Talmud do Gittin 1:1

הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמֵּבִיא מִן הָרֶקֶם וּמִן הַחֶגֶר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מִכְּפַר לוּדִים לְלוֹד. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם, אֶלָּא הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ. וְהַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵהֶגְמוֹנְיָא לְהֶגְמוֹנְיָא:

Jeśli ktoś przyniesie zdobycz z medinath Hayam (dosł. „Kraina morza”, czyli za granicą), musi powiedzieć: „Przede mną napisano, a przede mną podpisano”. [Wszystko poza Eretz Yisrael nazywane jest „medinath hayam”. („Musi powiedzieć: 'Przede mną napisano, itd.'” :) Niektórzy mówią, ponieważ mieszkający za granicą nie są uczeni w Torze i nie wiedzą, że get musi być napisane liszmah (tj. konkretnym przypadku). Dlatego posłaniec mówi: „Przede mną to było napisane, a przede mną podpisane” i oczywiście jest pytany, czy to było napisane liszmah, a on odpowiada, że tak. Inni twierdzą, że dzieje się tak dlatego, że karawany są rzadkie między tam i tutaj (Eretz Yisrael), więc jeśli mąż zaprotestowałby, że tego nie napisał, nie można było znaleźć świadków potwierdzających podpisy świadków, z tego powodu rabini wierzyli posłaniecowi jako dwoje, a protest męża już nie przyniósł rezultatu.] R. Gamliel mówi: Nawet ten, kto przywiezie je z Rekem i z Cheger (które są blisko Eretz Yisrael, musi powiedzieć: „Przede mną itd.”) [ Targum dla (Genesis 16:14): „między Kadesz a Bared” jest „między Rekam a Chagrą”] R. Eliezer mówi: Nawet od Kfar Ludim [który jest poza Eretz Yisrael] do Lud [który jest blisko niego, a część Eretz Yisrael.] A mędrcy mówią: Tylko ten, kto przywozi zdobycz z zagranicy i ten, kto zabiera (zdobycz z Eretz Israel za granicą), musi powiedzieć: „Przede mną to zostało napisane, a przede mną podpisane”. A kto przenosi ją z jednej prowincji do drugiej w Medinath Hayam, musi powiedzieć: „Napisano to przede mną, a przede mną podpisano”. R. Szimon b. Gamliel mówi: Nawet od jednej hegemonii do drugiej [z odrębną jurysdykcją].

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

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).?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

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..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Cały rozdział Następny werset