תלמוד על גיטין 1:14

“A Samaritan.” That follows him who said, a Samaritan is a like full Jew. But for him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, it is not so. As they disagreed²⁰Cf. Demay 3:4, Note 98; Berakhot 7:1, Note 59.: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect. Even if you say, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, why are Samaritans disqualified? Not because of a Gentile and a slave²¹Since 2K.17, 24ff. clearly states that the settlers from Babylon, Kuta, etc. at the start were idolators; if they intermarried with the remainders of the Israelite populations there, their descendants all acquired the status of descendants of Gentiles (or slaves) from Israelite mothers.? If a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard²²This is the argument of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in Yebamot 7:6, Note 129; it is rejected there since the child of a Jewish woman from a Gentile, together with her mother, is disqualified from priesthood but not a bastard (Notes 130,131).. But a bastard girl can claim a fine! For restrictions or family relations you consider him a Gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a Jewish woman; the child is a bastard. But for a fine you consider this as a Jew having intercourse with a Gentile woman, in which case the child is a Gentile²³The separation from Samaritans is purely one of practice, with no theoretical basis, and disapproved of by the Mishnah. In the Babli, 29b/30a, the argument (attributed to R. Meïr) is rejected, in order not to reward a sinner (the rapist or seducer.).

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity¹¹This is the unanimous opinion of the Babli.? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.¹²This is an obligation independent of the wishes of the deceased.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate¹³Since usually a ketubah is payable in real estate.. As it was stated¹⁴A similar text in Tosephta 9:3.: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody¹⁵Anybody with a claim sustainable in court, the widow for her ketubah or a creditor. who takes them first acquires them and¹⁶If nothing is left of his estate. he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first¹⁷If the estate already had disappeared before the burial.. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me¹⁸If the deceased had requested a burial before he died, the burial expenses are privileged.. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses¹⁹In this case, time is of the essence since any one of the witnesses could die anytime. But real estate can be foreclosed only by a regular court procedure.. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not²⁰It seems that this is a scribal error and one should read: מוציאין “one does remove”. Since the claim is documented, there is no need for the creditor to resort to self-help. remove from their hands. For²¹This is an unnecessary word; R. Abba explains general principles about the legal standing of death-bed requests. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said²²In the Babli (Baba batra 152a, 175a; Giṭṭin 13a, 15a) this is an undisputed statement of Rav Naḥman.: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered²³The legal forms of a valid gift.. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y²⁴It seems that one has to read: Give field X to Y and Z. It is understood that each one gets half a field but the method of subdivision of the field was not indicated.? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half?²⁵No answer is given since it is clear that the bequest cannot be enforced against the legal heirs; the burden of proof being on the claimants, who would have to prove in court that the method of division is that intended by the donor; this is impossible after the latter’s death. Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give?²⁶Since the first half of the request is clearly illegal, can the second half be legal? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway²⁷Since daughters’ right to sustenance is a standard condition of the ketubah (Mishnah 4:11), what did the mention of the daughters add to their rights?? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables²⁸At places where the ketubah could be taken only in real estate, the daughters could be supported only by real estate.? Rebbi Yudan [ ]²⁹The words בָּרַח לְנוֹי “he fled to beauty” do not make sense here. there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold³⁰By bodily possession.. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated³¹Tosephta Qiddušin 1:7.: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. ³²This last sentence is not in the Tosephta or in the Babli (Baba batra76a); R. Yose’s ruling is rejected by Rav Naḥman (Note 22) who validates the transfer of documents by death-bed declaration. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said³⁷Here starts the discussion of the statement by the Mishnah, that the husband cannot simply annul the condition he had imposed but has to take the bill back and bodily deliver it while declaring his ex-wife free to marry any man she chooses., the practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said³⁸Chapter 8, Note 27; Babli 78a. it never is a bill of divorce unless he declares at the moment of delivery: “This is your bill of divorce.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yannai: There is not even a hint of invalidity on her³⁹An imperfect bill of divorce will nevertheless make the woman a divorcee according to the rules of the priesthood. Only a bill which clearly is null and void does not have this consequence (and if the woman became a widow before a corrected version could be delivered to her, she would be able to marry a Cohen.) In Yerushalmi language, the invalid bill implies no “hint of invalidity” for the woman. In Babli terminology (86b), there is “no hint of a bill of divorce” on the document (רִיחַ הַגֵּט אֵין בּוֹ).. Cahana said, this implies that they did not worry⁴⁰The Tanna of the Mishnah accepts the statement of R. Yannai that the document delivered with the exclusion of a possible marriage partner is null and void. (In the Babli, 84b, R. Joḥanan in the name of Cahana adopts the position here described as R. Aḥa’s.). If they did worry, might he not have said “you are permitted to any man” when it was still in her hand⁴¹If the delivery were valid to disqualify the woman from marrying a Cohen, it also should be valid for a full divorce upon a public disclaimer by the husband of the condition imposed.? Rebbi Aḥa said, this implies that they did worry⁴²The Tanna of the Mishnah must reject the statement of R. Yannai. The Babli agrees, 84b.. If they did not worry, could he not divorce by any power he has to divorce⁴³He also rejects the determination of R. Joḥanan that the Mishnah follows R. Simeon ben Eleazar. The fact that the Mishnah requires the husband to retake possession of the bill after the wife already had it in her hand means that the wife already had acquired the bill, became forbidden to a Cohen, and, therefore, a simple statement by the husband would be invalid. (Rashi’s explanation, 84b).?

If²¹Tosephta Ahilut 18:14, also quoted in Babli Giṭṭin 7b. one walks from Acco to Akhzib, to one’s right hand side and the East the road is pure regarding the land of Gentiles and is subject to tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be exempt. To one’s left and the West, the road is impure regarding the land of Gentiles and is free from tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be obligated, until one arrives at Akhzib; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, as far as Lablab²²In the Tosephta לכלאבי (Ms. Vienna). The place is unidentified and the ל might be a preposition “to”.. What is the status of Acco itself? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Immi: From two actions of Rebbi we learn that Acco is partly of the Land of Israel and partly outside the Land. Rebbi was in Acco when he saw them eating clean bread²³People he knew as “fellows” who ate their food in ritual purity. The bread was of the finest white flour, which proved that it was milled from washed grain and, therefore, was liable to impurity (cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141) and probably became impure in handling.; he asked them, how did you wash [the grains]? They said to him, a student came here and instructed us that egg water is in order. They thought, we will cook eggs and wash with the cooking water [because] they thought he was talking about cooking water of eggs when he spoke only of egg fluid²⁴The fluid contents of a raw egg do not prepare for impurity since only water (including water used for cooking), wine, olive oil and human body fluids can do so. The instruction given by the student was correct but was delivered in a misleading way. The entire story makes sense only if Acco is considered to be of the Land since any other land is impure in itself.. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, at that moment they decreed that a student may not render decisions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: If a student gives instructions even according to practice, his instructions are no instructions.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts⁹⁴The Halakhah deals only with the last case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the widow overstepped her authority only in part of the sale of property. If the legal and illegal contracts were executed separately, there is no reason to invalidate the earlier contracts because of the (necessarily last) invalid contract.. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed⁹⁵The same text is in Giṭṭin 1:1 (43a 1. 54) גי and Makkot 1:16 (31b 1. 26) מ; it is quoted in Alfasi Makkot 1, #1063 and discussed by his commentators R. Nissim Gerondi and Naḥmanides.: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document⁹⁶His will. and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other⁹⁷Relatives are not admitted as witnesses even in civil proceedings.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other⁹⁸He holds that testimony, even if in writing, is one whole; either it is valid or invalid. If it is invalid in one case, it must be invalid in general.; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other⁹⁹The testimony has to be separated from its application. If the witnesses are known not to be felons, their testimony is valid. In the case of a relative, it is not applicable.. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah¹⁰⁰Makkot 1:12. Deut. 17:6 reads: “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses the guilty person shall be condemned to death; he cannot be condemned by the testimony of a single witness.” The question is raised, if two witnesses are sufficient, why are three mentioned? The answer given in the Mishnah is that since two witnesses are both disqualified if one of them is disqualified (in which case the remaining witness becomes a single witness), a group of three (or 100) witnesses who all testify to exactly the same effect is disqualified if one of them is disqualified. The witnesses signing a document necessarily all testify to exactly the same facts. (Alfassi #1062 notes that the Geonim restrict the Mishnah to criminal cases.) supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse¹⁰¹Deut. 17:6. says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other¹⁰²Since practice is not decided either way, the legal heirs can successfully attack the validity of the will, and the guardians of the orphans the validity of the entire sale by the widow..

