Талмуд к Бава Батра 3:4
הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, מְשַׁלְּמִין לוֹ אֶת הַכֹּל. שְׁנַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, מְשָׁלְשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶם. שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶם, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדֻיּוֹת, וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה:
Если двое засвидетельствовали, что он съел (с поля) три года, и они были признаны зомемим (интриги свидетелей - см. Второзаконие 19:19), они платят ему (владельцу поля) все. Если два (свидетельствовали за первый год, два за второй и два за третий (и они были признаны зомемим), они «третье» это между собой. [Каждая пара дает третий, поскольку они три пары для три года.] Если бы они были тремя братьями, [один брат на каждый год], а другой присоединялся к ним [т.е. свидетельствовал с каждым из них], они составляли бы три свидетельства [Что свидетельствует один (пара), другой нет, по какой причине их показания являются кашерскими], и они составляют одно свидетельство для [целей] хазамах (коварный свидетель), [так что, если они оказываются зомемим, они «третируют» его между собой. И они не становятся зомемим до все (три пары) найдены.]
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
MISHNAH: A woman who said, accept my bill of divorce for me, needs two groups of witnesses48Since a divorce is a public act it must be executed in front of at least two witnesses. The agent certainly needs two witnesses for the delivery since the woman herself must receive the bill in front of two witnesses. It is only natural that the agent needs two witnesses to legitimize his status (or be appointed by a duly witnessed document.); two who say that she appointed in their presence and two who say that in their presence he received it and tore it up49It is not necessary that the bill be torn up after delivery; this clause is added only to show that the divorce is valid even if the document never reaches the wife because it was torn up after delivery. (This has nothing to do with current rabbinic practice to cut up the bill of divorce after delivery in order to prevent outsiders from questioning the validity of the document.), even if the first ones are the latter ones, or one of the first together with one of the latter and a third person is associated with them50There do not have to be four different people; there may also be two or three.. A preliminarily married adolescent girl51Between the ages of 12 years and 12 years and six months; cf. Nedarim 10:1, Note 1. Since she is over 12 years of age, she is able to act in law. But since she is not definitively married, she is still under her father’s authority., or her father, can accept her bill of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah says, no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce. Any female52This statement is independent of the preceding one; it deals with an insane woman or an underage girl who was definitively married and, therefore, is emancipated from her father’s power. If she is too young to understand the meaning of divorce and the need to keep the document until she has collected all the monies due her, she cannot be divorced and the husband cannot escape the obligation to feed and house her. who cannot take care of her bill of divorce cannot be divorced.
If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand. Therefore, if the husband wants to retract he can retract since an underage person cannot appoint an agent. But if her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.80This was explained in the preceding Halakhah.
If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand. Therefore, if the husband wants to retract he can retract since an underage person cannot appoint an agent. But if her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.80This was explained in the preceding Halakhah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot
“He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim35If a person can prove three years of undisturbed possession of real estate and claims legal acquisition (by sale, inheritance, or gift), the court has to confirm him in possession since documents have to be kept only for three years. from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy36The three years of undisturbed possession count only if the person from whom he acquired it was alive during these years since the heirs might not be knowledgeable enough of the details of the deceased’s property to exercise their duty to object to the squatter’s occupation.. 37Except for the last sentence, the following is Halakhah Baba Batra 3:4 in a different editing. As the following: Reuben ate from a field38Undisturbed for 3 years. claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob39He should be called Rav Naḥman ben Jacob, in the Babli simply called Rav Naḥman, chief judge and highest authority in money matters in Babylonia. said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben40If there are two against two witnesses and all four testimonies hold up under cross examination, there is no testimony and Simeon has no claim. The identical statement appears in the Babli, Baba Batra 31b.. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed41Since (Deut. 19:15) “by the testimony of two or three witnesses the case shall be confirmed”, Reuben’s witnesses cannot be accepted unless they prove that Simeon’s witnesses were lying.
It is difficult to see who “the rabbis from there” are since Rab Naḥman was the authority in Babylonia and the Babli (loc. cit.) decides explicitly that later claims are admissible in money matters.. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married42This really belongs to the next paragraph, about a woman whose husband has disappeared and she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband had died; when two witnesses come and say he is alive, they are not listened to.. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld43If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied..
It is difficult to see who “the rabbis from there” are since Rab Naḥman was the authority in Babylonia and the Babli (loc. cit.) decides explicitly that later claims are admissible in money matters.. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married42This really belongs to the next paragraph, about a woman whose husband has disappeared and she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband had died; when two witnesses come and say he is alive, they are not listened to.. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld43If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy