תלמוד על שבועות 5:1

MISHNAH: If five wrote collectively a bill of divorce⁸²There is only one text; at the point where the names of the persons involed are to be declared, five different couples are mentioned., the man A divorces B and C D⁸³The Halakhah will point out that the verb “to divorce” is not repeated. and the witnesses sign at the end, all are valid and [the bill] shall be delivered to each of them. If one wrote the text separately for each of them and the witnesses sign at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid⁸⁴Since the witnesses sign at the end of the last text, that text is certified. The other texts are not certified and, therefore, invalid..

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Halakhah 8: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. ⁸⁶Babli 35a, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(4).A person who would sin, a person who would sin as an equal cut³¹A comparison of Lev. 5:1 about oaths concerning testimony and 5:21 about the person accused of larceny who swears falsely in purgation by oath; cf. Chapter 3:12, Note 165. The parallel use of identical terms is an equal cut which allows transfer of rules from one occurrence to the other.. Since a person who would sin which was said further on refers to an active monetary claim⁸⁷There is liability for a sacrifice only if the requested testimony was for the claimant in a suit under the law of obligations. This excludes testimony for the defendant or for the claimant in a suit for breach of promise., also a person who would sin must refer to an active monetary claim.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. ⁸⁵A parallel is in S̄ebuot 5:5; the reading there are noted ש. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything⁸⁶If a witness to any contract, including a bill of divorce, signs and appends a greeting and formulates the greeting as a sentence standing alone, his signature cannot be counted as testimony. But if he writes: “and I am greeting”, he makes clear that his signature refers to the entire document. The same statement (R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan) is in the Babli, 87a.; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything⁸⁷This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁸Referring to the Mishnah. How must a collective bill of divorce be formulated to be valid?? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A⁸⁹This statement is ambiguous since no further details are given about R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion. It is obvious from Halakhah 3:1 that a text which mentions men and women separately, “we X and Z divorce our wives Y and U” is biblically invalid since (a) one cannot divorce two women with one statement and (b) it is not clear which woman was married to which man. One has to assume that the text was something like: “we X and Z divorce our wives, X Y and Z U,” with mention of place and date.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately⁹⁰If the language is “X divorces Y and Z divorces U”, there can be no collective bill of divorce. It still can be written on one sheet but it must spell out in full that X divorces Y and frees her to marry any man she choses, Z divorces U and frees her to marry any man she choses, and each statement has to be separately validated by two witnesses.. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening⁹¹Mishnah Nedarim 9:7. The quote is incorrect. The Mishnah states that if each vow separately is declared as qorban, it will have to be annulled separately. One has to read: “a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one”. This Mishnah supports R. Ze‘ira’s interpretation of R. Joḥanan’s position..” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text⁹²And using a separate sentence containing the verb “to divorce” for each couple represents a separate text for each divorce. for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr⁹³The same statement is in Šebuot 5:5 (36c 1. 4), Babli 38a. It refers to Mishnah Šebuot 5:5: “Give me my wheat, barley, and spelt, (expressed in the plural) which you are holding!” “An oath that I am holding nothing of yours”, he is guilty only once (if he swore falsely). “An oath that I am not holding any wheat, or barley, or spelt (expressed in the plural) of yours”, he is guilty for every statement. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he said “wheat, or barley, or spelt (expressed in the collective singular)”, he is guilty for every statement. In a baraita (Babli Šebuot 38a, Qiddušin 25a; quoted in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:1, 62b 1. 76) R. Meїr states that for a general statement in a false oath he is guilty only once, for a detailed statement he is guilty for every particular item. R. Jehudah notes that if a person is sued simultaneously by several people (Mishnah Šebuot 5:3) and he falsely swears that he owes “not to you, nor to you, nor to you”, he is guilty for every single statement. Samuel notes that what is a general statement for one may be a detailed statement for another.. [Rebbi]⁹⁴From the text in Šebuot. The Giṭṭin text cannot be correct since the first generation Samuel cannot quote the fourth generation R. Ze‘ira. Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything⁹⁵Since in the baraita, R. Jehudah is mentioned as differing from R. Meїr, the question arises whether for R. Meїr there is a difference between a denial of a debt “to you, to you, to you” and “to you, and to you, and to you”. In the first case, there might be three denials, in the second case, there is only one. The implications for R. Jehudah would be the opposite.? How is this⁹⁶As the parallel shows, this interjection should be deleted.? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there⁹⁷Mishnah Šebuot 5:5. The omission of תמן “there” in the parallel text is appropriate.: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement⁹⁸Which must have been “wheat, barley, spelt” without connectives.. How is this⁹⁶As the parallel shows, this interjection should be deleted.? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether]⁹⁹The necessary inserted text is from Šebuot. he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars¹⁰⁰Since there are three particulars, he is obligated for three separate purificatioon offerings.. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars¹⁰¹It is one connected statement which, if false, constitutes one sin..