Talmud sobre Guittin 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:

Se alguém recebe medinath hayam (lit., "a terra do mar", isto é, no exterior), deve dizer: "Antes de mim, estava escrito e antes de mim foi assinado". [Qualquer coisa fora de Eretz Yisrael é chamada "medinath hayam". ("Ele deve dizer: 'Antes de mim, estava escrito, etc.'" :) Alguns dizem que, porque os que vivem no exterior não são instruídos na Torá, e eles não sabem que um ganho deve ser escrito lishmah (por exemplo, instância específica). Portanto, o mensageiro diz: "Antes de mim, foi escrito e antes de mim foi assinado" e, como é óbvio, ele é perguntado se foi escrito lishmah, e ele responde que foi. Outros dizem que é porque as caravanas não são frequentes entre lá e aqui (Eretz Yisrael), de modo que, se o marido protestasse por não ter escrito, não seria possível encontrar testemunhas que corroborassem as assinaturas das testemunhas, motivo pelo qual os rabinos acreditavam no mensageiro. como dois, e o protesto do marido não mais se valeu.] R. Gamliel diz: Mesmo quem o traz de Rekem e de Cheger (que são próximos a Eretz Yisrael, deve dizer: "Antes de mim, etc.") Targum para (Gênesis 16:14): "entre Cades e Bared" é "entre Rekam e Chagra".] R. Eliezer diz: Mesmo de Kfar Ludim [que fica fora de Eretz Yisrael] até Lud [que está perto, e parte de Eretz Yisrael.] E os sábios dizem: Somente quem recebe uma oferta do exterior e quem recebe (uma oferta da Eretz Yisrael no exterior) deve dizer: "Antes de mim foi escrito, e antes de mim, foi assinado". E quem o leva de uma província para outra em medinath hayam deve dizer: "Antes de mim, estava escrito e antes de mim, foi assinado". R. Shimon b. Gamliel diz: Mesmo de uma hegemonia para outra [com jurisdição distinta].

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

Capítulo completo Próximo versículo