Talmud for Gittin 8:2

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).?

The colleagues said, they⁷⁰R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the legal standing of a minor. The corresponding discussion in the Babli is Baba Meṣiʻa 10b. This paragraph really refers to Mishnah 3. disagree about courtyard⁷¹As the Babli, Baba Meṣiʻa 11a, explains in the name of the Galilean R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina, a fenced-in property acquires for a person even if he is not aware of it. For example, if somebody lost an article without distinguishing marks on somebody else’s fenced-in courtyard, that article becomes automatically the courtyard owner’s property since it cannot be reclaimed by the person who lost it. Nobody else is allowed to take it.
In the Babli, the disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish is explained to the effect that R. Joḥanan considers the courtyard as an extension of its owner’s hand. Since Mishnah 3 states that a minor legally can receive her bill of divorce, she has a “hand” and, therefore, her courtyard acquires for her. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that the courtyard is its owner’s agent and since the minor cannot appoint an agent, her courtyard cannot acquire for her. and four cubits⁷²If a person stands still in the public domain and nobody else is within 8 cubits from her, anything found or delivered to her at a distance of at most 4 cubits belongs to her (cf. Mishnaiot 8:2, Yebamot 3:9). The question is whether this rule extends to emancipated underage females (it certainly does not extend to underage males.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, she has both courtyard and four cubits. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, she has neither courtyard nor four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree about the courtyard but she has no four cubits. What⁷³מִי is a Babylonian Aramaic particle used as a general question mark. In Galilean Aramaic, it should be מַה. did Rebbi Joḥanan say about outstretched hands⁷⁴In Halakhah 8:2, R. Joḥanan states that an adult woman standing in the public domain is divorced if the husband throws her the bill (in front of two witnesses) and it lands close enough for her to take it up without moving her feet. According to R. Eleazar, who states that R. Joḥanan agrees that an underage girl has no 4 cubits, it is questionable whether throwing the bill within the reach of the underage wife’s hands is delivery in the meaning of the verse. The question is not answered.? Rebbi Eleazar asked, does an agent’s courtyard act as his hand⁷⁵Following R. Joḥanan, is a woman divorced if the husband throws the bill into her agent’s courtyard in the presence of two witnesses? This question is not answered either.?

If a bond was signed by four witnesses and it turned out that the first two were relatives or disqualified, it is valid and is confirmed by the remaining testimony¹¹⁵A similar text (5 signatures, 3 of them invalid) is in Tosephta 7:11 and Babli Baba batra 162b. In the text here, “disqualified” are people who cannot be admitted to be witnesses in money matters, such as Samaritans, gamblers, and fences. Relatives of either lender or borrower are disqualified for the particular document in question. Two of the signatures must belong to witnesses who can certify the document in court.. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: This follows him who says that witnesses sign only in the presence of each other. But following him who says that witnesses may sign without being in the presence of each other, even if the Jew signed last it is invalid¹¹⁶This refers to the problem discussed in the preceding paragraph about a bill signed by a Samaritan and a Jew.. And would it not be remote testimony¹¹⁷Tosephta 7:11 notes that a document whose signatures are so far removed from the text of the document that a sentence could have been added between text and signatures is invalid; it might be that there was a different text and the witnesses signed to that. In practice, this means that exactly one line must be empty between the text and the first signatures. If the qualified witnesses signed two lines below the text, it is admissible to have two unqualified witnesses sign on the line above to fill in the space between the document text and the signatures of the witnesses.? That one cannot say since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah¹¹⁸This means, R. Yasa in the name of Rav Jeremiah (who in the Yerushalmi frequently has the title of Rebbi, as a Babylonian authority predating the creation of the Title of “Rav”). In Halakhah 9:8: R. Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah. Note the pure Babylonian Aramaic spelling דקאמר. that disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity¹¹⁹In the Babli, 18b, invalid signatures do not diminish the validity of a document if the signatories were invited to sign for any reason other than being witnesses. This probably is understood here also. In particular, it was customary to have relatives sign on all marriage documents. In Baba batra 162b, the statement of R. Yasa is quoted in the name of Ḥizqiah. Cf. also Halakhot 8:12, 9:8..