father’s lifetime. Property fell to him after his father’s death. I might say that this property should be encumbered for that damage; therefore, it was necessary to say “his vineyard” to except potential property which is not similar in status to that in possession.

“The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay,” that is, the party responsible for the damage, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Aqiba says, “the best of his field and the best of his vineyard,” of the person suffering the damage. It is difficult for Rabbi Aqiba, he suffered damage, and you say so? But the court sees what the field was worth before it was damaged and estimates accordingly. As it was stated, it is possible if the grazing was on best quality land, one estimates from best quality, from lowest quality one estimates from lowest quality. How is this? The best of the lowest quality is quite good. If you say so you provide a windfall for the person suffering the damage. One looks at the field as if it was full of first quality produce and estimates for him from the best quality land; least quality one estimates from least quality land. It turns out that he pays with best quality for best quality and from least quality for least quality. From where has Rabbi Aqiba that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land”? It is not from the Torah, it is a decree. “Why did they say, ‘for tort victims one estimates with best quality land’? Because of the robbers. That a man should say, why should I have robbed land in my hand, or land subject to a suit for damages on my hand? Tomorrow, the court will see my good field, take it from me, and support it by the verse, ‘the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay.’” So far his real estate. His pledge was inferred from his real estate. Since his real estate is taken from the best quality, also his pledge is taken from the best.

“‘For creditors, average quality,’ because of tricksters. That a man should not see a desirable field in his neighbor’s hand, lend him money, and contrive to take it from him. Then one should estimate only from the least quality! Rabbi Judah said, that is correct; but so as not to lock the door on people who need to borrow. For tomorrow he may need to borrow and does not find a lender.”

Rabbi Simai preached: “And the man,” that is the agent of the court. For if the creditor enters, he removes the best. If the borrower enters, he removes the worst. How is this? The agent of the court enters and removes from average quality. Rabbi Ishmael says, it is a word from the Torah that the creditor should enter, for it is written: “The man whose creditor you are should bring the pledge out for you.” That is, his pledge. His real estate was inferred from his pledge. Since his pledge is taken from average quality, also his real estate is taken from average quality.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a confirmed loan, is remitted. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a confirmed loan is collected from property of average quality.

If there is only best quality, one collects from the best quality, only average quality one collects from average quality, only worst quality one collects from worst quality. Best and average, torts are assessed from best quality, creditors and a woman’s ketubah from average. Average and worst, torts and creditors are assessed from average, a woman’s ketubah from worst. If his best quality was like everybody’s best quality, it is best quality. If his average quality was like everybody’s average quality, it is average quality. If his worst quality was like everybody’s worst quality, it is worst quality. If his best quality was like everybody’s average? Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Ila asked: Let us hear from the following: Average and worst, torts and creditors are assessed from average, a woman’s ketubah from worst. But just as you need in the case that you have best and average quality, torts push creditors to the average, so in this case, of average and worst quality, shouldn’t torts push creditors to the worst quality? Rabbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he had best quality which he sold, and the creditors were already pushed to average quality.

“For a woman’s ketubah with lowest quality.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, they taught only for a ketubah of a mina or 200 zuz, but a ketubah of a thousand denar she collects from average quality. Rabbi Yose said, even a ketubah of a thousand denar she collects only from lowest quality. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement: “While she lives in her father’s house, she can always collect her ketubah; if she lives in her husband’s house, she can collect her ketubah for 25 years.” Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One stated this only for the ketubah of a mina or 200 zuz. But a ketubah of 1,000 denar she collects forever. Rabbi Abbahu quoted in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Even a ketubah of 1,000 denar she can collect only up to 25 years. It turns out that Rabbi Yose follows Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Jeremiah Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. As we have stated there: “If somebody signs over his property to his sons and signs over some real estate to his wife, she loses her claim to ketubah.” Rav said, if he sells through her. Samuel says, if he distributes in her presence. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they stated here a relaxation of the laws of ketubah. Rabbi Abba said, the reason of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina is that it applies not only to a ketubah of a mina or two hundred, but even regarding a ketubah of one thousand denar they proclaimed a relaxation of the laws of ketubah.

Mishnah

2 One does not collect from encumbered property as long as there is free property, even if the latter is of lowest quality. One may collect from orphans’ property only from the lowest quality.

Halakhah

“One cannot collect for usufruct,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rabbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rabbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rabbi Simeon! Since Rabbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should be eager to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rabbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But wasn’t it stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, there about an adult orphan, here about an underage orphan.

Mishnah

3 One cannot collect for usufruct, for improvement of the land, or for sustenance of the wife and the daughters from encumbered property, for the public good.

Halakhah

“One does not collect from encumbered property,” etc. Rabbi Ḥanina said, because they have no fixed amount.

If Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, then Simeon came and foreclosed it from Levi; then Levi collects from Reuben’s encumbered property and Simeon collects the usufruct from Levi’s free property. If Levi in the meantime improved the property, Levi collects the capital from Reuben’s encumbered property and the improvement from Simeon’s free property. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yohanan said, only if a third party’s buying preceded the improvement by this one. But if the improvement by this one preceded a third party’s buying, Levi can collect the capital even from Simeon’s encumbered property. Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yohanan said: With usufruct one proceeds in the same way. If he spent four denars and the improvement is worth six, Levi collects four denars from Reuben’s encumbered property and another two from Simeon’s free property. Rabbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: Since he did not enter with permission, his hand is weak against Simeon. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: Since he entered with permission, his hand is strong against Reuben.

Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi; Levi went and gave it to Judah as a gift. Then Simeon foreclosed it from Judah. Judah has no recourse against Levi since it was a gift. Levi has recourse against Reuben since it was a sale. Didn’t he give it away as a gift? He can say to him, it was my intention to give it to him so he would return favors to me. Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and gave it to Levi as a gift; Levi sold it to Judah. Judah has recourse against Levi since he sold it; Levi has no recourse against Reuben since it was a gift; as Rabbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: No easement is created by a gift.

Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, and he did not have time to write the foreclosure document before he died: whose is it? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya the son of Rav: One said, if he wrote the foreclosure document, it is Reuben’s, if not, it is Levi’s. The other one said, whether he wrote or did not write, it belongs to Levi. Rabbi Mana said, it is reasonable that it does not belong to Reuben since he can say to him, I sold you something which was not mine. Rabbi Yose said, it is not reasonable that it should not be Levi’s, since Reuben can tell him, is this not before you? You are good to confirm the sale.

Can one collect dowry from encumbered property? Rabbi Zeʿira said that Rabbi Yohanan does not collect. Who collects? Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Ila collect. Rabbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property. There were orphan girls who asked for dowry. He brought the case before Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rabbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, isn’t it better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity? Rabbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it; would we act? Rabbi Yose said, I will give to them, and if some orphans got up and complained, I would give it to them. They stood up and complained.

A judgment was rendered for Ṣippor bat Absalom. Rabbi Simon and Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Simeon bar Abba: I and our teachers collected for her from movables, following the custom of her place.

Rav wrote to Rabbi, who transferred it to the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Ḥiyya wrote between the lines. If the orphans sold against the rules, one collects for dowry but one does not collect for sustenance. If they accepted a lien. I do not know what this lien is. Levi stated: Both for a lien made by the father and for a lien made by the son, one collects for dowry but one does not collect for sustenance. Rabbi Abba said, there is no mention of a lien made by the father, only a lien made by the son. If one cannot collect during the father’s lifetime, how much less after the father’s death? Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the daughters are married, the widow is sustained by them. Rabbi Abba follows his own opinion and Rabbi Judah follows his own opinion. For the sister of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥaggai: Even if they died, the widow is sustained by them.

What is the situation of grandchildren? Rabbi Mana said, grandchildren are like children. Rabbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children. Rabbi Samuel, son of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said to them, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren.

There, we have stated: “You have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find.” Rabbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good.” Rabbi Abba said, this Mishnah applies when he said to him, you found my two oxen. But if he said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule. Rabbi Pedat in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: In this case they did institute. But in the first case, it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen, but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated to swear? The verse says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me, and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.

Mishnah

4 If orphans rely on a property owner or if their father appointed a guardian for them; these are obligated to tithe their produce. A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around.

Halakhah

“If orphans rely on a property owner, etc.” “you”Numbers 18:28 excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his. Didn’t we state: “Partners who gave heave one after the other?” But one must be for Great Heave, the other for heave of the tithe. Didn’t we infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe? But one is for practice, the other for action. “You” excludes guardians; but didn’t we state: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rabbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell slaves but not real estate?” But here one deals with an adult orphan, there with an underage orphan.

Rabbi Yohanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit nor for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them.” There is a difference about an ox, in case it continues to cause damage. If it did do damage, from whom does one take payment? Rabbi Yohanan said, from the orphans. Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, from the guardian. And even if Rabbi Yohanan never taught this, doesn’t his word imply it since he said if in the end they are detrimental, they are detrimental?

A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for usually he is not checked out. If he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for usually he was checked out. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around; a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for he is like one who is paid; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for he can say to him, I am doing this as a favor to you. It turns out that Rabbi Yohanan follows the rabbis and Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina Abba Shaul. Does Rabbi Yohanan follow the rabbis? Even if he holds with Abba Shaul, a person acts as a trustee in order to be declared trustworthy. Does Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina follow Abba Shaul? Even if he holds with the rabbis, a person is apt to slip away from an oath but not from payments.

Mishnah

5 If someone causes impurity, or demaʿ, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated. If Cohanim in the Temple intentionally made a sacrifice piggul, they have to pay.

Halakhah

Rabbi Yudan did not go to the assembly. He was standing with Rabbi Mana and asked him, what new was said? He said: So says Rabbi Yose, a person causing impurity does not have the status of a perpetrator, from the following: “Heave which became impure.” He answered: Explain it, if it became impure by itself; then you cannot infer anything, because of a Mishnah: “If somebody judged, absolved the guilty and obligated the innocent, declared the pure impure and the impure pure.” For Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: If he touched it with his hand. Samuel said: If he touched it with his hand. Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi says, it should have been logical that even intentionally he should have been free. Why did they say that he is obligated? That he should tell. And Rabbi Yohanan said, it should have been logical that even unintentionally he should have been obligated. Why did they say that he is free? Because of a fine. Rabbi Yohanan’s argument comes from this: “If someone causes anything to become impure, or demaʿ, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rabbi Yohanan said, he pays a fine. A baraita supports Rabbi Yohanan: “A person who puts a yoke on another’s cow is free in human law but guilty in Heaven’s law.”

So far if he thought that it was profane. If he knew that it was heave but he thought that it was permitted to make it impure? Let us hear from the following: “If Cohanim in the Temple intentionally made a sacrifice piggul, they have to pay.” Could the Cohen think that it was profane? Is there piggul of profane things? But we must hold that he knew that it was holy but thought that it was permitted to make piggul of sacrifices. And here, if he knew that it was heave but thought that it was permitted to make it impure.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he mixed. If he made a libation and then mixed it, at the start he committed a capital crime and at the end he has to pay? Rabbi Abba objected: Think of it, if he killed somebody and broke the flask, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay? Rabbi Yose objected: Think of it, if he set fire to somebody’s grain stack on the Day of Atonement, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay? “If someone causes anything to become impure, or turn into demaʿ, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rabbi Yohanan said, he pays a fine.

Mishnah

6 Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father, that she must be divorced by a bill of divorce, and about an underage girl who was married to a Cohen, that she may eat heave and her husband inherits from her if she dies, and about a stolen log which was used to build a house, that the owner has to take the value, and about a purification sacrifice of a stolen animal which was not known in public, that it atones because of the order of the altar.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada testified,” etc. Rabbi Ḥananiah asked before Rabbi Immi. His testimony seems reasonable for a hearing woman of sound mind, that she is divorced with or without her acquiescence. But a deaf-mute woman who has no will should not be divorced except with her acquiescence. But isn’t it testimony “that is an example”; does one add to a testimony? Rabbi Ḥanania is of the opinion that this refers to a hearing girl who was married off by her father and became deaf-mute. Rabbi Yose is of the opinion that this refers to an underage girl who was married off by her father and became divorced.

Rabbi Yohanan said, why did they say “an Israelite underage girl eats heave,” that all should be eager to marry her for her attractiveness. Rabbi Shammai said, only if she knows how to keep her valuables given for preliminary marriage. Rabbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave.” Rabbi Ḥananiah said, since Rabbi Yohanan said, for her attractiveness, that means, even if she does not know how to keep her valuables given for preliminary marriage.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rabbi Assi: An underage girl has no definitive marriage to let her eat heave. Rabbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave.” Rabbi Abin asked: If she was definitively married but had no intercourse, the husband sent her to her father’s house and she grew up, may she eat heave? Let us hear from the following: “Based on her earlier definitive marriage.”

“If somebody stole a log and used it in building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, for the benefit of repenting sinners, that he has to pay its full value.” Rabbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? If he stole it planed, but if he stole and planed it himself, he owes him money. If he stole and planed it on the spot, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody appropriates another person’s ruin and rebuilds it without permission, one appraises it and his hand is weak. If he wants to take his logs and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It was asked in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: If somebody stores his bundle in somebody else’s ruin and wants to take it from there, doesn’t one listen to him? He had not heard that Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of civilization. Rabbi Yose said, this is correct. We would have thought that they disagree only in the Land, but not outside the Land. Since Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, because of civilization, this implies that there is no difference between the Land and outside the Land. If he wants to take the value of his logs and stones, what is the rule? One tells him, wait until he lives in it. Samuel said, one pays him immediately.

Ulla bar Ishmael: By law, it should not atone even if it was not known in public. Why did they say that it atones? Not to let the altar be deserted. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, by law, it should atone even if it was known in public. Why did they say that it does not atone? Not to let the altar accept robberies. How many are “public”? Rabbi Gorion in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Three people. Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “You brought robbed goods with the lame and the sick.” Since lame and sick are obvious, so everything must be obvious.

Mishnah

7 There was no law of siqarii in Judea for those killed in the war. After those killed in the war there was a law of siqarii. How is this? If one bought from a siqarius and afterwards from the original owner, his acquisition is void; from the original owner and afterwards from the siqarius, his acquisition is valid. If one bought from a husband and afterwards from the wife, his acquisition is void; from the wife and afterwards from the husband, his acquisition is valid. This is the earlier Mishnah; a later court said that he who buys from a siqarius gives a quarter to the original owner. When is this? If they have no means to buy, but if they have the means to buy, they precede everybody else. Rabbi assembled a court who voted that if it was in the siqarius’s hand for twelve months, any who wants to buy shall buy and give a quarter to the original owner.

Halakhah

“There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their ancestors that Judah had killed Esau, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Judah. When was this said? About war killings before the war. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply.” But aren’t those killed before the war like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial.

“The law of siqariqon always applies in Galilee.” The law of siqariqon does not apply to movables. It was stated: “The law of siqariqon does not apply to foreclosures for a debt and for tenant fees. A foreclosure for nonpayment of tenant fees waits twelve months for the owners.” Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said, after twelve months one announces on four consecutive Sabbaths. He explained it in two ways. If he took it from a tenant and gave it to a tenant and the first wants to foreclose, he says to him, aren’t you a tenant? Leave it for me and what you cut, you cut. If he took it from the owner and gave it to a tenant, the owner wants to foreclose, he tells him, what use do you have if you take it from me and he will take it from you, but what I can afford I will give to you.

So far, if there were two contracts. If there was one contract? Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Ila both say, certainly the sale is invalid; that is, if he bought from the wife and then bought from the husband. Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Bevon both said, certainly the sale is valid; that is, if he bought from the husband and then bought from the wife. But isn’t all the wife’s property administered by the husband? For the yield.

Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: So it is: If he sold to a first person and she signed, to a second and a third and she signed, she can collect from the last. If it is insufficient, she collects from the one before the last. If this is insufficient, she collects from the one before the penultimate. On this, Rav said: For property which she brought him in her ketubah. But property which she brought to him as paraphernalia, she collects from any she wants.

They say, we had the means to buy; the buyer says, no. Rabbi Yose says, the field is always in the possession of the current owner since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rav said, I was of the voters. There is no difference between a quarter in real estate or a quarter in money. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, real estate for a denar a grammarion, in money a quarter is a tremis.

Mishnah

8 A deaf-mute communicates in sign language, and Ben Bathyra says, in pantomimes, referring to movables. Underage children: their purchase is a purchase and their sale is a sale, referring to movables.

Halakhah

“Ben Bathyra says, in pantomimes.” He hires and is hired. The artless, small children. Rabbi Yohanan said, because of their livelihood. Rabbi Mana said, even though Rabbi Yose raises difficulties in collecting forfeits, he agrees that those who give their children to artisans that they collect forfeits because of the livelihood of people.

Mishnah

9 The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israelite, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rabbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rabbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off olives from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rabbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles from taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

Halakhah

“The following was said for communal peace,” etc. The saying of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai implies that it is of the words of the Torah, for Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai stated: “Moses wrote this Torah and gave it to the Cohanim, the Levites etc.” and afterwards “to all the Elders of Israel.” The saying of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi implies that it is of their words, as Rabbi Joshua said, I never recited the blessing before a Cohen and I did not allow an Israelite to do it before him. The saying of Rabbi Ḥanina implies that it is of their words, as Rabbi Ḥanina said, in a city of only Cohanim, an Israelite reads first because of communal peace.

Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simai: In a city of only Cohanim, all of them lift their hands. For whom do they recite the blessing? For their brothers to the North and South. Who answers after them? Women and children. Abbaie bar Benjamin stated: People who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in the blessing. For those in front of them, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that even an iron wall does not interrupt. Those who stand to their side? Let us hear from the following: “If he intended to sprinkle before himself but sprinkled behind himself, behind himself but sprinkled before himself; his sprinkling is invalid. Before himself but sprinkled sideways, his sprinkling is valid.” This implies that those who stand to their side are included in the blessing. Rav Ḥisda said, it is necessary that the organizer be an Israelite. Rav Ḥisda said, if there was one Cohen, he says “Cohen.” For two, he says “Cohanim.” But Rav Huna said, even for one he says “Cohanim” since he only calls the tribe, so that you do not say, probably person X is an adulterer or a murderer, and he shall bless us? The Holy, praise to Him, said: Who blesses you? Am I not blessing you? As it was said: “They shall put My name over the Children of Israel and I shall bless them.”

“One puts an eruv in an old house.” Rabbi Abin said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller.

“A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first.” Only if it passes through it. Samuel said, even if it is close by. There, they say what is farther away but easy to drink from precedes one which is close by but difficult to drink from.

Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written: “If a man gives.”Exodus 22:7 The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, robbing from him is not clear unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that is, to recover from him by a lawsuit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for a false oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rabbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written: “A man to his neighbor,”Exodus 22:7 until he is like his neighbor. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of the artless. As we have stated there: “For underage children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But didn’t we state there: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

“Traps for wild animals, birds,” etc. That is, about large ones. But small ones are as if inside his house.

“If a poor person knocks off olives from high up in the olive tree, what is under him falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rabbi Yose says, complete robbery.” That means, on the earth. But if he plucks with his hand, his hand acquires for him.

“One does not hinder poor Gentiles from taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.” It was stated: “In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, one appoints overseers of charity from Gentiles and Jews; one provides for the Gentile and Jewish poor, visits Gentile and Jewish sick, buries Gentile and Jewish dead, and consoles Gentile and Jewish mourners. Also, one washes Gentile and Jewish clothes for the sake of peaceful coexistence.”

A weaver asked Rabbi Immi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “Because of peaceful coexistence.” Rabbi Abba told them, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya state that the holiday of a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden? Rabbi Immi said, if it had not been for Rabbi Abba, we would have come to permit their strange worship; praised be He Who separated us from them.

Mishnah

10 A woman may lend to her neighbor, whom she suspects in matters of the Sabbatical, a coarse sieve, a fine sieve, grindstones, or an oven, but she should neither cull nor grind with her. The wife of a Fellow may lend to the wife of a common person a coarse sieve and a fine sieve, she may cull, grind, and sift with her, but she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors. All this has only been said for communal peace. One encourages Gentiles in the Sabbatical year but not Jews. One greets them for communal peace.

Halakhah

“A woman may lend to her neighbor,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, isn’t the implicit case explicit? He said to him, I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

Rabbi Phineas asked: For what did they impose a fine? At a place where they sow and eat or at a place where they sow but do not eat? What is the difference? If one saw him buying from Saracens. It is forbidden; if you say at a place where they sow and eat, if one saw him buying from Saracens it is permitted.

Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked: Has this been said for all of this chapter or only for this Mishnah? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Judah bar Titus: From the fact that we state this Mishnah in Giṭṭin it follows that it was said only for this Mishnah.

There, we have stated: One does not knead or form bread with a baker working in impurity. And it was stated additionally: One should neither cull nor grind with him. And here, it says so? Rabbi La said, here for profane bread, there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues say, here if he washes, there if he does not wash. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in.”

Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Ammi. One said: “Plow it well then, I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succeed.” For him who says, plow it well, then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what does “one greets them” mean in a Jewish way? “May you succeed.” For him who says to the Gentile “may you succeed”? Explanation: Rabbi Ḥinena bar Pappa and Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the plowmen in the Sabbatical. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, aren’t you Jewish? Rabbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said to him, didn’t Rabbi teach us: “The passers-by did not say, the blessing of the Eternal be on you,”Psalms 129:8 these are the nations of the world who pass out of the world, they did not say to Israel “the blessing of the Eternal is on you.” What does Israel say to them, “we bless you in the Name of the Eternal.” All blessings that come into the world because of us are not enough for you; not only do you not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us prorated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae.

Mishnah

1 Somebody who says, accept this bill of divorce for my wife, or bring this bill of divorce to my wife, may retract if he wants to retract. If a woman said, accept the bill of divorce for me, he cannot retract even if he wants to retract. Therefore, if the husband said, it is not possible for me that you accept for her but bring and deliver it to her, he may retract if he wants to retract. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even if she says, take my bill of divorce for me, he cannot retract even if he wants to retract.

Halakhah

“Somebody who says, accept this bill of divorce for my wife,” etc. Everywhere you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “obtain,” but here you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “bring”? There is a difference, for one can obtain something for a person without him being present. Rabbi Shammai objected: Think of it, if she was shouting to obtain a divorce? I say, maybe she changed her mind. But didn’t we state: “A woman herself may bring her bill of divorce”? Could you say that she may have changed her mind? There, she is damaging herself; here it is to her detriment.

Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said: If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he went and said to him, your wife said, accept the bill of divorce for me, even after the bill came into her hand it is not a valid bill of divorce, since he thinks that she will be divorced by the acceptance of the agent but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. Rabbi Huna bar Ḥiyya objected: But didn’t we state that if a woman said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand? Then even if the bill came into her hand it should not be a valid bill! For she thinks that she will be divorced by the acceptance of the agent but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. If he knows that practice is that “accept” and “obtain” mean “bring.” But didn’t we state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” Then it should not be a valid bill even if the bill of divorce reaches her hand. For she thinks that maybe she is divorced by the acceptance of the agent, but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. If he knows that a minor cannot appoint an agent.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman cannot appoint an agent to accept her bill of divorce from her husband’s agent. Samuel heard this from him and repeated after him forty times.

Rabbi Zeʿira asked: So far if she said, bring me, but the agent said to the husband “receive for me.” If she said, receive for me but the agent said to the husband “bring me”? It was found stated in both cases, this is a bill of divorce and if he wants to retract he cannot retract. But didn’t we state: “He shall deliver into her hand,” that includes not only her hand, from where through his agent’s hand, into her agent’s hand, from his agent to her agent, and from her agent to his agent; the verse says, “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Who said, “it is impossible for me”? Rabbi! As it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me: If he brought it to her, gave it to her, he acquired it for her, it was received for her; if he wants to retract, he may not retract, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ if he wants to retract, he may retract; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her,’ if he wants to retract, he may not retract. Rabbi says, in any of these cases he may not retract except if he says, ‘It is impossible for me that you accept it for her, but give it to her.’” It is difficult for Rabbi, “here you have it from my word,” if he wants to retract, he may retract. It is difficult for Rabbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word,” if he wants to retract, he may retract! Rav Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent,” she is both divorced and not divorced.

Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Yose: Isn’t this disagreement the same as that disagreement, as we have stated there: “If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her the bill of divorce or some valuable for preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rabbi Yose says it is sufficient; Rabbi Judah says he has to be explicit.” Then Rabbi follows Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Nathan Rabbi Judah. He said to him, what do you have in your hand, didn’t Rabbi Zeʿira, Ḥiyya bar Abin, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if he was still on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce. But here, even if they are still on the same subject there is disagreement.

Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift? Can a person appoint an agent for anything that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what is rightfully hers. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for anything that is not his? In addition, from what Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to retract, he may retract. Rabbi Yose stood near Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”? He said to him, at the moment he said it, it was a just “yes.”

If the husband said to another person: Bring my wife’s bill of divorce, or her daughter’s, or her sister’s, then he went and delivered it to her, it is no divorce. But if the other said: Give a bill of divorce to his wife, and the husband said, here is my wife’s bill of divorce, or her daughter’s, or her sister’s, and he went and gave it to her, it is a divorce. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun and Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Shammai: These are Rabbi’s words. But the Sages say, only if she says, it should be mine in your hand.

Rabbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rabban Gamliel: if she said “take for me, it should be mine in your hand.” A man sent a bill of divorce to his wife. She told the agent: “It should be mine in your hand.” The case came before Rav, who said, if he wants to retract he cannot retract. Does he disagree? There is a difference between “it should be in your hand” and “it should be mine in your hand.” Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the beginning and the end. A woman appointed an agent to accept her bill of divorce from the husband’s agents. The case came before Rav, who said, if he wants to retract he cannot retract. Rav’s opinion has switched! There, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman cannot appoint an agent to accept her bill of divorce from her husband’s agent, and here, he says so? I say, he was standing behind the door and heard her voice.

Mishnah

2 A woman who said, accept my bill of divorce for me, needs two groups of witnesses; two who say that she appointed in their presence and two who say that in their presence he received it and tore it up, even if the first ones are the latter ones, or one of the first together with one of the latter and a third person is associated with them. A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce. Rabbi Judah says, no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce. Any female who cannot take care of her bill of divorce cannot be divorced. If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand. Therefore, if the husband wants to retract he can retract since an underage person cannot appoint an agent. But if her father said to an agent: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if the husband wants to retract he cannot retract.

Halakhah

“A woman who said, accept my bill of divorce for me,” etc. Two say that she appointed in their presence and two say that in their presence he received and tore it. But if he agrees, the agent should be able to be added. Explain it, if he was a relative. This implies that a relative can act as agent.

“A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rabbi Yohanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish she has legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage by himself and through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage by herself and through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But didn’t we state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But didn’t we state: “If her father said to an agent: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if the husband wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah said, “no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce.” Rabbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rabbi Yohanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

The colleagues said, they disagree about courtyard and four cubits. Rabbi Yohanan said, she has both courtyard and four cubits. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, she has neither courtyard nor four cubits. Rabbi Eleazar said, they disagree about the courtyard but she has no four cubits. What did Rabbi Yohanan say about outstretched hands? Rabbi Eleazar asked, does an agent’s courtyard act as his hand?

If she is definitively married, she but not her father. An underage girl, her father but not she; if she is definitively married, both she and her father. If she has understanding, she but not her father. Who is an underage girl who needs to be divorced by herself? Rabbi Yohanan said, any female who is given her bill of divorce together with something else and she produces it after some time.

Mishnah

3 If somebody says, deliver this bill of divorce to my wife at place X and he delivered it at another place, it is invalid. But if he said, she is at place X, and he delivered it at another place, it is valid. If a woman says, accept my bill of divorce at place X, and he accepted it at another place, it is invalid, but Rabbi Eleazar declares it valid. Bring my bill of divorce from place X and he brought it from another place, it is valid.

Halakhah

“If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me,” etc. The Mishnah does not follow Rabbi Eleazar. But following Rabbi Eleazar she is divorced unless the husband tells the agent: Do not divorce her except at place X. “If he said, she is at place X and he delivered it at another place,” Rabbi Eleazar agrees that he only indicates a place; the rabbis agree that he only indicates a place.

Mishnah

4 “Bring my bill of divorce,” she may eat heave until the bill is delivered to her. “Receive my bill of divorce,” she is immediately forbidden to eat heave. “Receive my bill of divorce at place X,” she may eat heave until the bill arrives at that place; Rabbi Eleazar forbids immediately.

Halakhah

“If a woman says, accept my bill of divorce,” etc. What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. There, we have stated: “If someone tells a person who is not trustworthy, buy for me from somebody who is trustworthy, or from somebody who tithes, he is not trustworthy.” It was stated: “Rabbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him. It turns out that Rabbi Eleazar is like Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Yose is like Rabbi Eleazar. Rabbi Yose says more than Rabbi Eleazar; doesn’t Rabbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him.

Mishnah

5 If somebody says: “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife, divorce her, write a letter and deliver to her,” they should write and deliver. “Discharge her, provide for her, treat her according to the law, do what is necessary;” he did not say anything. Earlier, they said that if somebody was led away in a neck-iron when he said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, they should write and deliver. They reconsidered and said, also one who leaves on a ship or in a caravan. Rabbi Simeon from Shezur said, also the dangerously sick.

Halakhah

“If somebody says: ‘Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife,’” etc. If somebody says in Aramaic “divorce her,” it is as if he said in Hebrew “divorce her.”

“‘Discharge her, provide for her, treat her according to the law, do what is necessary;’ he did not say anything.” I say, he meant sustenance.

Rabbi Mana said, not only a neck-iron of mortal danger but also a neck-iron of money. For every neck-iron is a mortal danger. Rabbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rabbi Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jacob the Armenian: That which is a problem for Rabbi Simeon is obvious for Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina, as we have stated there: “One may have use for the hair of a woman who was executed but an animal which was executed is forbidden for all use.” Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, if she said, my bonnet should be given to my daughter.

As the following: Ganiba was led out to be executed. He said, one should give money to Rabbi Abuna from the wine of Kefar Panaya. They did not give him; they were considering what Rav said, “an heir is like the buyer of encumbered property.” Just as a loan before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. If they did not give it as payment of a debt, they should have given it as a gift! They were considering what Rabbi Eleazar said, for Rabbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rabbi Zeʿira brought Rabbi Isaac from Atosha who stated for him: A gift is like a bill of divorce. Rabbi Abba said to him, perhaps like bills of divorce which one cannot deliver if not delivered during his lifetime, so a gift is not called a gift if not delivered during his lifetime? He said to him, here comes the rabbi with sophistication to let Rabbi Abuna lose money! You cannot, for we have stated there: “Give a mina to X; then he died. One shall give after death.” Following Rabbi Simeon. For Rabbi Yohanan disagrees, they should give him, as Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A loan before witnesses can be collected from the heirs on condition that they inherited real estate. Rabbi Yose said, that is, if somebody was with him until the moment of his death. But if he goes in and out, I say that he already gave him. The word of Rabbi Ḥanina implies that it was not given since Rabbi Ḥanina reported this fact: Levi Parisa was going from place to place when Ganiba’s relatives came to eat with him. He said, the money should be given to Rabbi Abuna; they started quarreling with him.

It was stated: Also the sick person. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Practice follows Rabbi Simeon from Shezur about the dangerously ill. What is the difference between a dangerously ill and a sick person? A sick person is a normal case; any who gets sick suddenly is dangerously ill. In a normal case, the relatives visit him immediately; unrelated persons visit him after three days. If he falls ill suddenly, everybody visits him immediately. An example: Rabbi Ḥuna, Rabbi Phineas, and Rabbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rabbi Yose after three days. He said to them: Do you want to sustain the baraita in my case?

Mishnah

6 If somebody was thrown into a cistern and said, anybody hearing my voice should write a bill of divorce for my wife, they should write and deliver. If a healthy person said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, he wants to make fun of her. It happened to a healthy person who had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, that he went on the roof, fell down, and died. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the Sages said that if he jumped, it is a bill of divorce; if the wind pushed him, it is no bill of divorce.

Halakhah

“If somebody was thrown into a cistern,” etc. Rabbi Ḥanina said, Rabbi Jonathan taught us, only if they saw a man’s shadow. There we have stated: “One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice,” and Rabbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: That means, in the fields, but in town even without a man’s shadow. But didn’t we state: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern,” and Rabbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow? Rabbi Abin said, damaging spirits were as frequent in cisterns as they are in the fields.

If it was doubtful whether he jumped or the wind pushed him? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he fell down immediately, it is a bill of divorce; if he fell after some time it is no bill of divorce. But isn’t “immediately” a case of doubt whether he jumped or the wind pushed him? This implies that in case of doubt whether he jumped or the wind pushed him, it is a bill of divorce.

If somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling the victim’s blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, Rabbi Yohanan said, the intention invalidates, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the intention does not invalidate. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Didn’t we state: “Rabbi Yose said, that is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since in a case where thought makes sanctified food unusable, etc.,” and thought invalidates for piggul and leftover. He said to him, truly thought invalidates for piggul and leftover; but if somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling the victim’s blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, the intention does not invalidate. If he slaughtered and then the blood was sprinkled in an idolatrous rite and the fat was burned in an idolatrous rite, there was such a case in Caesarea and they pronounced neither prohibition nor permission. Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were not apprehensive. If you say that they were apprehensive, they should have taught a prohibition. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were apprehensive. If you say that they were not apprehensive, they should not have dealt with the case.

Mishnah

7 If one said to two persons, give a bill of divorce to my wife, or to three persons, write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife, they should write and deliver. If he said to three persons, deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, they shall ask others to write since he appointed them as a court, the words of Rabbi Meir. Ḥananiah from Ono sent this instruction for practice from jail: I know from tradition that if someone said to three persons, deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, they shall ask others to write since he appointed them as a court. Rabbi Yose said, we told the messenger that we also know from tradition that even if he said to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, they shall learn, write, and deliver. If he said to ten persons, write a bill of divorce for my wife, one writes and two sign. All of you shall write, one writes and all sign. Therefore, if one of them died, the bill of divorce would be void.

Halakhah

“If one said to two persons, give a bill of divorce to my wife,” etc. The Mishnah follows Rabbi Meir, from the next sentence: “If he said to three persons;” and Rav Ḥisda said, the reason of Rabbi Meir is that we find everywhere that others write and the court signs, also here others write and the court affixes their signatures.

Rabbi Hillel ben Valens asked before Rabbi: What reason did they have to say that practice follows Rabbi Yose? He said to him, because I never met him. If somebody questioned statements of Rabbi Yose, Rabbi said, we miserable ones asked against Rabbi Yose, for as there is a difference between the most holy and the most profane, so is there a difference between Rabbi Yose’s generation and ours. Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose said, the difference between my father’s generation and ours is like that between gold and dust.

“If somebody said to ten persons, ‘bring this bill of divorce,’ one transports in the name of all of them. ‘All of you shall bring,’ they all transport and one delivers in the name of all of them; therefore, if one of them died, the bill of divorce becomes invalid.” Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Eleazar from Rome: The one who awards it like one who says “all of you.”

Mishnah

1 If somebody had an attack of seizures and said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, he did not say anything. If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are nothing. If somebody became paralyzed, one asks him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nods his head, one tests him three times. If he answers no for no, yes for yes, they shall write and deliver.

Halakhah

“If somebody had an attack of seizures,” etc. The symptoms of an insane person: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rabbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a Cynic. Rabbi Yohanan said, even only one of these symptoms is proof. Rabbi Abun said, what Rabbi Yohanan said, even only one of these by itself is reasonable for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The one attacked by seizures does not exhibit any of these signs. What is one attacked by seizures? Rabbi Yose said, a decrepit one. A case came before Rabbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. This is the cordiacus described by the Sages.

“If sometimes he is insane and sometimes healthy. When he is insane he is insane in all regards, when healthy he is normal in all regards.” A case came before Samuel who said, when he is of sound mind he should deliver the bill of divorce. Why? Samuel follows Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish; as Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he regains his sanity. It follows that Samuel acted according to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, only if he is of sound mind may he deliver the bill of divorce; “make me healthy and let me live!”Isaiah 38:16

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rabbi Yohanan said, even while he is suffering an attack of seizures, one writes the bill of divorce and delivers it to his wife. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he regains his sanity. The argument of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, since they disagreed: If he became deaf-mute, or insane, or became an apostate, or the Court ruled that fat may be eaten, Rabbi Yohanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Aḥa switches traditions, to avoid having a word of Rabbi Yohanan contradict his own word. For Rabbi Samuel bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person terminally ill. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yasa, one follows the one, the other follows the other.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are disregarded.” He explains it: After he regains his sanity, his later words are disregarded. If he gave her a bill of divorce saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he threw her bill of divorce to her saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rabbi Eleazar said that Rabbi Abin asked: If he separated heave from his grain heap and said, it shall be heave only tomorrow but the next day he suffered an attack of seizures, is this the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rabbi Zeʿira said, a baraita disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it: If somebody had been crucified or mortally wounded when he signaled to write a bill of divorce to his wife, one writes and delivers on the assumption that his soul hangs on in him. Isn’t it impossible that his mind should not have been disturbed for an hour? This disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it.

It was stated: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, to what does this refer? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf-mute, he writes and others confirm his signature.”

Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, doesn’t a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can’t he write and have others execute his written instructions? They upheld it, if he was illiterate. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected, doesn’t a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him the bill and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rabbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disagreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rabbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Mana: Just as you say that three times he must give a sign with his head, must one equally hear his voice three times? He said to him, hearing his voice once, giving a sign with his head three times.

Rabbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such. Rabbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: He should have understanding for the future if he has understanding for the past; if he has no understanding for the past, he would not have understanding for the future! Rabbi Abba Mari said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated thus: “When was this said? When he was paralyzed while being healthy. But if he was paralyzed by a prior sickness, once is enough.”

But only if it is intermittent. Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he says, yes. For your mother, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your daughter, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your sister, and he says, no. Is it the same for testimony? Rabbi Abbahu came in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It is the same for testimony, since a person may testify while sitting. The same holds for vows. Rav Sheshet stated: Just as one checks three times for bills of divorce, so one checks for inheritance, commercial transactions, and gifts.

Mishnah

2 If they said to him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? If he said to them, write, and they told the scribe who wrote, and the witnesses who signed; even though they wrote, signed, and delivered it to him and he delivered it to her, this is an invalid bill of divorce unless he said to the scribe, write, and to the witnesses, sign.

Halakhah

“If they said to him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife,” etc. If he said to two people, say to X that he shall write and to Y and Z that they shall sign. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah, this happened in the days of Rabbi, and he said, such a thing should not be done in Israel. Samuel said, it certainly should be done. Rav Jeremiah asked Samuel: If he said to two people, say to X that he write and you sign. He said to him, that is a bill of divorce but it needs study. The opinion of Samuel seems inverted. There, he said, it certainly should be done, and here, he says so? There is a difference, because they changed their testimony.

We understand, to the witnesses, sign! But to the scribe, write? Doesn’t this disagree with Rabbi Yohanan, since Rabbi Yohanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. He explains it following Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah invalidates formulas.

Mishnah

3 “This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce if I should die from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,” he did not say anything. “From today if I should die, from now if I should die,” that is a bill of divorce. “From today after my death” is no bill of divorce; if he dies she must receive ḥaliṣah but is barred from levirate marriage.

Halakhah

“‘This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,’ he did not say anything.” But our teachers said, it is a bill of divorce. Who are “our teachers”? Rabbi Judah the Prince and his court. In three places Rabbi Judah the Prince is called “our teachers,” about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three previously forbidden things is called “permissive court.” Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Ishmael said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce.

May she be allowed to remarry? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rabbi Yose: she is forbidden to remarry; I say that a miracle happened to him and he survived.

“‘From today if I should die, from now if I should die,’ that is a bill of divorce. ‘From today after my death’ is no bill of divorce.” Rabbi Yudan said, the rabbis and our teachers discussed. Our teachers objected to the rabbis: Why do you say, it is a bill of divorce? Because he said, “if”! But in the last statement, he said “if” and you say, it is no bill of divorce! But it must be because he said, “from today.” We also hold that “from today” is the main point. Rabbi objected to the rabbis. Why do you say, it is not a bill of divorce? Because he said, “from today”! But in the earlier statement, he said “from today” and you say, it is a bill of divorce! But it must be because he said, “if.” I also hold that “if” is the main point. There, they switch attributions. Both Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Yohanan and Rav say that the words of Rabbi interpreted there are the words of the rabbis interpreted here: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “on condition.” Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Yasa, “on condition that I die” or “on condition that it be after my death”? He said to him, “on condition that I die.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: The words of Rabbi interpreted here are the words of the rabbis interpreted there: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “after death.”

There, we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death. Rabbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rabbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof. The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: This is no condition. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rabbi Ila said, for a gift; since he said “from today,” the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rabbi Bibon bar Cahana said before Rabbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rabbi Zeʿira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

The same applies to bills of manumission. “This is your bill of manumission valid after 30 days from now.” In Rabbi’s opinion, it is a bill; in the rabbis’ opinion, it is no bill. The same applies to abandoning. “My field shall be abandoned after 30 days from now.” In Rabbi’s opinion, it is abandoned; in the rabbis’ opinion, it is not abandoned. Is it the same for dedications? Everybody agrees that “my speaking to Heaven is equivalent to my delivering to a person.” Is it the same for preliminary marriage? It was found stated: Rabbi says, she is completely preliminarily married.

Mishnah

4 “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should die from this illness;” if he got up, walked in the market, fell ill again and died, one estimates whether he died from the original sickness, in which case it is a bill of divorce; otherwise it is no bill of divorce. She may not be alone with him except in the presence of witnesses, which may be even a male or a female slave except her personal slave girl since she has no shame in the presence of her personal slave girl. What is her status in those days? Rabbi Judah says, she is a married woman in all respects. Rabbi Yose says, she is divorced and not divorced.

Halakhah

“This is your bill of divorce from today,” etc. If he overate on groats it is as if he died from that illness, hazelnuts alone and he did not get out of bed it is as if he did not die from that illness.

“If he died from that sickness,” and a stone heap fell on him, or a snake bit him, it cannot be a bill of divorce unless he died of that sickness. “If I should not recover from that sickness,” and a stone heap fell on him, or a snake bit him it is a bill of divorce since he did not recover from that sickness.

It was stated: “Also the one in mortal danger.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it happened in such a case that he died during intercourse.

“Whether he died from the original sickness.” Are male or female slaves trustworthy? The witnesses know that at the time she was alone with him a male or female slave was present. “If she was alone with him with the knowledge of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him. One witness, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. One in the morning and one in the afternoon, that was a case and Rabbi Eleazar bar Thaddeus asked the Sages who said, this is not testimony of being alone. If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about intercourse but not about preliminary marriage. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage.” Rabbi Jeremiah explains the baraita: If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about immoral intercourse but not about preliminary marriage. If the time was not long enough for intercourse, one does not suspect anything. Rabbi Yose explains the baraita: If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about immoral intercourse but not about preliminary marriage by intercourse. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage by intercourse. If the time was not long enough for intercourse, one does not suspect preliminary marriage by money. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage by money. Rabbi Abin said, it turns out that the House of Shammai parallels the rabbis and the House of Hillel Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah.

For what? Rabbi Eleazar said, to inherit from her, as we have stated there: “He has a claim on what she finds and on her earnings, to dissolve her vows.” Rabbi Zeʿira said, this is what is implied by “she is a married woman in all respects.”

The opinion of Rabbi Judah seems to be inverted. There, he says that death is frequent but here, he says that death is not frequent. There in public, here in private, as it was stated: Rabbi Judah says there was no chest for nests in Jerusalem because of the mixing, maybe one of them would die and money for purification offerings destined to die would be mixed in with them.

What is the status of her intercourse? Some Tannaim state, her intercourse is certain, but some Tannaim state, her intercourse is in doubt. According to him who says that her intercourse is certain, he brings a “hung” sacrifice. According to him who says that her intercourse is in doubt, if the husband dies, he is free; if the husband does not die, he brings a purification sacrifice.

Mishnah

5 “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz;” she is divorced and has to pay. “On condition that you give me within thirty days,” if she paid within thirty days she is divorced, otherwise she is not divorced. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, it happened in Sidon that someone said to his wife “this is your bill of divorce on condition that you return to me my stole” and it turned out that his stole was lost; then the Sages said, she shall pay him its value.

Halakhah

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz,” etc. It was stated: If she did not manage to pay before he died, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, she pays his father or his brother and is free from ḥaliṣah and levirate marriage. The same holds for preliminary marriage: “You are preliminarily married to me on condition that I shall give you 200 zuz;” if he did not manage to pay before he died, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, his father or his brother pay and she is subject to ḥaliṣah or levirate marriage.

Rabbi Yudan said, we deal with the case that it was lost by compulsion. They treated her like an unpaid trustee who may stipulate to be free from an oath. Rabbi Yose said, do we state here that the unpaid trustee is free from an oath? But we deal with the case that it was lost by mishandling. They treated the stole according to its value. But the rabbis say that in any case it has to be treated as a case of condition of a bill of divorce.

Mishnah

6 “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you serve my father,” “on condition that you breast-feed my son,” how long does she have to breast-feed him? Two years; Rabbi Judah says, eighteen months. If the son or the father died, it is a valid divorce. “On condition that you serve my father for two years,” or “on condition that you breast-feed my son for two years;” if the son died or the father said, I cannot stand you serving me without being offended, it is no divorce. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is a divorce. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated a principle: Given any hindrance which is not from her side, it is a divorce.

