Talmud for Gittin 8:1
מאן אמר דלא. ר' עזרא בעי קומי ר' מנא איש ואשה שהיו תפושין בגט היא אומרת זכיתי. והוא אמר לא זכיתה. תפלוגתא דרבי ודרשב"ג דאיתפלגון המלוה והלוה שהיו תפושין בשטר המלוה אומר שלי הוא שאבד ממני. והלוה אומר שלי הוא שפרעתיו לך יתקיים השטר בחותמיו דברי רבי. רשב"ג אומר יחלוקו. א"ר לעזר הכל הולך אחר התפוש בעדים. מה פליגין כשכתבו לאורך ושניהן תפושין בעדים. א"ל דברי הכל היא. הכא אפי' כולו בידו וחוט אחד בידה אינו גט דכתיב (דברים כ״ד:א׳) ונתן בידה. עד שיהא כולו בידה. מתיב רבי לעזר לרבנן כמא דאית לכון המביא גט ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. אף אנא אית לי המביא ממדינה למדינה בא"י צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. א"ר יעקב בר זבדי מעשה בא' שהביא את הגט מלמינה של קיסרין אתא עובדא קומי ר' אבהו א"ל אין צ"ל בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. ואין למינה של קיסרין כקיסרין. אמר ר' אבין ספינה מפרשת היתה. ותני כן המביא גט מן הספינה כמביא מח"ל וצריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. היתה הגמונייא אחת ונעשית שתים אינו צ"ל בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם וכן שתים ונעשו אחת:
מאן אמר דלא. ר' עזרא בעי קומי ר' מנא איש ואשה שהיו תפושין בגט היא אומרת זכיתי. והוא אמר לא זכיתה. תפלוגתא דרבי ודרשב"ג דאיתפלגון המלוה והלוה שהיו תפושין בשטר המלוה אומר שלי הוא שאבד ממני. והלוה אומר שלי הוא שפרעתיו לך יתקיים השטר בחותמיו דברי רבי. רשב"ג אומר יחלוקו. א"ר לעזר הכל הולך אחר התפוש בעדים. מה פליגין כשכתבו לאורך ושניהן תפושין בעדים. א"ל דברי הכל היא. הכא אפי' כולו בידו וחוט אחד בידה אינו גט דכתיב (דברים כ״ד:א׳) ונתן בידה. עד שיהא כולו בידה. מתיב רבי לעזר לרבנן כמא דאית לכון המביא גט ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. אף אנא אית לי המביא ממדינה למדינה בא"י צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. א"ר יעקב בר זבדי מעשה בא' שהביא את הגט מלמינה של קיסרין אתא עובדא קומי ר' אבהו א"ל אין צ"ל בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. ואין למינה של קיסרין כקיסרין. אמר ר' אבין ספינה מפרשת היתה. ותני כן המביא גט מן הספינה כמביא מח"ל וצריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. היתה הגמונייא אחת ונעשית שתים אינו צ"ל בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם וכן שתים ונעשו אחת:
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state54Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3.: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules55The statement of R. Joḥanan about exclusion of gifts could as well have been formulated for marriage contracts.. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he56The creditor tells the debtor to throw the repayment into the sea. If the debtor follows instructions, he has discharged his obligations. said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated57In the same Mishnah, speaking of the debtor throwing the money to the creditor. Nothing of four cubits was mentioned in the first explanation., if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, and it did not yet enter his domain58If the money fell outside the creditor’s four cubits in the public domain, the debt is not discharged since the condition was not satisfied. However, if the creditor stands on the seashore and the money falls close to him into the sea, the debtor has discharged his obligation. The problem raised in the return question is considered to be different and receives a different answer.. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia
HALAKHAH: “If somebody saw a find” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said [in the name of] Abba Cohen bar Delaiah39“Resh Laqish” for “R. Simeon ben Laqish” and the omission of “in the name of” are typically Babylonian style.: A person acquires a find within four cubits from himself40Peah 4:2, Note 31; Giṭṭin 8:3. If a person stands in the public domain, an ownerless object is within four cubits of him but of no other person, then he has the right to acquire the object and no other person has the right to enter the circle of four cubits around him to take the object. It is clear that taking possession requires intent by the acquirer (cf. Babli Bava meṣi‘a 10a/b).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it fell into his hand41No acquisition in the public domain can be effected by thought.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: 42The remainder of this paragraph essentially is from Peah 4:2, Notes 40–46; Giṭṭin 8:3 (49c line 10).“If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it.”43Taking Peah, the uncut grain at the end of a field, is done from a private domain. But since the Torah grants the poor the right to enter a field after the end of the harvest to collect peah and forgotten stalks and sheaves, the harvested field has the status of public domain for the poor. A poor person acquires peah by taking it. He cannot then take his property and spread it over the remainder of standing produce to claim ownership, neither can he lie down on it for the same purpose. As with any acquisition, an action seems to be needed. He44R. Simeon ben Laqish, defending his position. answered: Explain it if the did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But does it not say afterwards: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” That is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state45Tosephta Peah 2:2.: “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it35Without moving the find, it is not acquired. The second person in grabbing the find must have moved it a little; therefore, he acquired it..” It is the same; he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it.” It is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state46Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:2.: “If it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.” Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of the scribe’s fee47In Giṭṭin 8:3, Note 47, the expression is: “The scribe of the second bill of divorce earns money.” Since divorce is a unilateral act by the husband, he has to pay the scribe. But if the wife is “divorced and not divorced”, a second bill of divorce is in the interest of both parties. The husband needs it in order to free himself from the duty to pay for his divorced wife’s upkeep (Giṭṭin 8:2, Note 36), while the ex-wife needs it in order to be able to remarry. Therefore, they share the cost of the second bill.. 48The text is a reformulation of Peah 4:2, Notes 29–39; Giṭṭin 8:3 (49c l. 8). They objected: Is it not written: “I in my poverty did prepare491Chr. 22:14. David in his poverty prepared 100’000 talents of gold and 1’000’000 talents of silver for the future Temple. How can a superrich person be called poor?”? How is that? If it was in his possession, he was rich. If it was not in his possession, how can a person dedicate what is not his? It must be that it was within four cubits from him50Peah 4:2, Note 50.. Rebbi Abin said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: he fasted51Reading עני as “to be deprived”. and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
“Whether he died from the original sickness.” Are male or female slaves trustworthy91The validity of the bill of divorce may be the subject of a law suit. Can such a suit be decided on the testimony of slaves? Slaves cannot be witnesses in court because (1) their testimony is subject to the influence of their master and, more importantly, (2) in money matters they are not subject to the laws of perjury (since they do not have personal property) and “the testimony of a person not subject to the laws of perjury is worthless.”? The witnesses know that at the time she was alone with him a male or female slave was present92The slaves do not have to appear in court.. 93A parallel text is in Tosephta 5:4 and Babli 73b; the text is partially quoted in Soṭah 1:1, Note 52.“If she was alone with him with the knowledge of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him94Since two witnesses establish a fact by biblical rules and the House of Hillel invalidate a bill of divorce if the parties were alone together between signing and time of validation, the knowledge of two independent witnesses in itself invalidates the bill.. One witness, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him95A single witness has no standing in court in matters of validity of marriages or divorces.. One in the morning and one in the afternoon, that was a case and Rebbi Eleazar bar Thaddeus96The name is תַּדַּאי “Thaddeus” in Soṭah, the two parallel (and additional) Babylonian sources, against the reading “Tradion” here. asked the Sages who said, this is not [testimony of] being alone97Two single witnesses testifying about two different facts can never be considered as two witnesses for a pattern; cf. Soṭah 1:1, Note 52.. If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about intercourse but not about preliminary marriage98Preliminary marriage (not intended to be definitive) can be effected by intercourse (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1); this is biblical standard. A marriage ceremony which is not witnessed is automatically invalid but it is possible to consider the witnesses to their being alone together as witnesses of intercourse. In Mishnah 8:11 the House of Hillel require only minimal standards from witnesses once the parties had been definitively married and living together.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage.” Rebbi Jeremiah explains the baraita: If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about immoral intercourse but not about preliminary marriage. If the time was not long enough for intercourse, one does not suspect anything. Rebbi Yose explains the baraita: If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about immoral intercourse but not about preliminary marriage by intercourse. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage by intercourse. If the time was not long enough for intercourse, one does not suspect preliminary marriage bymoney99This is an extraordinary relaxation of the standards of testimony in the circumstances of Mishnah 8:11. The Babli, 73b, rejects any legal consequences of physical intimacy not confirmed by two eye-witnesses.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage by money. Rebbi Abin said, It turns out that the House of Shammai100Mishnaiot 8:4,11. parallels the rabbis and the House of Hillel Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy