Talmud zu Gittin 1:5

כָּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי, פָּסוּל, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר. כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִים בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶם גּוֹיִם, כְּשֵׁרִים, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף אֵלּוּ כְשֵׁרִין, לֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְהֶדְיוֹט:

Jede Rechnung, auf der ein kuthitischer Zeuge unterschrieben ist, ist ungültig, mit Ausnahme der Gittin von Frauen und der Manumissionen von Knechten [die gültig sind, wenn einer der Zeugen ein Kuthit ist. Aber wenn beide Cuthites sind, macht das erste Tanna es ungültig, selbst mit dem Gittin von Frauen.] Das Erhalten einer Frau, auf der Cuthite-Zeugen unterschrieben waren, wurde einmal vor R. Gamliel in Kfar Otnai gebracht, und er bestätigte es. [R. Gamliel bestätigte es sogar dort, wo beide Cuthites waren. Und heute, nach dem Dekret, dass Cuthites in jeder Hinsicht als Nichtjuden betrachtet werden sollen, unterscheidet sich das Gittin von Frauen nicht von anderen Schriften; Selbst ein kuthitischer Zeuge macht eine Schrift ungültig.] Alle Schriften, die vor nichtjüdischen Gerichten verhandelt werden [die Zeugen haben vor dem Richter an ihrem Gerichtsort ausgesagt], sind gültig, auch wenn sie von Nichtjuden unterzeichnet wurden. [Hier, wo wir wissen, dass der Richter und die Zeugen keine Bestechungsgelder annehmen dürfen], mit Ausnahme der Gittin von Frauen und der Manumissionen von Knechten. [(Die Gültigkeit erhält) nur in Bezug auf Kredite und Verkäufe, bei denen die Zeugen den Geldtransfer sahen. Aber Schriften der Verschuldung und des Gittins der Frauen und aller Dinge, die Verordnungen von Beth-Din sind—Alle diese Dinge sind in ihren Gerichten ungültig.] R. Shimon sagt: Auch diese sind gültig. Sie wurden nicht erwähnt [im Haus des Studiums als ungültig], es sei denn, sie wurden von [Nichtjuden, die] Laien waren, [nicht von Richtern] erlassen. Die Halacha stimmt nicht mit R. Shimon überein.]

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

HALAKHAH: “A slave disables because of intercourse,” etc. From where that the intercourse with a slave disables? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,¹²⁷Lev. 22:13. “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, when she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat from her father’s food.”” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: But if a widow whored she has no widowhood or divorce and she returns¹²⁸If she is not married she cannot become a widow or be divorced. The objection is too stupid to deserve an answer since it is only required that she could have a marriage relationship, not that she actually must have had one.! Rebbi Yose did not say so, but [he held] that the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard¹²⁹In our text, Giṭṭin 1:5, the statement is by R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Eleazar (the Tanna), in Qiddushin 3:14 it is an anonymous baraita. In the Babli, 45a, the statement is by R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar (the Amora); a parallel statement in the name of Rebbi.
There is no doubt in the Yerushalmi that the original Samaritans were Jews. They consider the children of a Jewish mother from a Gentile as Jewish, as is accepted as practice, under Babylonian influence, in the next Halakhah and as already was decided in Halakhah 4:15.. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says it in his own name but there he says it in the name of Rebbi Ismael! For also according to the words of the Sages the child is a bastard. Rebbi Ḥizqiah did not say so, but: the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says, from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return¹³⁰This implies that the child of a Gentile or a slave is not a bastard since the only person to be affected is the mother who cannot return to her priestly status if she was the daughter of a Cohen.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, I went to Seḥora and heard: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ismael the sons of Jesua: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,¹²⁷Lev. 22:13. “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, when she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat from her father’s food.”” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. And I said, that is correct, there is no bastard, following Rebbi Joshua¹³¹It really is following R. Simeon from Timna (Mishnah 4:14), but the more liberal R. Joshua will certainly agree that there is no hint of bastardy attached to the child. If the child is a girl, she will be disqualified from the priesthood, cf. Halakhah 4:15., for a bastard is only from a woman which is for him under an incest prohibition and for whom one is punished by divine extirpation.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Vorheriger Vers Ganzes Kapitel Nächster Vers