Talmud sur Guittin 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:

Tout projet de loi sur lequel un témoin cuthite est signé est invalide, à l'exception du gittin des femmes et des manumissions des esclaves, [qui sont valables si l'un des témoins est un Cuthite. Mais si les deux sont cuthites, le premier tanna l'invalide, même avec le gittin des femmes.] Le get d'une femme sur lequel des témoins cuthites ont été signés a été une fois porté devant R. Gamliel à Kfar Otnai, et il l'a validé. [R. Gamliel l'a validé même là où les deux étaient Cuthites. Et aujourd'hui, après le décret selon lequel les Cuthites doivent être considérés comme des gentils à tous égards, les gittin des femmes ne sont pas différents des autres actes; même un témoin cuthite rend un bref invalide.] Tous les brefs qui sont jugés par les tribunaux gentils, [les témoins ayant témoigné devant le juge dans leur lieu de jugement], même s'ils sont signés par des gentils, sont valides. [Ceci, où nous savons que le juge et les témoins ne prennent pas de pots-de-vin], sauf pour les gittin des femmes et les manumissions des esclaves. [(La validité ne vaut) que pour les brefs de prêts et de vente, lorsque les témoins ont vu le transfert d'argent. Mais les actes de dette et le gittin des femmes, et toutes les choses qui sont des actes de Beth-Din—toutes ces choses sont invalides dans leurs tribunaux.] R. Shimon dit: Celles-ci aussi sont valides. Ils n'ont pas été mentionnés [dans la maison d'étude comme étant invalides] sauf là où ils ont été adoptés par [des gentils qui étaient] des laïcs, [pas des juges. La halakha n'est pas conforme à R. Shimon.]

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

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant