גיטין א׳Gittin 1

Mishnah

משנה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נִתְחַתֵּם. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף הַמֵּבִיא מִן הָרְקַם וּמִן הַחֶגֶר. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ מִכְּפַר לוּדִים לְלוּד. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נִתְחַתֵּם אֶלָּא הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ וְהַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נִתְחַתֵּם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ מֵהֵגֶּמוֹנֵיָיא לְהֵגֶּמוֹנֵיָיא.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas must be able to say: “It was written and signed before me.” Rabban Gamliel says, even somebody who brings from Reqam and Ḥeger; Rebbi Eliezer says, even from Kefar Ludim to Lydda; but the Sages say that the only one who has to be able to say that it was written and signed before him is one who brings from overseas or to overseas. One who brings from one province to another overseas has to say that it was written and signed before him; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even from one district to the next.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ הַמֵּבִיא שְׁטָר מַתָּנָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם שֶׁמָּא חָשׁ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִיטִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קַל הֵיקִלוּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. וְהַיְינוֹ קַל. אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹמֶר. שֶׁאִילּוּ לֹא אָמַר לָהּ. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אַף אַתְּ אֵין מַתִּירָהּ לְהִינָּשֵׂא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חוֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱמַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ מִתְּחִילָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. הֵיקַלְתָּה עָלֶיהָ בְסוֹף שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִירְעֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. רִבִּי מָנָא סְבַר מֵימַר. בְּעֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ. אֲבָל בְּעֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ כְּעֶרֶר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. אֲפִילוּ כְּעֶרֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתֵימַר דְּטַעֲמָא חוֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱמַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ מִתְּחִילָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. הֵיקַלְתָּה עָלֶיהָ בְסוֹף שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִרֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. הֲוֵוי לֹא שַׁנְיָיא. הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ. הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא חֲתָמוֹ בְעֵדִים פְּסוּלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד לְקַלְקְלָהּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. בְּבֵית דִּין הוּא חָשׁוּד לְקַלְקלָהּ. שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם בָא וְעִרֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אַף הוּא מַחְתִּמוֹ בְּעֵדִים כְּשֵׁירִין.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

הָיָה כָתוּב בּוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְאָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַגֵּט עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַגֵּט עֱרָרוֹ קַיָים אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה. תַּנִּינָן דְּבַתֲרָהּ. אֶחָד גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים שָׁוִין בְּמוֹלִיךְ וּבְמֵבִיא. הָיָה כָתוּב בּוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְאָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַגֵּט עֱרָרוֹ קַיָים אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ קַיָים אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה עֱרָרוֹ קַיָים אֶצֶל הַגֵּט. כָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לְעַבְדּוֹ. אַתְּ אָמַר. הוּא גִיטּוֹ הוּא מַתָּנָתוֹ. מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. בְּגֵט הוּא וְעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אוֹ בַמַּתָּנָה הוּא וְעֱרָרוֹ קַיָים. וְיָיבֹא כְהָדָא. כָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת וְהָיוּ עֵדִים כְּשֵׁירִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִמִּי. אִתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵן פְסוּלִין לָזֶה פְּסוּלִין לָזֶה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי אָבִין מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵן פְסוּלִין לָזֶה פְּסוּלִין לָזֶה. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כְּשֵׁרִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָה הַשְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה אַף הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי חְנַנְיָה חֲבֵרִין דְּרַבָּנִין וְרַבָּנִין. חַד אָמַר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. נַעֲשֵׂית עֵדוּת אַחַת וּבְאִישׁ אֶחָד כְּעֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כוּלָּהּ. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר יְאוּת. נַעֲשֶׂה כִּשְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה.

If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ וְנֶחְתַּם לִשְׁמָהּ. בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל עֵדִים בִּשְׁעַת חֲתִימָתָן. אָמַר לוֹן. גּוֹיִם לוּקְיָן חֲתוּמִין עָלָיו. וְאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִין אָכֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל הַגִיטִּין הַבָּאִין מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתָן כְּשֵׁם גּוֹיִם הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כְשֵׁירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שְׁמוֹתָן כִּשְׁמוֹת הַגּוֹיִם. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. הָא שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא. מַאי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי בֵּבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִסִּי. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב. בְּמָקוֹם יְהוּדָאִיקֵי. אִם אֵין שָׁם יְהוּדָאִיקֵי. בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. אִם אֵין שָׁם בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת מְצָרֵף עֲשָׂרָה בְנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. נוֹחַ לִי לְקַיְימוֹ בְּחוֹתְמָיו וְלֹא לְצָרֵף עֲשָׂרָה בְנֵי אָדָם. מָאי כְדוֹן. אֲפִילוּ בַחֲנוּתָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

Only if he says, it was written before me during the day and signed during the day; only if he says, it was written before me especially for her and signed expressly for her. It was asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does he have to know the names of the witnesses at the moment of their signing? He said to them, did the Gentiles Luciani sign it? And you say so? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “All bills of divorce coming from overseas are valid even if their names sound Gentile since Jews outside the Land of Israel bear Gentile names.” He said only, outside the Land; therefore not in the Land of Israel. What about this? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Issi: unless he writes, at a Jewish place. If there is no Jewish place, in the synagogue. If there is no synagogue, he assembles there ten people. Rebbi Abun said, it would be better to certify the signatures than to assemble there ten people. What about this? Even in a Jewish store.

וְלֹא אָמַר. נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ וְנֶחְתַּם לִשְׁמָהּ. נֵימַר מַה דִשְׁאִיל אֲמוֹרָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְיֵידָא דְאָמַר רָבִין בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא. אַייתֵי גִיטָא וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. טְלֵיהוּ מִמֶּנָּה וֶאֱמוֹר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶיֹּאמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. שֶׁהוּא גִיטֵּיךְ. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יָיבֹא מִן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. וְלֹא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁאִם אָמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. שֶׁהוּא גִיטֵּיךְ. שֶׁאֵינוֹ גֵט. וְהָכָא אֲפִילוּ אִם אָמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. שֶׁהוּא גִיטֵּיךְ. אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶיֹּאמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אֶלָּא מִיסְבּוֹר סְבַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר. הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי גִיטִּי מִשְּׁלוּחֵי בַעֲלִי. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מֵבִיאָה גִטָּהּ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא מִשְּׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל קִבְּלָה. מַאי כְדוֹן טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדֵי לְהַחֲזִיקָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם.

If he did not say: “it was written and signed before me”? Should not an Amora have asked this question? He said to him, that is what Rabin ben Rav said: If he brought a bill of divorce, gave it to her, but did not tell her: “It was written and signed before me”? There came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, take it from her and say in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce? Can the position of Rebbi Joḥanan be derived from Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? Would Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that if he told her at the moment of delivery that it was her bill of divorce it would not be a bill of divorce? But here, even if he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” But Rebbi Joḥanan might hold that a woman cannot be believed if she says, I received a bill of divorce from my husband’s agents. But we did state: “The wife herself can bring her bill of divorce.” Would you not have to be afraid that she might have received the bill from a representative of the husband? How is it? The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is to make her known as divorcee in front of two [witnesses].

אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית צָרִיךְ. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִיטִּין. וְהָכָא אָמַר אָכֵן. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ חֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁחֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בְּקִיאִין הֵן. וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. אֵין חֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲנָן מְצוּיִין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בְּגִיטִּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. מֵעַתָּה הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם לֹא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בְּגִיטֵּי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַאי כְדוֹן. מַחְמִירִין בַּקַּל מִפְּנֵי הֶחָמוּר וְאֵין מַקִּילִין בֶּחָמוּר מִפְּנֵי הַקַּל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שֶׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא. מֵהָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֲבָל בִּתְחִילָּה אוֹף רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מוֹדֶה.

A case came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce, but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no Fellows were found outside the Land, but now that there are Fellows found outside the Land, they are competent. But did we not state, “and one who brings there”? And even if you say that no Fellows are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One is restrictive in a simple case because of the complicated one and one is not permissive in the complicated because of the easy one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: This of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, if it was done. But from the start even Rebbi Joshua ben Levi agrees.

רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר חָנָה. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ אֶת הַגֵּט אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. צָרִיךְ. הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיתְּנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם כְּדֵי לְהַחֲזִיקָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. נָתַן לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ. נְטָלוֹ מִמֶּנָּהּ וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ לַיָּם אוֹ לְנָהָר. לְאַחַר זְמָן אָמַר לָהּ. נַיָיר חָלָק הָיָה וּשְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ הָיָה. לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְפוֹסְלָהּ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הוּא אֵינוֹ פוֹסְלָהּ מִי פוֹסְלָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּחְזַק גְּרוּשָׁה בִפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְפוֹסְלָהּ. נָתַן לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ. אַשְׁכְּחוּנֵיהּ גֵּט בְּפָסוּל. כְּפוּנֵיהּ וִיהַב לָהּ חוֹרָן. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין וְאַכְשְׁרוּן. וְלֹא כֵן אִיתֲמַר. לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְפוֹסְלָהּ. תַּמָן לֹא הוּכַח פְּסוּל. הָכָא הוּכַח פְּסוּל. כְּהָדָא חִינְנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֲסִי הֲוָה מֵיסַן וְזָרַק גִּיטָָּא לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָמַר לָהּ. הֲרֵי גִיטֵּיךְ. צְוָוחַת. וַעֲלוֹן מְגֵירָתָהּ חַטְּפֵיהּ מִינָהּ. וִיהַב לָהּ נַיָיר חָלָק. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין וְחָשׁוּן. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִבְדַּק הַשֵּׁם וְנִמְצָא מִפִּי נָשִׁים וּמִפִּי קְטָנִים בָּטֵל הַשֵּׁם. תַּמָּן לֹא הוּזְכַּר הַשֵּׁם. בְּרַם הָכָא הוּזְכַּר שֵׁם הַגֵּט. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אִם אָמַר. גֵּט כָּשֵׁר הָיָה. וְכֵיוָן דְּצְוָוחַת וַעֲלוֹן מְגֵירָתָהּ חַטְּפֵיהּ מִינָהּ. וִיהַב לָהּ נַיָיר חָלָק.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Ḥana: Two who brought a bill of divorce do not have to declare: It was written before us and signed before us. Rebbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They have to. He himself who brought the bill of divorce does not have to deliver the bill in the presence of two [witnesses] in order to declare her a divorcee in the presence of two. “If he gave her the bill, took it from her, and threw it into the sea or into a river. If later he says to her that it was an empty papyrus or a paid bond, he cannot be believed to disqualify her.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he cannot disqualify her, who can? He said to him, since she was declared a divorcee in the presence of two [witnesses], he cannot be believed to disqualify her. If he gave her a bill of divorce which was found to be invalid, they forced him to give her a replacement. This case came before the rabbis and they declared it valid. Did we not say, he cannot be believed to disqualify her? There, the flaw was not proved; here the flaw was proved. As the following: Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Asi, was a medical doctor and threw a bill of divorce to his wife. She cried. Her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus. The case came before the rabbis and they took it into account. But did not Rebbi Yasa say in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If the designation was checked and found to be based on [the testimony of] women or children, the designation is invalid? There, the designation was not mentioned. But here the name “bill of divorce” was mentioned. And some want to say, if he asserted that it was a valid bill of divorce, but she cried, her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. כְּתָבוֹ בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְהָלַךְ לִיתְּנוֹ לָהּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְלֹא מְצָאָהּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְְּתָבוֹ לָאָרֶץ וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל נִכְתַּב בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנֶחְתַּם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָלַךְ לִיתְּנוֹ לָהּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְלֹא מְצָאָהּ. וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. נָתַן לָהּ אֶת גִּיטָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרָה. תִּזְכֶּה לִי חֲצֵירִי שֶׁבְּעַכּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָה. נַעֲשֵׂית כְּמִי שֶׁהָיְתָה יָדָהּ אֲרוּכָּה. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה יָדָהּ אֲרוּכָּה וְהוֹשִׁיטָה אֶת יָדָהּ וּנְטָלָתוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וְנֶחְתַּם. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָאן אָמַר דְּלֹא.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

