Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sobre Guittin 9:5

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ שְׁנֵי גִטִּין שָׁוִין וְנִתְעָרְבוּ, נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ, אָבַד אַחַד מֵהֶן, הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁנִי בָטֵל. חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ כְלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי פְּלוֹנִית, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, כֻּלָּן כְּשֵׁרִין, וְיִנָּתֵן לְכָל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה כָתוּב טֹפֶס לְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר:

Se dois homens enviaram dois filhotes idênticos [em seus nomes] e se confundiram, ambos são dados a cada mulher. Portanto, se um deles se perdeu, o segundo é nulo, [porque não sabemos de quem é.] Se cinco homens escrevessem um [tempo] comum em uma só vez, a saber: ["Neste dia da semana] esse homem se divorcia dessa mulher; esse homem, essa mulher etc. " e as testemunhas (assinadas) abaixo, todas são válidas e a recompensa deve ser dada a cada mulher. Se um texto separado fosse escrito para cada um, [isto é, um tempo separado para cada um, a saber: "Neste dia da semana, este homem se divorcia dessa mulher", seguido pelo texto da exibição; então: "Neste dia da semana, este homem se divorcia desta mulher", seguido pelo texto da declaração; e assim com todos] e com as testemunhas abaixo, é válido o resultado com o qual as testemunhas são lidas junto (ou seja, a última).

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid118A predated document can be made whole by testimony about the exact time it was signed. Then it can serve as basis for foreclosure procedures based on the oral testimony.. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol118*Ševi'it 10:3, Note 80. is valid, postdated it is invalid”?119Mishnah Ševi‘it 10:5. The question is not asked about this sentence, but about the following one: Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. In the Halakhah there (Notes 98–99), R. Joḥanan holds that a predated bond is totally invalid; R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that it only counts from the time of signing, parallel to Rav Huna’s opinion here. As explained in Note 114 (Ševi‘it 10:1 Note 2), a bond creates a mortgage lien on behalf of the creditor which is not removed by sale of the property. A predated document may create a false lien; this makes it invalid. That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim120Probably one should read instead “R. Simeon ben Laqish”, R. Simeon ben Yaqim’s teacher.. Rav Huna, quoted here. 121Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:5 (Notes 69–71).“Rebbi Eleazar122R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, the Tanna. said, it123A bill of divorce. is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony124If the witnesses claim that their signatures were forged, there is no document. Rav Huna cannot declare it valid., the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say125Ševi‘it 10:5 Note 96, Ketubot 2:3 Note 56, Giṭṭin 4:2 Note 46; Babli Ketubot 18b, Giṭṭin 3a., that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court126A witness, once he has testified in court, may not change his story (Bikkurim 3:5 Note 72, Babli Sanhedrin44b). Therefore the witnesses are not admitted to claim that they did not know the bond was predated.? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”127A bond signed by the debtor witout any witnesses.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versículo anteriorCapítulo completoPróximo versículo