Halakhah

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you serve my father,” etc. Rabbi Abba said: During his lifetime, on condition that she serve all his needs, on condition that she breast-feed all his needs. Even if she did not serve all his needs, even if she did not breast-feed all his needs, but even if she served him for one hour, or breast-fed him for one hour. After death, even if she never served him or never breast-fed him. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “How long does she have to breast-feed him? Two years, Rabbi Judah says, eighteen months.” Rabbi Abin said, this was taught about the cost of a wet-nurse.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” If anything intervened beyond his control? Rabbi Yohanan said, matters beyond his control are as if he were inactive. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, matters outside his control are as if he had acted. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, what would be necessary? “If that day should pass without you having taken me in, I shall have no claim on you.” When Rabbi Yohanan was dying, he told his daughters to act following Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. He said, maybe in the future there might be a court which follows him; then his descendants might be in danger of bastardy.

A person gave money for a ship when the canal dried up. The case came before Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: There is the ship, bring the canal! Abba bar Huna in the name of Rabbi Abba was praying that the canal should dry up and he could recover his money. He said, Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Abba are of the same opinion as Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If she cut off, she hindered. If her hand was cut off, it is not as if she hindered.

Mishnah

7 “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Judea to Galilee, came to Antipatris, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Galilee to Judea, came to Kefar Othnay, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go overseas, came to Acco, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should be absent from you for thirty days;” even if he repeatedly came and left, it is a bill of divorce if he was never alone with her.

Halakhah

“This is your bill of divorce,” etc. For what? Rabbi Elazar said, for his house; Rabbi Yohanan said, for places. The Mishnah supports him who said, for his house: “If he came to Acco, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Yose, explain it following him who said that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce. But even if you say that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce, does that mean also for conditions imposed on a bill of divorce?

He is forbidden to be alone with her immediately, for maybe he will not visit her for thirty days and then her bill of divorce would be older than her child.

Mishnah

8 “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is no bill of divorce. “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is a bill of divorce. “If I should not return within twelve months from today write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it within twelve months, it is no bill of divorce. “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife if I should not return within twelve months from today;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it after twelve months, it is no bill of divorce; Rabbi Yose says, this is an example of a bill of divorce. If they wrote after twelve months and delivered after twelve months but he had died, if the bill of divorce preceded the death it is a bill of divorce but if the death preceded the bill of divorce it is no bill of divorce. If it is not known, it is a case where they say, she is divorced and not divorced.

Halakhah

“If I should not return within twelve months from today,” etc. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? Because he mentioned writing earlier. But didn’t he also mention delivering earlier, and you say that it is no bill of divorce?

The Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi: “This is your bill of divorce after the holiday.” He said to him, all of 30 days after the holiday are called “after the holiday.” Rabbi Bivon bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: “This is your bill of divorce on Passover eve”? Even a person who says that all of 30 days after the holiday are called “after the holiday” will agree that 30 days before Passover are not like “after Passover.” Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Yasa: If somebody said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine at the end of the Sabbath? He said to him, after the end of the Sabbath he is forbidden, Sabbath eve he is permitted, the days in between are problematic. And so it is here, after the end of the Sabbath it is a bill of divorce, Sabbath eve it is no bill of divorce, but the days in between are problematic.

Mishnah

1 If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in her own house or her own courtyard, she is divorced. If he threw it to her inside his house or his courtyard, even if he was together with her in a bed, she is not divorced. Into her bosom or her wool basket, she is divorced.

Halakhah

“If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. “He shall write,” “he shall deliver into her hand.” Not only into her hand; from where also into her garden or into her courtyard? The verse says “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Is this following Rabbi Ishmael? It is following Rabbi Aqiba. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Ishmael, “he took all his land from his hand, up to the Arnon.” Did he take it out of his hand? What does “from his hand” mean? From his possession.

But aren’t her garden and her courtyard subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rabbi Joshua in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rabbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rabbi Hoshaiah follows Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from his master’s hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from his master’s hand? Rabbi Hoshaiah follows Rabbi Meir, for Rabbi Meir said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; for example if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. Rabbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, for Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rabbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he is either explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

Ulla bar Ishmael said, he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Think of it, if her wool basket was of gold? Certainly he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Rabbi Yohanan said, only if it is being used. Rabbi Yose said, only if she is using it at that moment. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if it is tied to her; Rabbi Yose said, if she lifts it for her purpose. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated in support of Rabbi Yohanan: Even if he threw it into her maloš she is divorced.

Mishnah

2 If he said to her, “take this bond,” or she found it behind his back, she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce.” If he put it into her hand while she was asleep, after she awoke she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce.” If she was standing in the public domain when he threw it to her and it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.

Halakhah

“If he said to her, ‘take this bond,’” etc. Rabbi Yohanan says, this follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Simeon, since Rabbi Eleazar ben Simeon says it is never a bill of divorce unless he says at the moment of delivery: “this is your bill of divorce.”

How close is “near”? Rav said, four cubits. Rabbi Ilai the heir said, four cubits. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Stretching out hands, and we have stated: “stretching out hands.” Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: Stretching out hands. The argument of Rav is inverted; there, he says four cubits and here he says so? There in theory, here in practice. “Rabbi Eleazar stated: Even if it was closer to her than to him but a dog came and took it away, she is not divorced.” Samuel agrees with Rabbi Eleazar and disagrees. The clearest way is that he puts it into her hand. If there was room for stretching out hands between him and her, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan states: If it was closer to her than to him she is divorced, closer to him than to her she is not divorced, half and half she is divorced and not divorced. Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: In all cases in which we have stated “divorced and not divorced,” support is on him.

Mishnah

3 The same applies for preliminary marriages and for liquidation of debts. If he said to him, throw to me what you owe me and he threw it close to the lender, the borrower is acquitted, close to the borrower, the borrower remains obligated, in the middle both of them must share it. If she was standing on top of her roof and he threw it to her, as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace she is divorced. If he was on top and she below, once it left the domain of the roof she is divorced even if it was blotted out or burned.

Halakhah

“The same applies for preliminary marriages,” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself. What is the reason? “Look, in my poverty I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100,000 kikkar of gold, 1,000,000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much; I prepared wood and stones, and you should add to them.”1 Chronicles 22:14

Rabbi Jonah said that Rabbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his? We confirmed it if he dedicated it piece by piece.

Rabbi Abun said, what does “in my poverty” mean? That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: בְּעוֹנְיִי “in my deprivation,” because he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Didn’t we state: “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 didn’t we 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 didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “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.

Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rabbi Yohanan adds something, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rabbi Yohanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which could only be acquired within four cubits by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find?

Rabbi Zeʿira objected before Rabbi Yasa: But didn’t we state: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But didn’t we state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, but it did not yet enter his domain. Rabbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rabbi Zeʿira raised before Rabbi Yasa, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rabbi Yohanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.

Rabbi Abin in the name of Ḥizqiah: The second scribe earns money.

Rabbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet, or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition. Rabbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the bottom. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest, for the Sabbath only if it rested. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rabbi Immi asked before Rabbi Yohanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rabbi, since Rabbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion. Couldn’t one object that Rabbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rabbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.

Mishnah

4 The House of Shammai say, a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce, but the House of Hillel forbid it. And what is an old bill of divorce? If he was again alone with her after he wrote it for her.

Halakhah

“The House of Shammai say,” etc. Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: And any one of them if she was married should not leave, in order not to cause talk about her children.

We stated: “After he wrote it for her.” Some Tannaim state “after he delivered it to her.” He who says “after he wrote it for her” supports the House of Shammai; he who says “after he delivered it to her” supports the House of Hillel.

Mishnah

5 If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West,” she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

Halakhah

“If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: They declared the child a bastard because of the danger. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: This entire Chapter is Rabbi Meir’s except for “if he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city.” Rabbi Mana asked before Rabbi Yasa: Also “if somebody divorced his wife”? He said to him, not your Chapter but our Chapter.

Mishnah

6 If somebody married his sister-in-law while her co-wife went and married somebody else, if the sister-in-law turns out to be a she-ram, the co-wife shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

Halakhah

“If somebody married his sister-in-law,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥaliṣah. Rabbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥaliṣah, the other one keeps her. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: She must leave. Rabbi Yose asked Rabbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rabbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I will publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rabbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rabbi Yohanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rabbi Meir who said it in the name of Rabbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” Therefore she must leave.

Mishnah

7 If the scribe wrote and then in error handed the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man and they exchanged them, then later the bill of divorce is found with the man and the receipt with the woman, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Rabbi Eliezer says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.

Halakhah

“If the scribe wrote,” etc. What case are we dealing with? If he made a mistake, even Rabbi Eleazar agrees. If he made no error, even the rabbis agree. But we must be dealing with a case where it was unexplained. Rabbi Eleazar suspects that possibly he made no mistake; the rabbis suspect that possibly he did make a mistake.

“Rabbi Eleazar says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.” What is immediately? Rabbi Zeʿira says, before she was preliminarily married, or when she was preliminarily married. Rabbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, before she was definitively married, or when she was definitively married. The Mishnah supports Rabbi Zeʿira: “Since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.”

Mishnah

8 If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, the House of Shammai say, he disabled her from the priesthood. But the House of Hillel say, even if he handed her the bill of divorce and attached a condition, if the condition was not satisfied he did not disable her from the priesthood.

Halakhah

“If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is no problem because of the purity of the priestly line and the court will not denigrate her. A case came before the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and he acted following the House of Hillel. Rav asked him, why did you bring yourself into this great doubt? He answered, Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose was with me. He quoted about them: “Two are better than one.”

“A woman who engages in sex play with her son, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify.” Two women who mutually engage in sex play, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify.