רִבִּי עֶזְרָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיוּ תְפוּשִׂין בַּגֵּט. הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת. זָכִיתִי. וְהוּא אָמַר. לֹא זָכִיתָה. תַּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרִבִּי וּדְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלֹּוֶה שֶׁהָיוּ תְפוּשִׂין בַּשְּׁטָר. הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי הוּא שֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנִּי. וְהַלֹּוֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי הוּא שֶׁפְּרַעְתִּיו לָךְ. יִתְקַיֵים הַשְּׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יַחֲלוֹקוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתָּפוּשׂ בָּעֵדִים. מַה פְלִיגִין. כְּשֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לְאוֹרֶךְ וּשְׁנֵיהֶן תְּפוּשִׂין בָּעֵדִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. הָכָא אֲפִילוּ כוּלָּהּ בְּיָדָהּ וְחוּט אֶחָד בְּיָדוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵט. דִּכְתִיב וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כוּלּוֹ בְיָדָהּ.

Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: If a man and his wife held on to a bill of divorce; she says, I acquired it, but he says, you did not acquire. Does this refer to the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? Since they disagreed: If creditor and borrower both hold on to the bond; the creditor says it is mine; I had lost it. The borrower says, it is mine because I paid it off. The document should be verified by its signatories, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they should split. Rebbi Eleazar said, everything depends on who actually holds the signatures of the witnesses. Where do they disagree? If it was written lengthwise and both hold part of the signatures of the witnesses. He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion that it is not a bill of divorce if all is in her hand but a thread is in his hand, for it is written: “He shall deliver it into her hand,” not unless all be in her hand.

מְתִיב רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר לְרַבָּנִן. כְּמָא דְאִית לְכוֹן הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אַף אֲנָא אִית לִי הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט מִלִּמֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּקַיסָרִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וְאֵין לִמֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּקַיסָרִין כְּקַיְסָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. סְפִינָּה מַפְרֶשֶׂת הָיְיתָה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִן הַסְּפִינָּה כְּמֵבִיא מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Just as you hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another overseas has to say, “it was written and signed before me,” so I hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another in the Land of Israel has to say, “it was written and signed before me.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, it happened that one brought a bill of divorce from the harbor of Caesarea. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said yes, he has to say that it was written and signed before him. But is the harbor of Caesarea not part of Caesarea? Rebbi Abin said, it was from a departing ship, and it was stated thus: One who brings a bill of divorce from a ship is like one who brings from outside the Land and has to say that it was written and signed before him.

הָיְתָה הֵגֶמוֹנֵיָיא אַחַת וְנַעֲשֵׂית שְׁתַּיִם. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וְכֵן שְׁתַּיִם וְנַעֲשׁוּ אַחַת.

If there was one district which was subdivided into two, one does not have to say it was written and signed before me. Similarly if two were combined to form one.

Mishnah

משנה: רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מֵרְקַם וְלַמִּזְרַח וּרְקַם כְּמִזְרַח. מֵאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְלַדָּרוֹם וְאַשְׁקְלוֹן כְּדָרוֹם מֵעַכּוֹ וְלַצָּפוֹן וְעַכּוֹ כְצָפוֹן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר עַכּוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַגִּיטִּין.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East and Reqam belongs to the East, from Ascalon to the South and Ascalon belongs to the South, from Acco to the North and Acco belongs to the North. Rebbi Meïr says, Acco belongs to the Land of Israel in matters of bills of divorce.

