Jeśli ktoś powiedział, że umarł, a drugi powiedział, że nie umarł [(Dwóch carotów przybyło z zagranicy. Jeden powiedział: „Mój mąż umarł”; drugi: „On nie umarł”)]. —ten, który mówi, że umarł, może ponownie ożenić się i wziąć jej kethubę. Ten, kto powiedział, że nie umarł, może nie ożenić się ponownie i nie może wziąć jej kethuba. Jeśli jeden powiedział, że umarł (naturalnie), a drugi, że został zabity, R. Meir mówi: Ponieważ zaprzeczają sobie nawzajem, nie mogą ponownie się ożenić. [Halacha nie jest zgodna z nim.] R. Juda i R. Szimon mówią: Skoro obaj przyznają, że nie żyje, mogą ponownie się ożenić. Jeśli jeden świadek powiedział, że umarł, a inny, że nie umarł; jeśli jedna kobieta powiedziała, że umarł, a inna, że nie umarł, nie może ponownie wyjść za mąż.
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
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.”
