Talmud sobre Guitín 9:5

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ שְׁנֵי גִטִּין שָׁוִין וְנִתְעָרְבוּ, נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ, אָבַד אַחַד מֵהֶן, הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁנִי בָטֵל. חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ כְלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי פְּלוֹנִית, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, כֻּלָּן כְּשֵׁרִין, וְיִנָּתֵן לְכָל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה כָתוּב טֹפֶס לְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר:

Si dos hombres enviaron dos gittin que eran idénticos [en sus nombres] y se confundieron, ambos se entregan a cada mujer. Por lo tanto, si uno de ellos se perdió, el segundo es nulo, [porque no sabemos de quién es.] Si cinco hombres escribieron un [tiempo] común de una vez, a saber: ["En este día de la semana] este hombre se divorcia de esta mujer; este hombre, esta mujer, etc. " y los testigos (firmados) a continuación, todos son válidos, y la obtención se debe entregar a cada mujer. Si se escribiera un texto separado para cada uno, [es decir, un tiempo separado para cada uno, a saber: "En este día de la semana este hombre se divorcia de esta mujer", seguido por el texto del get; luego: "En este día de la semana, este hombre se divorcia de esta mujer", seguido del texto del get; y así con todos], y los testigos a continuación, la validación con la que se lee a los testigos (es decir, la última) es válida.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid¹¹⁸A predated document can be made whole by testimony about the exact time it was signed. Then it can serve as basis for foreclosure procedures based on the oral testimony.. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol^118*Ševi'it 10:3, Note 80. is valid, postdated it is invalid”?¹¹⁹Mishnah Ševi‘it 10:5. The question is not asked about this sentence, but about the following one: Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. In the Halakhah there (Notes 98–99), R. Joḥanan holds that a predated bond is totally invalid; R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that it only counts from the time of signing, parallel to Rav Huna’s opinion here. As explained in Note 114 (Ševi‘it 10:1 Note 2), a bond creates a mortgage lien on behalf of the creditor which is not removed by sale of the property. A predated document may create a false lien; this makes it invalid. That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim¹²⁰Probably one should read instead “R. Simeon ben Laqish”, R. Simeon ben Yaqim’s teacher.. Rav Huna, quoted here. ¹²¹Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:5 (Notes 69–71).“Rebbi Eleazar¹²²R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, the Tanna. said, it¹²³A bill of divorce. 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.” How? If about those who denied their testimony¹²⁴If the witnesses claim that their signatures were forged, there is no document. Rav Huna cannot declare it valid., the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say¹²⁵Ševi‘it 10:5 Note 96, Ketubot 2:3 Note 56, Giṭṭin 4:2 Note 46; Babli Ketubot 18b, Giṭṭin 3a., that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court¹²⁶A witness, once he has testified in court, may not change his story (Bikkurim 3:5 Note 72, Babli Sanhedrin44b). Therefore the witnesses are not admitted to claim that they did not know the bond was predated.? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”¹²⁷A bond signed by the debtor witout any witnesses.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versículo anterior Capítulo completo Versículo siguiente