Halakhah

הלכה: רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מֵרְקַם וְלַמִּזְרַח כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְצִפּוֹרָיָיא. אַתּוּן אָמְרִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַף הַמֵּבִיא מִבָּבֵל לְכָאן אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ. דְּהִיא מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מֵרְקַם וְלַמִּזְרַח וּרְקַם כְּמִזְרַח. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. חֲלוּקִין עַל רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאֵין רְקַם כַּמִּזְרַח. שֶׁמָּא מִבָּבֵל לְכָאן. רַב אָמַר. עָשִׂינוּ עַצְמֵינוּ כְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַגִיטִּין. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ מִשְּׁכוּנָה לִשְׁכוּנָה. בְּעָא קוֹמֵי מִיחְזוֹר בֵּיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ כַּהֲנָא. וּמַה נַעֲשֶׂה לָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּישְּׂאוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּמַה בְיָדָךְ. דְּהוּא סְבַר כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי דְּתַנֵּי. הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם לֹא נִכְתַּב לְפָנָיו וְלֹא נֶחְתַּם לְפָנָיו. תֵצֵא בִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דָּבָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים לֹא הוֹדוּ לַדָּבָר.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan told the people of Sepphoris: You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a person who brings a bill of divorce from Babylonia does not have to say “it was written and signed before me.” But I am saying that it is necessary, for there is a Mishnah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East and Reqam belongs to the East.” And even if you say that they disagree with Rebbi Jehudah and say that Reqam does not belong to the East, what about from Babylonia to here? Rav said, we consider ourselves as in the Land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce. But Samuel said, even from one city quarter to another. He asked before him to change his opinion, when Cahana told him, what would we do with the earlier cases of women who remarried? He said to him, what do you have in your hand? For he was of Rebbi’s opinion as it was stated: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was neither written nor signed in his presence, she has to leave under the thirteen penalties, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages did not agree in this matter.

הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִירֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁעִירֵר מִשֶּׁנִּישֵּׂאת. עִירֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת וְנִישֵּׂאת. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט לִפְנֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מְנַיִין אַתְּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכְּפַר סִמַיי שֶׁבְּתְחוּם עַכּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַף אַתְּ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וְאַל תִּזָּקֵק לָעֵדִים. וּכְשֶׁיָּצָא אָמַר לוֹ רִבְּי אִילַעִאי. רִבִּי. וַהֲלֹא כְּפַר סִמַיי מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא קְרוּבָה לְצִיפּוֹרִין יוֹתֵר מֵעַכּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא הַמַּעֲשֶׂה בְהֵיתֵר יָצָא. מָהוּ הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא הַמַּעֲשֶׂה בְהֵיתֵר יָצָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִירֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. אִילּוּ הַמֵּבִיא מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּא האוּ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם. הֲוֵי לֹא שַׁנְיָיה. הוּא עֶרֶר מִשֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת הוּא עֶרֶר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת וְנִישֵּׂאת.

Everybody agrees that if [the husband] comes and protests, his protest is invalid. That is, if he protested after she remarried. If he protested before she remarried and then she remarried? Let us hear from the following: It happened that somebody brought a bill of divorce before Rebbi Ismael. He asked him, from where are you? He answered, from Kefar Simai in the region of Acco. He said to him, then you have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence;” you do not need witnesses. After [that person] left, Rebbi Ilai said to him, my teacher, is not Kefar Simai in the Land of Israel, closer to Sepphoris than to Acco? He answered, since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands. What means “since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands”? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that if [the husband] came and protested, his protest would be invalid. But does a person who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel for delivery in the Land of Israel have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence”? Therefore, there cannot be any difference whether he protested after she remarried or before she remarried and then she remarried.

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָדָא בַּר עַתְלַיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּגִיטִּין. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִסְתַּכֵּל בֵּיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָמָּה אַתְּ מִסְתַּכֵּל בִּי. דִּיתֵמַר הֲלָכָה כְמִי שֶׁהוּא מֵיקַל בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין. סָבְרִין מֵימַר בְּיָחִיד אֶצֶל יָחִיד. אֲבָל בְּיָחִיד אֶצֶל חֲכָמִים לֹא. וְהָכָא אֲפִילוּ יָחִיד אֶצֶל חֲכָמִים.

Rebbi Jacob bar Ada, Bar Athlay in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr in matters of bills of divorce. Rebbi Ze‘ira was looking at him. He asked him, why do you look at me? Was it not said that practice follows the lenient opinion in rabbinic matters? They thought, that is a single opinion against a single opinion, but not a single opinion against the Sages, and here even a single opinion against the Sages.

רִבִּי חִיָיא רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר. הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְעַכּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָבוּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. וַאֲפִילוּ מֵעַכּוֹ לְעַכּוֹ. וְאַתְיָיא כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִמִּי. מִן תְּרֵין עוֹבְדוֹי דְרִבִּי אֲנָן יָלְפִין. עַכּוֹ יֵשׁ בָּהּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי הֲוָה בְעַכּוֹ. חָמְתוּן אָכְלוּן פִּיתָּא נְקִיָיא. אָמַר לוֹן. מַה אַתּוּן לָתִין. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ. תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד בָּא לְכָאן וְהוֹרָה לָנוּ עַל מֵי בֵּיצִים שֶׁאֵינָן מַכְשִּׁירִין. וַאֲנָן שְׁלָקִין בֵּיעִין וְלָתִין בְּמֵיהוֹן. סָבְרִין מֵימַר מֵי שְׁלָק שֶׁלְּבֵּצִים. וְלֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שֶׁלְְּבֵיצִים עַצְמָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי. מֵאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה גָזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא תַלְמִיד מוֹרֶה הוֹרַיָיה. רִבִּי חונה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנָה אָמַר. תַּלְמִיד שֶׁהוֹרָה אֲפִילוּ כַהֲלָכָה אֵין הוֹרָיָיתוֹ הוֹרַיָיה.

Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar] Abba said: If one sold a slave into Acco, the latter was set free. Rebbi Ismael, the father of Rebbi Yudan, asked: Even from Acco to Acco? This follows what Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Immi: From two actions of Rebbi we learn that Acco is partly of the Land of Israel and partly outside the Land. Rebbi was in Acco when he saw them eating clean bread; he asked them, how did you knead [the dough]? They said to him, a student came here and instructed us that egg water does not prepare. We are boiling eggs and use their water to knead. They thought he was talking about cooking water of eggs when he spoke only of the eggs themselves. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, at that moment they decreed that a student may not render decisions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: If a student gives instructions even according to practice, his instructions are no instructions.

תַּנֵּי. תַּלְמִיד שֶׁהוֹרָה הֲלָכָה לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ חַיָיב מִיתָה. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. לֹא מֵת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוֹרוּ הֲלָכָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבָּן. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתַלֲמִיד אֶחָד שֶׁהוֹרָה לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר לְאִימָּא שָׁלוֹם אִשְׁתּוֹ. אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא שַׁבָּתוֹ. וְלֹא יָצָאת שַׁבָּתוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַלְמִידָיו. רִבִּי נָבִיא אַתָּה. אָמַר לָהֶן. לֹא נָבִיא אָנֹכִי וְלֹא בֶן נָבִיא אָנֹכִי. אֶלָּא כָךְ אֲנִי מְקוּבָּל שֶׁכָּל תַּלְמִיד מוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ חַיָיב מִיתָה. תַּנֵּי אָסוּר לְתַלְמִיד לְהוֹרוֹת הֲלָכָה לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מִיל כְּמַחֲנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמַה טַעַם. וַיַּחֲנוּ עַל הַיַּרְדֵן מִבֵּית הַיְּשִׁימוֹת עַד אָבֵל הַשִּׁיטִּים בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב. וְכַמָּה הֵן. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מִיל כְּמַחֲנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּהָדָא רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר יִרְמְיָה הֲוָה בְחֵפֶר. וַהֲווֹן שְׁאָלוֹן לֵיהּ וְהוּא מוֹרֶה. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. וְלֹא כֵן אוּלְפָן רִבִּי שֶׁאָסוּר לְתַלְמִיד לְהוֹרוֹת הֲלָכָה לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מִיל כְּמַחֲנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָא רִבִּי מָנָא רַבָּךְ יְתִיב בְּצִיפּוֹרִין. אָמַר לוֹן יֵיתִי עָלַי דְלָא יָדְעִית. מִן הַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא לָא אוֹרֵי.

It was stated: A student who gave instructions about practice in front of his teacher has committed a deadly sin. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Nadab and Abihu died only because they determined practice in the presence of their teacher Moses. It happened that a student gave instructions about practice in front of his teacher Rebbi Eliezer. The latter said to his wife Imma Shalom: That one will not live out his week. The week was not completed when he died. His students said to him: Rebbi, you are a prophet. He said to them ( Amos 7:14) “I am neither a prophet nor the disciple of a prophet” but I have received a tradition that any student who gives instructions about practice in front of his teacher has committed a deadly sin. It was stated: A student is forbidden to give instructions about practice during the lifetime of his teacher unless he be at a distance of at least 12 mil from him, [the breadth of] the camp of Israel. What is the reason? ( Num. 33:49) “They encamped along the Jordan from Bet Hayyešimot to Abel Haššiṭṭim in the plains of Moab”; how far is this? Twelve mil. Like this: Rebbi Tanḥum ben Jeremiah was in Ḥefer; they asked him and he gave instructions about practice. They said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that a student may not give instructions about practice during the lifetime of his teacher unless he be at a distance of at least 12 mil from him, [the breadth of] the camp of Israel; and your teacher Rebbi Ḥana sits at Sepphoris! He said to them, so it should come over me that I did not know! From that moment on he did no longer give instructions.

רִבִּי הֲוָה בְעַכּוֹ. חָמָא חַד בַּר נַשׁ מִכֵּיפְתָא וּלְעֵיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית אַתְּ בְּרֵיהּ דְּפַלָּן כַּהֲנָא וְלֹא הֲוָה אָבוּךְ כֹּהֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. עֵינָיו שֶׁלְּאַבָּא הָיוּ גְבוֹהוֹת וְנָשָׂא אִשָׂה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ וְחִילֵּל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ.

Rebbi was in Acco when he saw a man on the rock. He said to him, “are you not the son of the Cohen X, was your father not a Cohen?” He said to him, “the eyes of my father were high, but he married a woman unfit for him and profaned this man.”

עַיָירוֹת שֶׁבִּתְחוּם צִיפּוֹרִין הַסְּמוּכוֹת לְעַכּוֹ. עַיָירוֹת שֶׁבִּתְחוּם עַכּוֹ הַסְּמוּכוֹת לְצִיפּוֹרִין. מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לוֹן. כְּעַכּוֹ. כְּצִיפּוֹרִין.

The villages in the territory of Sepphoris close to Acco, the villages in the territory of Acco close to Sepphoris, what do you do with them? Like Acco, like Sepphoris?

