Talmud sobre Terumot 1:1

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary⁸“So you shall lift, also you, the heave of the Eternal.” The expression also you is superfluous; since “also” always means an addition, “also you” means a stand-in. Since he is titled “also you”, it follows that he takes the place of the person authorizing him. The same explanation is given in Terumot 1:1 (fol. 40b/c), Babli Qiddušin41b, Baba Meẓia‘ 22a.. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave⁹In the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel the Gentile cannot appoint a Jew as plenipotentiary for Jewish ritual.” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him¹⁰This parallels the position of R. Isaac in Tosephta Terumot 1:15: “If a Gentile separated heave for a Jew, even with his permission, it is not heave. … Rebbi Isaac says, if a Gentile separated heave for a Jew and the owner confirms his action, it is heave.” For a Jew, once permission is given, it does not require an additional action on the part of the owner. But the Gentile’s action is not valid unless it is explicitly confirmed by the Jewish owner afterwards; the Gentile does the mechanical work and the Jew gives the separated amount the status of heave..

²⁷This and the following paragraphs are from Terumot 1:1 (ת), Notes 19–32). The Rome ms. is indicated by ר. Variants which are introduced by the hand of the corrector in Terumot are indicated by מ. It was stated: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, to what does this refer? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf and dumb, he writes and others confirm his signature.”

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if a sane person watches over them¹¹⁹If an incompetent person (insane, deaf-and-dumb, or minor) writes the text, they must be directed by a person who knows for what they write. The same statement is in the Babli, 22b/23a.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked¹²⁰The translation follows the Geniza text and Sefer ha‘Iṭṭur (27b).: But is it not written: “He shall write for her,” in her name⁵In Mishnah 3:2, the anonymous majority permit the routine production of forms of bills of divorce where everything is written in advance and only the names of husband and wife, the date, and the statement of divorce are then inserted for the particular couple involved in the divorce; but R. Jehudah holds that the requirement that “he write for her” (Deut. 24:1) can only be fulfilled if the bill was written specifically for that wife from the first letter to the last.? Samuel said, it is necessary that one reserve the essential text for him¹²¹The essential text must be written by a responsible person under the husband’s direction. The Babli agrees, 23a.. This follows what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid¹⁰⁰This refers to Mishnah 3:2, in which permission is given to scribes to prepare the formulaic text of divorce documents, so that only the names of husband and wife and the date have to be inserted, without violating the commandment that the document be written specifically for the woman concerned. It is not mentioned in the Mishnah whether the text which turns the document into one of divorce, “this is your bill of divorce and you are permitted to every man” is part of the formulaic text or has to be written with that particular woman in mind. R. Joḥanan permits this sentence to be written as a formula, R. Simeon ben Laqish prohibits. (In the Babli, 21b, the attributions are switched, probably because the Babli insists that practice follow R. Joḥanan.) In the interpretation of the Babli, the divorce formula may be prepared in advance for R. Eleazar, for whom only the witnesses to the delivery of the text are important, but not for R. Meïr, for whom the witnesses signing the document are those who validate the divorce. It is impossible to know whether the Yerushalmi would agree to this interpretation..