Auch er [R. Chanina, der Adjutant des Hohepriesters, sagte über ein kleines Dorf in der Nähe von Jerusalem aus, in dem es einen alten Mann gab, der allen Männern des Dorfes (Geld) verlieh und mit seiner eigenen Hand einen Schuldschein [über den Kreditnehmer] schrieb. und andere unterschrieben [dh koschere Zeugen unterschrieben die Notiz]; und es (ein Fall einer solchen Notiz) kam vor die Weisen und sie erlaubten es, [obwohl der Verfasser der Notiz der Kreditgeber und eine "interessierte Partei" war.] Entsprechend erfährt man, dass eine Frau ihr get schreibt (Rechnung) der Scheidung) [und koschere Zeugen unterschreiben], und ein Mann schreibt seine Quittung, [eine Notiz über "Verzicht", seine Frau verzichtet auf ihre Kethuba-Zahlungen.] Denn es gibt keine Genehmigung für ein Get, außer durch seine Unterschriften [dh die Zeugen Auf dem Get unterschrieben sind die wesentlichen Gründe für die Bestätigung des Get. Wenn koschere Zeugen es unterschreiben, ist es daher koscher, obwohl es von der Frau geschrieben wurde.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
וכותב בכתב ידו – a document of liability on the borrower.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction
Mishnah three contains the final two testimonies of Rabbi Hananyah, chief of priests.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ואחרים חותמים – valid witnesses would sign on the document.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
He also testified concerning a small village in the vicinity of Jerusalem in which there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the bond] in his own handwriting and others signed it. And when the fact was brought before the Sages they pronounced it legal. Hence, incidentally, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorcement, and a husband may write his own receipt; for the legality of a document depends only on those who sign it. The third thing about which Rabbi Hananyah testified is about the manner in which documents may be written. He testified that he saw an elder in a town near Jerusalem who used to write out his own loan documents and have others sign them and the Sages pronounced it legal, even though the witnesses did not write out the entire document themselves. Without Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we might have thought that the lender is not allowed to write out the document himself, for fear that he would forget a document and thereby falsely claim that someone owed him money. From Rabbi Hananyah’s testimony we learn that a woman is allowed to write out her own divorce document and a man might right out his own receipt for having paid the woman’s ketubah (marriage payment). Even though the divorce document is given by the man to the woman and the receipt is given by the woman to the man, since the legality of a document depends solely upon the witnesses, it does not matter who writes it out. As long as these documents are witnessed properly, they are valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
והתירו – and even though the person who writes the document is the lender, and he is an interested witness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
And [he testified] concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice], that the knife and the hands [which had been employed on the flesh] are clean, but the flesh itself is defiled; and if it was found in the excrement, all are clean. The final issue upon which Rabbi Hananyah testified is with regards to a needle which was found in the body of a sacrifice after it had been slaughtered. The needle was known to have been made impure by a dead body and the question is being asked, are the knife that had been used to slaughter the animal and the person who slaughtered the animal impure from having had contact with the impure needle. Rabbi Hananyah testifies that the knife and slaughterer are not impure but the flesh of the sacrifice is impure, for the needle surely came into contact with it. The reason that the knife and slaughterer are still pure is that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are considered pure. The flesh does not make the knife impure because food does not impart impurity to vessels. If, however, the needle was found in the feces of the animal, the knife, slaughterer and even the flesh are pure, because we cannot be sure that the animal’s flesh touched the needle. Although we could assume that the animal swallowed the needle and therefore it touched the flesh, this is not certain and therefore, since this happened in the public domain, the rules are lenient.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שהאשה כותבת את גיטה – and valid witnesses are signed to it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
את שוברו – the document of renunciation that his wife has renounced to him on her Jewish marriage contract.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שאין קיום הגט אלא בחותמיו (see Tractate Gittin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) – the witnesses whose signatures are affixed on the Jewish bill of divorce is the essence of the reason for the validation of the Jewish bill of divorce. Therefore, when valid witnesses have affixed their signatures on it, it is valid, and event though it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce) is in the handwriting of the woman [to be divorced].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ועל מחט – and it is known concerning it that it was defiled [through contact] with the dead, and it is found that with Holy meat, when they cut it in the Temple courtyard, and there was a doubt if it the knife or a person touched it or not. The knife and the person are ritually pure, for it is doubtful impurity in the public domain, for the Temple courtyard has the law of the public domain regarding the matter of ritual impurity, and a doubtful impurity in the public domain, its doubt is deemed pure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
והבשר טמא (see Talmud Pesahim 20a and Talmud Hullin 36b) -for it certainly came in contact with ritual impurity, and our Mishnah is speaking about Holy animals that passed through a river close to its slaughter and still liquid is dripping on it, as the meat has become susceptible to receive defilement with those waters. For if this was not the case, the meat would not be impure. And even though we wash it in the slaughtering place in the Temple courtyard, for all liquid of the slaughtering house is restored to Levitical cleanness. And the meat does not become susceptible to receive defilement. And if it is difficult how the meat is ritually defiled and the hands are pure, for don’t impure food-stuffs defile the hands, according to the Rabbis. But it is not difficult at all, for we hold that one’s hands do not become defiled in the Temple, when they decreed on the defilement of the hands, they didn’t decree about it in the Temple.