Mishnah

משנה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עוֹרְרִים יִתְקַיֵים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים יִתְקַיֵים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. אֶחָד גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים שָׁוִין לַמּוֹלִיךְ וְלַמֵּבִיא. וְזוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁשָּׁווּ גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים לְשִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel does not have to say: “It was written and signed before me.” If the document is contested, it should be confirmed by its signers. If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and is unable to say: “it was written and signed before me,” it should be confirmed by its signers. Bills of divorce and slaves’ bills of manumission are equal in [the requirement] about those who carry and bring. This is one of the aspects in which bills of divorce, have the same rules as bills of manumission.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כול׳. מִי עִירֵר. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. הַבַּעַל עִירֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הַלְּקוּחוֹת עוֹרְרִין שֶׁלֹּא תִיטָּרֵף מִיָּדָן. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּעֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ. עֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן לֹא שַׁנְיָיה. הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ. הִיא עֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ. עֵרֵר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. וְעֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ עֱרָרוֹ קַיָים.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel,” etc. Who protests? Rav Ḥisda said, the husband protests. Rebbi Yose said, the buyers protest, lest she repossess from them. Rebbi asked: So far a protest which does not concern the text of the bill. A protest which concerns the text of the bill is in dispute between Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. In the opinion of the rabbis there, there is no difference to a protest concerning or not concerning the body of the bill. A protest not concerning the text of the bill is void, a protest concerning the text of the bill is valid.

דּתַנֵּי. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְלֹא נִכְתַּב לְפָנָיו וְלֹא נֶחְתַּם לְפָנָיו. הֲרֵי מַחֲזִירוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. וְעוֹשֶׂה עָלָיו בֵּית דִּין וּמְקַיְימוֹ בְחוֹתְמָיו וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר. שָׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אָנִי.

As it was stated: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was not written and signed in his presence, he returns the bill to its place of origin, presents it to a court and has its signatures notarized. Then he does not have so say, ‘it was written and signed before me’, but he says, ‘I am deputized by the court.’”

Mishnah

משנה: כָּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי פָּסוּל חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַי גֵּט אִשָּׁה וְהָיוּ עֵידָיו עֵידֵי כוּתִים וְהִכְשִׁירוֹ. כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִין בְּעַרְכָאוֹת שֶׁלַּגּוֹיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶן גּוֹיִם כְּשֵׁירִים חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּן כְּשֵׁירִין לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בַהֶדְיוֹט.

MISHNAH: Any document signed by a Samaritan is invalid, except bills of divorce and bills of manumission. It happened that they brought before Rabban Gamliel at Kefar Othnay a bill of divorce whose witnesses were Samaritans and he declared it valid. All documents confirmed by a Gentile recorder’s office are valid, even if they are signed by Gentiles, except bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rebbi Simeon says, all are valid; they said it only when they were made by private persons.

Halakhah

הלכה: כָּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי פָּסוּל כול׳. עַל הַמָּמוֹן נֶחְשְׁדוּ וְעַל הַמָּמוֹן נִפְסְלוּ. לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וְעֵידֵי נְפָשׁוֹת כְּעֵידֵי עֲרָיוֹת. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כּוּתִים. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִּיטִּין. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ כוּתִי אֶחָד יִהְיֶה פָסוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁחָתַם יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסּוֹף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַתְיָיא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. עֵדִים חוֹתְמִין זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד זֶה. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין עֵדִים חוֹתְמִין אֶלָּא זֶה בִפְנֵי זֶה. אֲפִילוּ חָתַם כּוּתִי בַּסּוֹף כָּשֵׁר.

HALAKHAH: “Any document signed by a Samaritan is invalid,” etc. They are suspected about money; about money they were disqualified.They are not suspected about incest and adultery. And testimony in capital criminal cases has the same status as testimony about incest and adultery. Then even if both of them are Samaritans? There is a difference, for they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Then even one Samaritan witness should be disqualified! Rebbi Abin said, explain it if a Jew signed last. Rebbi Yose said, that is according to the opinion that the witnesses may sign separately, not in the presence of each other. But according to him who says that witnesses may sign only in the presence of each other, it is valid even if the Samaritan signed last.

שְׁטָר שֶׁחוֹתָמוֹ בְאַרְבָּעָה עֵדִים וְנִמְצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים כָּשֵׁר וְתִתְקַיֵים הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. אַתְיָיא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין אֶלָּא זֶה בִפְנֵי זֶה. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. עֵדִים חוֹתְמִין זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה. אֲפִילוּ חָתַם יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסּוֹף פָּסוּל. וְיֵעָשֶׂה בְּהַרְחֵק עֵדוּת וִיהֵא פָסוּל. לֵית יְכִיל. דְּקָאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. עֵדִים פְּסוּלִין אֵינָן נַעֲשִׂין כְּהַרְחֵק עֵדוּת. שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ אֶלָּא לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט.

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 testimony. 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 invalid. And would it not be remote testimony? That one cannot say since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah that disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity.

כּוּתִים מִשּׁוּם מַה הֵן פְּסוּלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִשּׁוּם גֵּירִי אֲרָיוֹת. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵיר לְשׁוּם שָׁמַיִם וְחָזַר וְנִתְגַּיֵיר לְשׁוּם שָׁמַיִם שֶׁמָּא אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מִשּׁוּם גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל יִשְׂרְאֵלִית הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. וְהָאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. גֵּירֵי צֶדֶק הֵן. עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהֵן מְיַיבְּמִין אֶת הָאֲרוּסוֹת וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת. וְהָא רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. אֵין מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. עַל שֵׁם שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִּיטִּין. הָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַכְשִׁיר בְּגִיטֵּיהֶן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַל שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בָהֶם כֹּהֲנֵי בָמוֹת. וַיַּעַשׂ כֹּהֲנִים מִקְּצֹת הָעָם. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. מִן הַקּוֹצִים שֶׁבָּעָם וּמִן הַפְּסוֹלֶת שֶׁבָּעָם.

Why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are lions’ proselytes. But if somebody converted not for Heaven’s sake and then converted for Heaven’s sake, does one not accept him? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because the child is a bastard if a Gentile or a slave have intercourse with a Jewish woman. But did not Rebbi Aqiba say, they are genuine proselytes? Because they require levirate marriage from the preliminarily married and free the definitively married. But do not the rabbis say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law? Because they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce. But does not Rabban Gamliel accept their bills of divorce? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they intermingled with the priests of the High Places: “He chose priests from the borderline of the people,”. Rebbi Ila said, from the “thorns” of the people, i. e., from the disqualified of the people.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. קוֹל יוֹצֵא בָּאַרְכֶּיִים. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כּוּתִים. שֶׁהָיָה הוּא אוֹמֵר. שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִיטִּין. וְהָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר בְּגִיטֵּיהֶן. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אַתְיָיא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים. כָּשֵׁר. כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים כָּשֵׁר. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ נַעֲשֶׂה בְהֶדְיוֹט. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָא לְהַהוּא דָּמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. קוֹל יוֹצֵא בָּאַרְכֶּיִים. שְׁטָר יוֹצֵא בְבֵית שְׁאָן וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵידֵי גוֹיִם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר. פָּסוּל. וְחַד אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פָּסוּל. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שֶׁלֹּא לְהַפְסִיד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָמוֹן. וַאֲפִילוּ דְּלֵית מַפְסִיד לְדֵין מַפְסִיד לְדֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לִנְעוֹל אֶת הַדֶּלֶת לִפְנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם. שֶׁלְּמָחָר הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לִלְווֹת וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא.

Rebbi Aḥa said, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. Then even if both [witnesses] are Samaritan? Did one not say that they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce? But Rebbi Simeon validates their bills of divorce! Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: It turns out that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as Rebbi Eleazar said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid, so Rebbi Simeon said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid. But then even if it was made by private persons? This shows that it was necessary that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. A bond was executed in Bet Shean, whose witnesses were Gentiles. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree, one said it is invalid, the other said it is valid. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is invalid, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is valid. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That a Jew should not lose money. But if that one would not lose money, the other would lose money! Rebbi Yudan said, it must be in order not to close the door before people, for tomorrow one would look to borrow but does not succeed.

Mishnah

משנה: הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁיחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן יַחֲזוֹר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְפָנָיו שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ רַשַּׁאי וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתִּוּ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶן וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָינוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי וָמֵת לֹא יִינָתְנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מְנָה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וָמֵת יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

MISHNAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave,” if he wants to change his mind in either case he can retract, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, only for women’s bills of divorce but not for slaves’ documents of manumission because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on him only in his presence; for if one chooses not to sustain his slave, he has the right not to do so, but not to sustain his wife he has no right. He said to them, but he disqualifies his slave for heave the same way he disqualifies his wife! They answered him, because he is his property. If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave” and dies, they shall not be delivered after his death; “give this mina to Mr. X” and dies, they shall deliver it after his death.

Halakhah

הלכה: הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי כול׳. כָּל אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. תֵּן כְּהוֹלִךְ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. תֵּן כִּזְכֵה. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. זְכֵה גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי. זְכֵה שְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי. לְשָׁם מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לְאָדָם אֶלָּא בְפָנָיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. חוֹבָה הוּא בֵין לַזֶּה בֵּין לַזֶּה. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. זְכוּת הוּא לָעֶבֶד וְחוֹבָה הִיא לָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁלְּקָצִין. הֲרֵי חוֹבָה הוּא לָעֶבֶד. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּמוּכֵּי שְׁחִין. הֲרֵי זְכוּת הוּא לְאִשָּׁה. לֵית לָךְ אֶלָּא כְהָדָא. אִילּוּ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ שֶלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. וְהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ שֶׁמָּא מְגוּרֶשֶׁת הִיא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא קִנְיָינוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. קִנְיָינוֹ הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא פוֹסְלוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

HALAKHAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife,” etc. Elsewhere you say that “give” means “bring”, but here you say that “give” means “acquire”! So is the Mishnah: “Acquire this bill of divorce for my wife; acquire this document of manumission for my slave.” The formulation of the Mishnah says so: “Because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on a person only in his presence.” Rebbi Meïr says, it is a detriment for either of them, but the Sages say it is a benefit for the slave but a detriment for the wife. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if he was the slave of a rich person, would it not be a detriment for the slave? The colleagues said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if she was the wife of a man suffering from boils, would it not be a benefit for the woman? You have only the following: If one sells his slave without the latter’s knowledge, is the sale of the slave not valid? If one divorces his wife without her knowledge, is the divorce valid because she was acquired by him? Rebbi Abin said, he is his property but he disqualifies him for heave.

הָאוֹמֵר. טַבִּי עַבְדִּי עָשִׂיתִי בֶּן חוֹרִין. עוֹשֶׂה אֲנִי אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה בֶן חוֹרִין. זָכָה. רִבִּי אִינַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִלְבַד בִּשְׁטָר. יֵעָשֶׂה בֶן חוֹרִין. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. זָכָה. וַחֲכָמִים. לֹא זָכָה. תְּנוּ שְׁטָר שִׁיחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי. וָמֵת. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. לֹא זָכָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. זָכָה. כּוֹפִין אֶת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין לְקַיֵים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. שִׁחְרְרוּ. אַף רִבִּי מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ. אַף רַבָּנִין מוֹדוּ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין. בְּאוֹמֵר. תְּנוּ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. הָאוֹמֵר. תְּנוּ. כְּאוֹמֵר. כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. הָאוֹמֵר. תְּנוּ. כְּאוֹמֵר. שִׁחְרְרוּ.