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.

HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce,” etc. For what¹⁵⁰What does “return” mean in the Mishnah?? Rebbi Elazar said, for his house¹⁵¹“Return” means that he returns to his wife for marital relations.; Rebbi Joḥanan said, for places¹⁵²He already returned if he entered the community of his residence.. The Mishnah supports him who said, for his house: “If he came to Acco¹⁵³If we hold that Acco has the status of a foreign country, the part of the Mishnah dealing with Acco is superfluous. The important statement of the Mishnah then is that he has to return to his wife to invalidate the bill of divorce, following R. Eleazar., and returned, it is invalidated following his condition.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce¹⁵⁴Mishnah 1:2, Note 77.. But even if you say that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce, does that mean also for conditions imposed on a bill of divorce¹⁵⁵Conditions have to be interpreted following common use, not in legal jargon. For everybody, Acco is a border town of the Land.?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah applies if one witness is missing, but only if there are three or more¹²¹This disagreement between ben Nanas and R. Aqiba about the required qualifications of the witnesses refers to the case that only one additional signature is required in addition to the three statutory ones.. Two or three¹²²Any number of irregular witnesses at the beginning is invalid for everybody. at the beginning is invalid, one below the three is valid. Rebbi Mana asked: That is, if they are continuous. If they are with interruptions¹²³If the three statutory witnesses did not sign together but each one signed for a separate knot, with space in between.? As one says, they are considered like testimony at a distance, they only serve to certify the testimony. And so it is here¹²⁴Cf. Chapter 1, Note 117.. If there were nine, can he untie two and have two sign? Or are two witnesses on a knotted document nothing¹²⁵The text is difficult to understand since a document with 9 knots needs an additional 6 signatures. One must assume that some additional signatures already are on the document and the question is directed against R. Joḥanan: Why should it not be possible to let two unqualified witnesses sign since the validation of a knotted document needs three witnesses in any case (Mishnah Baba batra 10:3).? If there were five, it is obvious that he unties one and has it signed¹²⁶In fact, there must be two knots untied and confirmed on the verso by two different signatures; only one of them was accepted by R. Joḥanan.. It turns out that his untying permits it following Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel, for Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, the essential part is what validates¹²⁷Cf. Chapter 3, Note 68. If the text which contains the identities of the parties and their obligations is certified by signatures on the verso for knotted contracts or at the end for open contracts, the contracts are valid. If prepared forms are not certified for sealed contracts it does not impinge on the validity of the contract for R. Ḥananiah ben Gamliel., even if he ties and signs after that. That is, if he ties all knots and after that the first three [witnesses] did sign. But if he tied the first three¹²⁸Which contain the essential data and are certified by three witnesses as required for sealed contracts according to all sources. and had them signed, even if he makes many ties and lets many¹²⁹Unqualified relatives. sign it is valid. Practice is that a knotted document is first knotted and then signed. If he made the first knots and had them signed right away, it is obvious that the first two did not sign the knotted document¹³⁰Since a “knotted” sealed document is validated only by three witnesses, the first two do not combine for validation..