Mishnah

9 If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him in a hostelry, the House of Shammai say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him, but the House of Hillel say that she needs a second bill of divorce from him. When? If she was divorced after definitive marriage. But they agree that if she was divorced after preliminary marriage, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him since he was not intimate with her. If somebody married her based on a bald bill of divorce, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her.

Halakhah

“If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him,” etc. Rabbi Mana said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce,” they say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man shall not divorce his wife unless he found in her a matter of immorality,” they say that she is dirty in his eyes and he is not suspected of having relations with her, therefore she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. Since the House of Hillel say, “even if she spoiled his food,” they say that she is not dirty in his eyes, he is suspected of having relations with her, and she needs a second bill of divorce from him.

If somebody divorces his wife she should not live in the same courtyard or the same place. If the courtyard was the wife’s property, the husband has to move out, if the husband’s, the wife has to move out. If it was common property, who has to move because of whom? The woman because of the man, unless they can manage to have separate exits. When has this been said? If they were definitively married, not if they were not definitively married. But the wife of a Cohen if she was not definitively married, as well as the status of a preliminarily married woman in Judah, is that of one definitively married. Nobody has to move if a person gives ḥaliṣah to his sister-in-law even if he had “bespoken” her since “bespeaking” does not fully acquire.

Mishnah

10 Anybody can supplement a bald document following the words of Ben Nanas. Rabbi Aqiba says, one supplements the signatures only by relatives who would be able to testify under other circumstances. What is a bald document? One whose knots are more than its signatures.

Halakhah

“Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. From where that a document can be knotted? Rabbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,” etc. “And the sealed,” that is the knotted document. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two witnesses, the other with three; one in it, the other on its back. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel, on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise. Rabbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top. But shouldn’t one be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Naḥman wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But shouldn’t one be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid. But shouldn’t one be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Doesn’t Rav Huna consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified.

Rabbi Yohanan said: There is no “she shall be divorced.” Rabbi Immi said, several boxes of cases came before Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish and they said, go and complete following Rabbi Aqiba.

Rabbi Yohanan said, the Mishnah applies if one witness is missing, but only if there are three or more. Two or three at the beginning is invalid, one below the three is valid. Rabbi Mana asked: That is, if they are continuous. If they are with interruptions? As one says, they are considered like testimony at a distance, they only serve to certify the testimony. And so it is here. If there were nine, can he untie two and have two sign? Or are two witnesses on a knotted document nothing? If there were five, it is obvious that he unties one and has it signed. It turns out that his untying permits it following Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel, for Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, the essential part is what validates, even if he ties and signs after that. That is, if he ties all knots and after that the first three witnesses did sign. But if he tied the first three and had them signed, even if he makes many ties and lets many sign it is valid. Practice is that a knotted document is first knotted and then signed. If he made the first knots and had them signed right away, it is obvious that the first two did not sign the knotted document.

What case are we dealing with? If he knotted and signed it inside, everybody agrees that it can be made simple. If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple. Rabbi objected to the statement of Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The body of the document shows whether it is simple or not simple. What is the body of the document? Rabbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But didn’t we state: “That is the formula of a document”? Rabbi Mana said, that is the formula of a knotted document. Rabbi Abin said, even if you say it is the same for knotted and simple, for a knotted document it is a necessity, for a simple one it is not a necessity. Rabbi Aḥa said, if one adds to practice. A simple document is witnessed by two persons. If common usage is to have three, one makes it with three. A knotted document is signed on its back. If common usage is to sign it inside and out, one signs it inside and out.

The condition of validity is stated here and was stated there. It was necessary to state it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that here it is invalid because of the restrictions connected with adultery but there, since no restrictions connected with adultery are involved, it would be valid. Or if it had been stated there but not here, we would have said that there it is invalid since one comes to collect money based on that document but here, where one does not collect money, it would be valid. Therefore, it was necessary both to state it here and to state it there.

Mishnah

1 If somebody in divorcing his wife says to her: Herewith you are permitted to any man except Mr. X, Rabbi Eliezer permits but the Sages prohibit. What should he do? He should take the document back from her and deliver it again while saying, herewith you are permitted to any man. If he had written the condition in the document it would be invalid even if he had later erased it.

Halakhah

“If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rabbi Ilai said, the reason of Rabbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s,” even if he permitted her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it groups marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

After Rabbi Eliezer’s death, four Elders assembled to object to Rabbi Eliezer’s words: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Yose the Galilean, Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Joshua told them, one does not contradict the lion after his death. Rabbi Tarfon objected: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married the latter’s brother who died childless; how can she contract the levirate marriage? Doesn’t it turn out that he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid. Then nobody should be permitted to marry his brother’s daughter, in case he comes to stipulate against what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, one understands the reason. There, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rabbi Ḥananiah objected in the name of Rabbi Phineas: Shouldn’t one state “sixteen women” following Rabbi Eliezer? Rabbi Mana said, the reason was already explained: there, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married the latter’s brother who died childless, how can the latter permit what the first forbade? His words imply that death and divorce permit what the first husband prohibited. Rabbi Jeremiah said, he said only death and divorce; therefore, not marriage.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean said: Do we find in the Torah that what is forbidden to one is permitted to the other and what is permitted to one is forbidden for the other? Forbidden to one she is forbidden to everybody; permitted to one she is permitted to everybody. Rabbi Aqiba objected: If the one to whom she was prohibited was a Cohen and the divorcer died, wouldn’t she be considered a widow for him but a divorcee for all his clan of Cohanim? Where was the Torah more restrictive, for a divorcee or for a widow? The Torah was more restrictive for a divorcee than for a widow. But since a divorcee, where one is more restrictive in all aspects, does not become forbidden with respect to what was permitted by her divorce, would it be logical that the widow should be forbidden from what was permitted her from her aspect of married woman? The divorce touched even him. Since both a widow and a divorcee were forbidden even if her aspect of married woman was permitted, with restrictive divorce certainly she should be forbidden even in the aspect that was permitted by her divorce.

Another argument: “Assume that he said to her, ‘you are permitted to every man except Mr. X;’ she went and married another and had children by him. Then her second husband died; she went and married Mr. X. Won’t her children by her second husband become bastards?” His argument implies that divorce does not permit what the first husband had forbidden. Rabbi Shammai said, do we find that a woman was not originally forbidden to a man because of adultery and then retroactively became forbidden as adulterous? Rabbi Mana said to him, to what can you compare this? To one who told his wife, “this is your bill of divorce on condition that you sleep with Mr. X.” At the start, he is forbidden to have sexual relations with her. If he transgressed and slept with her, the divorce was retroactively validated.

Rabbi Yohanan said, the practice follows Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said it is never a bill of divorce unless he declares at the moment of delivery: “This is your bill of divorce.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is not even a hint of invalidity on her. Cahana said, this implies that they did not worry. If they did worry, might he not have said “you are permitted to any man” when it was still in her hand? Rabbi Aḥa said, this implies that they did worry. If they did not worry, couldn’t he divorce by any power he has to divorce?

Rabbi Zeʿira said: Shila bar Binah stated: Anything which is invalid containing a condition if delivered on condition is also invalid.

Mishnah

2 “You are permitted to any man except to my father and your father, to my brother and your brother, to a slave, a Gentile,” or anybody she is unable to contract a preliminary marriage with, it is valid. “You are permitted to any man except as a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one having received ḥaliṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite girl to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a bastard or a Gibeonite,” or anybody she could contract a preliminary marriage with even if it is sinful, it is invalid. The essence of the bill of divorce: You are herewith permitted to any man. Rabbi Judah says: This shall be for you from me a divorce scroll and a letter of abandonment, to enable you to marry any man you desire. The essence of the bill of manumission: You are a free person, you are on your own.

Halakhah

“The essence of the bill of divorce: You are herewith permitted to any man,” etc. Rabbi Aḥa said: “Cutting off,” the Torah did not choose the term “cutting off” except to refer to a person with whom a marriage is possible.

Rabbi Mana said: He has to be careful not to say “וְדִין.” Rabbi Mana asked: “You are on your own”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, one must say: “You are a free person, you are on your own.” The Mishnah said so: “You are a free person, you are on your own.”

Mishnah

3 Three kinds of bills of divorce are invalid, but if she married, the child is legitimate: If he wrote in his own handwriting but it was not signed by witnesses; it was signed by witnesses but is not dated; it is dated but only one witness signed it. These are three invalid kinds of bills of divorce, but if she married, the child is legitimate.

Halakhah

“You are permitted to any man,” etc. There really is no questionable divorce here. What are questionable qiddušin? As we have stated there: If he threw the betrothal gift to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, those are questionable qiddušin. And here, if he threw the divorce document to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that is a questionable divorce.

Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

It was stated: A claim based on any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unencumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rabbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rabbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed, he should not be able to collect even from unencumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can’t he collect? Rabbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rabbi Abina said, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid. Rabbi Abin asked, so far, if the old man took the loan and the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and the son mortgaged, can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. Rabbi Abun asked, wasn’t it stated: The same holds for bills of divorce? Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.

“Three kinds of bills of divorce are invalid,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: All in handwriting. Rabbi Eleazar asked: There are witnesses; why do I need handwriting? Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: All in handwriting except if its witnesses are with it. Rav Hamnuna said, they testified to their own sin since they agreed to lie by signing on an undated bill of divorce.

Rabbi Abba bar Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥa in the name of Rav: This is Rabbi Meir’s. Why did you have to say this? Rabbi Mana said, since Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: “This entire Chapter is Rabbi Meir’s except for ‘if he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city.’” You should not come to say that the first is Rabbi Meir’s, the second the rabbis’. Therefore it is necessary to say that this is Rabbi Meir’s. Rabbi Yose said, since Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rabbi Eleazar, that you should not be led to say the same here. Therefore it is necessary to say that this is Rabbi Meir’s.

Mishnah

4 Rabbi Eleazar says, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Eleazar says, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it,” etc. Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rabbi Eleazar. Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The words of the Sages: It is invalid. A case came before Rabbi Yohanan about a Cohen’s wife and he wanted to act on Rabbi Yannai’s statement when it was heard that Rav and Samuel disagreed. Another case came before him involving an Israelite, and he listened to that. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, in the opinion of everybody it is valid. But didn’t Rabbi Eleazar say, it is valid, and the rabbis say, it is invalid? What is their disagreement? Rabbi Eleazar said, it is valid and she can collect from encumbered property. The rabbis said, it is invalid and she can collect only from unencumbered property.

Mishnah

5 If two men sent two identical bills of divorce which became mixed up, one delivers both to both women. Therefore, if one of them was lost, the second became unusable.

Halakhah

“If two men sent two identical bills of divorce,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose asked before Rabbi Yose: Just as you say that a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce is invalid in the case of two wives, similarly two bills of divorce should be invalid for two women. He answered, that is correct. He said to him, but didn’t we state: “If two men sent two identical bills of divorce and they became mixed up, one delivers both to both women”? There, each of the bills was written in the name of the respective wife; the mix-up caused the problem. But here, neither one was written as divorce in her name; when it was delivered, could it be considered as divorce in her name from the start?

Mishnah

6 If five wrote collectively a bill of divorce, the man A divorces B and C D and the witnesses sign at the end, all are valid and the bill shall be delivered to each of them. If one wrote the text separately for each of them and the witnesses sign at the end, only the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.

Halakhah

“Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What does “collectively” mean for Rabbi Yohanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What does “collectively” mean for Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rabbi Zeʿira said, Rabbi Yohanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. Rabbi Yohanan’s argument is from the following: “‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rabbi Yohanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, only the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rabbi Meir is the general statement for Rabbi Judah and the detailed statement for Rabbi Judah is the general statement for Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Samuel said in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rabbi Meir is not the general statement for Rabbi Judah and the detailed statement for Rabbi Judah is not the general statement for Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you say that the detailed statement for Rabbi Meir is the general statement for Rabbi Judah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rabbi Judah is not the general statement for Rabbi Meir, as we have stated there: “Rabbi Meir says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately,” but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rabbi Ḥanina said, in Rabbi Meir’s opinion, whether he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” is a general statement and particulars. In Rabbi Judah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains,” it is a general statement without particulars.

Mishnah

7 If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side and two Hebrew-writing witnesses signed from one column to the next, and two Greek-writing witnesses signed from one column to the next, the one whose witnesses are read with it is valid. If one Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, all are invalid.

Halakhah

“If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side,” etc. “It is invalid if the witnesses are separated from the text by the width of two lines; less than that it is valid.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject makes invalid in any case. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, are all invalid.” Isn’t Hebrew combined with Greek one item? Rabbi Mana said, if he started at the end of the second line and ended at the fourth line, it is valid. “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rabbi Dositheos ben Yannai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” What kind of writing does one use to estimate? Rabbi Yasa ben Rabbi Sabbatai says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula: Corresponding to לך ולך. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Does the signature of Yose ben Yannai have equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh? He said to him: For that it is needed, that the signature of Yose ben Yannai has equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh.

A document which has an erasure or insertion in its main part is invalid; in the routine matter it is valid; but if it was mentioned later it is valid even in the main part. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both say, one has to mention it at least in the second line before the end of the text. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav: One has to mention the essence of the document with it. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: If one did not mention the essence of the document with it. The argument of Rabbi Abba seems inverted. There, Rabbi Ba said in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity. And here, he says so? There, in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah, here in the name of Rav.

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified; I say that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.” Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance. Rabbi Mana said, is that correct? Couldn’t he then certify from one handwriting? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written. Rabbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified.

Mishnah

8 It is valid if some of the text remained and was written in the second column, with the witnesses signing below. If the witnesses signed on top of the page, or at the sides, or on the other side for a simple document, it is invalid. If two bills of divorce start at the same place and the witnesses are in the middle, both are invalid. If the start of one bill is next to the end of the other and the witnesses are at the end, the bill whose witnesses are read with the end is valid. A bill of divorce written in Hebrew with its witnesses signing in Greek, written in Greek with its witnesses signing in Hebrew, or one witness signing in Hebrew and one in Greek, or the scribe wrote with one witness, is valid. “X, witness” is valid. “The son of Y, witness” is valid. “X the son of Y,” but he did not write “witness,” is valid. If he wrote his or her surname, it is valid; that is how the punctilious in Jerusalem used to write.

Halakhah

“If some of the text remained,” etc. What does “remained” mean? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Baibon said, for example, “true, valid, and clear.”

And what is invalid for a simple document is valid for a “knotted” one if it is on the back.

Rav said: Judges may sign even if they cannot read, but no witnesses may sign unless they know how to read. He said, such should come over me if I ever acted this way. Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Yose: Did no Greek document come before Rav that he could confirm it by its signatures? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “A bill of divorce written in Hebrew with its witnesses signing in Greek, written in Greek with its witnesses signing in Hebrew, or one witness signing in Hebrew and one in Greek, is valid.” He explains that they knew how to read but not how to sign; or if they knew both languages, they could sign in either one of their choice.

Rabbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rabbi Yohanan said, it is Rabbi Judah’s. Rabbi Yose said, you should not infer that the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan is that he differs, but he answered him following his argument. Lengthwise. That is what he said in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: Since pairing is infrequent, there was no pairing. So is the Mishnah: “If the scribe wrote with one witness, it is valid. ‘X’ is valid. ‘The son of Y’ is valid. ‘X the son of Y’ but he did not write ‘witness,’ is valid. If he wrote his or her surname, it is invalid.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, even if he wrote “he is it,” it is valid. Rabbi Abbahu wrote א. Rav Ḥisda wrote ס. Samuel wrote a palm branch.

Mishnah

9 A forced bill of divorce among Jews is valid, from Gentiles it is invalid; but the Gentiles may whip him and tell him, do what the Jews tell you.

Halakhah

“That is how the punctilious in Jerusalem used to write. A forced bill of divorce among Jews is valid, from Gentiles it is invalid.” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies from the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥaliṣah in the case of a simple priest. But didn’t we state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Didn’t he say “for example”? But didn’t we state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him for up to 30 days shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Jews who forced in the manner of Gentiles make invalid, even if he says, I will not feed or provide. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Gentiles who forced in the manner of Jews are valid, even if he says, I will not feed or provide. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “Gentiles may tell him, whip him, and tell him, do what the Jews tell you to do.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Issy: If somebody says: “I will not feed or provide,” one forces him to divorce. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Abbahu: Does one force? He said to him, do you still have doubts? If one forces because of a foul smell, so much more because of sustenance! Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa came in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If somebody says: “I will not feed and I will not provide,” one tells him: Either feed and provide, or divorce.

Mishnah

10 If it became public knowledge in town that she was preliminarily married, she is preliminarily married; divorced, she is divorced, except if there was an excuse. What would be an excuse? Mr. X divorced his wife conditionally, or he threw valuables for preliminary marriage to her and it was doubtful whether it was closer to her than to him; that is an excuse.

Halakhah

“If it became public knowledge in town that she was preliminarily married, she is preliminarily married.” Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If lights are burning and people talk. Rabbi Zeʿira objected before Rabbi Yasa: But didn’t we state: “If it became public knowledge in town that she was preliminarily married, she is preliminarily married; divorced, she is divorced”? Can you say that lights are burning? No, people talk. So here also, people talk. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If the title was checked and found to be from the mouth of women or minors, the title is abolished. Rav said, they permitted only in case of a hearsay witness.

Mishnah

11 The House of Shammai say, a person should not divorce his wife unless he found her immoral, as it was said: “For he found with her a matter of nakedness.” But the House of Hillel say, even if she spoiled his dish, as it was said: “For he found with her a bad thing.” Rabbi Aqiba said, even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it was said: “It will be if she does not appear pleasing in his eyes, etc.”

Halakhah

Wasn’t it stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s hair is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” How can the House of Shammai confirm this? In case you say that one divorced because of immorality is forbidden, for another cause she would be permitted. Rabbi Shila from Kefar-Tamarta said: The verse is difficult for the House of Shammai: “Her first husband, who had sent her away, cannot afterwards retake her.” What case are we dealing with? If to forbid her to him, isn’t she already forbidden to him? But it must be to burden him with a prohibition.

It is written: “And the unwell in her menstruation and the sufferer from gonorrhea in his flow.” The earlier Elders used to say, “she shall be in her menstruation,” she shall not use kohl or any make-up until she comes into water. Rabbi Aqiba said to them: Is that a reason? If you say so, she makes herself ugly and he starts thinking to divorce her. It turns out that the Elders follow the House of Shammai and Rabbi Aqiba the House of Hillel.