Talmud sobre Yevamot 15:17

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 signed⁷The form נחתם is that of most Mishnah mss. and of the Babli. The form נתחתם in the Mishnah is that of several Palestinian Mishnah mss. before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce⁸In the Babli, 2a/2b, it is pointed out that a bill of divorce has to be written for the woman to be divorced since the verse says (Deut. 24:1): “He shall write for her”. While the text of the bill must mention the names of husband and wife, it cannot be ascertained from the text whether the scribe was instructed to write the text specifically for that woman; there must be a live witness available who can be examined about this point. A second opinion notes that the signatures of the witnesses themselves would need confirmation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned⁹In the Babli, 3a, this is an anonymous (unanimous) opinion. As explained in the sequel, if the husband could come later and claim the the bill of divorce was fake, no woman could ever remarry on a bill of divorce written far away for fear that her children from a second husband could retroactively be declared to be bastards; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 10:1.. 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. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon 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. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill¹⁰E. g., if the husband claims that he had attached a condition to the bill not provided for in the bill and that the condition was not satisfied. Since the condition was not presented to the court which oversaw the delivery of the document, it cannot be considered.. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity¹¹He claims that the entire bill is fake or that there is an intrinsic defect which makes the entire document invalid.? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon 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] would come and protest, 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 validity¹²Since there was a witness who was cross-examined about the validity of the bill, the husband cannot be admitted to testify since when he claims to be still the husband of his divorcee he declares himself a relative by marriage who is barred from acting as a witness for or against his wife.! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign¹³The messenger who delivers the bill might not know that the witnesses either were relatives of one of the parties or convicted felons; their signatures would invalidate the document.? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven¹⁴For if both the local court and the wife act in good faith, Heaven will absolve her but he has sinned. Cf. Yebamot 15:4, Notes 92–93.. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following²⁴Tosephta 3:3, Babli 33a. Did Rabban Gamliel the Elder decree that any annulment not in the presence of agent or wife was null and void?: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly²⁵It seems that the names of Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel are switched here and in the next sentence. The Babli, 33b, decides practice following Rebbi.. What is the reason of Rebbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul²⁶The biblical text decrees that the husband has to hand his wife a bill of divorce if he has decided to divorce her. The text contains no hints to any restriction as to the exercise of his free will. but they²⁷In this case, the rabbinic authorities of the first half of the first century C. E. said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But is it not from the Torah that one may [give as heave] olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe²⁸Terumot 1:4, Mishnah and Note 137. Biblical heave is due only for “grain, cider, and oil”. The prohibition to satisfy the tithing duty with unprocessed grapes and olives is strict only according to the House of Hillel; they hold that if olives were given as heave for olive oil then both the olives and the oil remain ṭevel, untithed, by rabbinic decree and their consumption is a deadly sin. they said not only that one may not give heave [in this way] but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rebbi Oshaia bar Abba said to Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor²⁹In modern Hebrew, סבא means “grandfather”. In the Talmudim, generally it means “old man”; since “grandfather” usually is formulated as ,אֲבִי אַבָּא סַבָּא can also mean “great-grandfather”. The interpretation of the word depends on the reading of the names in this discussion. meant?

MISHNAH: If one says to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who it was or, the father of one of you deposited a mina with me but I do not know who it is, has to pay a mina to each of them since he himself confessed.
If two people deposited with a third party, one a mina and one 200 [zuz]. Each of them says, the 200 are mine. He shall give each of them a mina and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes³¹In the Babli and all independent Mishnah mss., R. Yose’s objection (Mishnah 6) is also quoted here.
The prophet Elijah, precursor of the Messiah, is supposed to know the answer to all unsolved questions..
Similarly two vessels, one worth a mina, the other worth 1’000 zuz. Each of them says, the valuable one is mine. He shall give the small vessel to one of them, from the value of the large one he shall give the value of the small one to the other and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes. Rebbi Yose said, if that be so, what did the trickster lose? But everything shall be deposited until Elijah comes³²Since Mishnaiot 5 and 6 are not discussed in the Yerushalmi, it is impossible to know its position relative to all modifications made by the Babli in their interpretation..

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited money; real estate should be bought,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s opinion since Rebbi Meïr considers standing [produce] as if it were cut³⁰This refers to Mishnah Ševuot 6:6. In rabbinic interpretation, Ex. 22:8 defines when an oath is required by the court: “About any criminal matter, about an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or anything lost, if he agrees that this is it, the suit shall be heard by the judges …” This is read to mean that an oath is needed if the defendant agrees that the plaintiff has a case but that he owes less than what is being claimed (cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15). The part of the claim in dispute is what the claimant considers criminal withholding of his property by the defendant. If the defendant rejects the entire claim, the claimant has to prove his case by witnesses or documents; if the defendant admits part of the claim the claimant can request that he swear not to owe more. But since the examples given in the verse are all about movables, it is concluded that claims of real estate cannot be resolved by an oath (Mishnah Ševuot6:5). On that, R. Meïr states that “some things are on the ground but are not real estate”. The example given is that the claim is “I handed over to you (to harvest and make wine from) ten vines full of fruit” but the defendant claims “there were ony five.” In that case, R. Meïr requires the defendant to swear but the Sages hold that anything connected to the ground is like real estate.
Since the produce on the field is considered as the wife’s capital, not the husband’s produce, R. Jeremiah infers that the Mishnah does not represent practice since it follows R. Meïr in a case in which the majority disagrees.. Rebbi Yose said, he did not hear that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, Rebbi Meïr said this only for standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested; therefore not unripe produce³¹Cf. Yebamot 15:3, Note 79; Babli Ševuot 43a.. But here³²The case of the wife’s inheritance is not restricted to ripe produce., even unripe produce. Rebbi Jeremiah³³This attribution is impossible. Rebbi Jeremiah cannot ask a question answered by his teacher’s teacher’s teacher R. Joḥanan. It might be Rav Jeremiah, one generation before R. Joḥanan. asked, are not the arguments of Rebbi Meïr contradictory? There³⁴In Mishnah Ševuot 6:6., he did not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut, but here³²The case of the wife’s inheritance is not restricted to ripe produce. he considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Meïr does not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut. But if you see cut grain, you empower the woman³⁵Cut grain is as good as coin for an inheritance.; if you see an unseeded field³⁶This has to be tended; the husband will reap the fruits., you empower the man. In case of doubt you estimate how much it is worth unseeded and how much seeded. If before it was seeded it was worth (two denars)³⁷Obviously, the numbers have to be switched since 1 < 2. and when it was seeded (one denar), with that denar real estate should be bought and he reaps its yield.

MISHNAH: 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 daughter¹³⁴These are presumed to hate her, Mishnah Yebamot 15:4; it is assumed that they would not mind tricking her into adultery.. 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 still is required to say that it was written and signed before her.

It was stated¹¹³An alternative text of the Mishnah. In Babylonian sources (Babli 20a, Tosephta 3:1): “R. Ismael, son of R. Joḥanan ben Baroqa, says, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel do not disagree about …” The text shows that this is the correct version.: “Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba do not disagree about a person about whom two groups of witnesses testify, that he should be nazir according to the minimal testimony. Where do they disagree? About two witnesses, where the House of Shammai say, the testimony is split¹⁰⁸Following the rules of criminal procedure by which contradictory testimony has to be disregared. and there is no nezirut, but the House of Hillel say, five contains two and he shall be a nazir twice.¹⁰⁹Following the rules of civil procedure. If one group testifies that A owes 500 while the other group testifies that he owes 200, he has to pay 200. An identical Mishnah is Idiut 4:11.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥaninah: They voted in Usha that one who insults an Elder or hits him has to indemnify him fully for his shame. It happened, that somebody who insulted an Elder and hit him had to indemnify him fully for his shame. They said, it happened to Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina²⁰²It is explained in Baba Qama 8:6 (6c) that the “full payment for shame” is one Roman libra of gold..