“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I shall free him, he is free, he acquired.” Rebbi Inaia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rebbi says, he acquired, but for the Sages he did not acquire. Give this document of manumission, and he died, Rebbi says, he did not acquire but the Sages say, he did acquire; one forces the heirs to fulfill the instructions of the deceased.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If he said, “free him”, Rebbi will agree. If he said, “write and deliver,” the Sages will agree. But we deal with the case that he said “give”. Rebbi says, one who says “give” is like one who said “write and deliver,” but the Sages say, one who says “give” is like one who said “free him”.

הָאוֹמֵר. יִנָּתְנוּ כָל נְכָסָיו לִפְלוֹנִי. וְהוּא כֹהֶן. וְהָיוּ שָׁם עֲבָדִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בָהֶן. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בָהֶן. זָכוּ בָהֶן הַיּוֹרְשִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם מִשֶּׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אַף רַבָּן [שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן] גַּמְלִיאֵל מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִיבֵּל עָלָיו מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אַף רַבָּנִן מוֹדוּ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בִּסְתָם. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. לֵית בַּר נַשׁ אֲמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשַׁר. אֶלָּא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשַׁר. הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִילָּתוֹ.

“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs acquired them.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If he accepted at the first moment, Rabban Gamliel will agree. If he did refuse at the first moment, the rabbis will agree. But we deal with the case that he did not specify. Rebbi says, nobody says ‘it is impossible’ unless he had accepted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible’, the end is proof for the start.

הָאוֹמֵר. תֶּן מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָיב לוֹ. הוֹלִךְ מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְּפִקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְיָדִי. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְחַיָיב הָאִישׁ בַּאֲחֵרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. הַמַּתָּנָה כְחוֹב. תֶּן מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. הוֹלִךְ מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. תֶּן זֶה שְׁטָר מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. הוֹלִךְ שְׁטָר זֶה מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר (לֹא) יַחֲזִיר. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת יַחֲזִיר לַמְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם מֵת יִתֵּן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. זְכֵה מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. קַבֵּל מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. זְכֵה שְׁטָר זֶה מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. קַבֵּל שְׁטָר זֶה מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת יִתֵּן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. וְאִם לְאַחַר מִיתָה זָכָה יַחֲזִיר לַמְשַׁלֵּחַ. שֵׁאֵין אָדָם זוֹכֶה בִכְתָב לְאַחַר מִיתָה. מִי שֶׁאָמַר. מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. טוֹל מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. יְהֵא מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְיָדָךְ. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְהָדֵין זָכָה לְחַבְרֵיהּ לָא יְכִיל חֲזוֹר בֵּיהּ.

“If somebody says, give this mina to X because I owe it to him, bring this mina to X for the pledge which he has from me, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so but he himself is responsible until X receives his due.” Rebbi Ila said, a gift is like a debt. “Give this mina to X, bring this mina to X, give this gift document to X, if he wants to change his mind he can(not) do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should return it to the sender, and if that one had died he should give it to the latter’s heirs.” “Acquire this mina for X, accept this mina for X, acquire this gift document for X, accept this gift document for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should deliver it to his heirs. But if he acquired after [X’s] death he should return it to the sender since nobody can acquire documents after his death.” “If somebody says, this mina is for X, take this mina for X, this mina shall be in your hand for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so” because if somebody acquires for another person it cannot be changed.

דֵּלֹמָא. רִבִּי דּוֹסִתַּי בֵּירִבִּי יַנַּאי וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפֶּר נַחְתּוֹן מִיגְבֵּי לְחַבְרֵיהּ תַּמָּן וְאִיתְאֲמָרַת עֲלֵיהוֹן לִשָׁן בִּישׁ. אֲתוֹן בָּעֵיי מִיפְקָא מִינֵּיהּ. אָמְרִין לוֹן. כְּבָר זָכִינָן. אָמְרִין לוֹן. אֲנָן בְּעֵי תְקִימִינוֹן טָבָאת. אָמְרִין. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֲנַחְנוּ. אֲתוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי דּוֹסִתַּי בֵּירִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֲמַר לוֹן. הֲהֵנוֹ כוּלָּהּ. נַסְבּוֹן לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפֶּר וּפַטְרוֹי וְאַפְקוֹן מִינֵּיהּ. כַּד סַלְקוֹן לְהָכָא אֲתַא לְגַבֵּי אֲבוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית אַתְּ חֲמִי מָה עֲבַד לִי בְּרָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה עֲבַד לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִילּוּ אַשְׁוֵויי עִימִּי לָא הֲווֹן מַפְקִין מִינָן כְּלוּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה עַבְדָּת כֵּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. רָאִיתִי אוֹתָן בֵּית דִּין שָׁוֶה וְכוֹבָעֵיהֶן אַמָּה וּמַדְבְּרִין מַחַצִיִים. וְיוֹסֵה אָחִי כָּפוֹת וּרְצוּעָה עוֹלָה וְיוֹרֶדֶת. וְאָמְרִית. שֶׁמָּא דוֹסִתַּאי אַחֵר יֵשׁ לְאַבָּא. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּהוּא דְלָא יְכִיל מִיקְמָה טַבָּאוּת. בְּרַם הַהוּא דִּיכִיל מִיקְמָה טַבָּאוּת מֵיפַק לוֹן מִן הָדָא וְיִטְלוֹן לְדֵין.

Explanation: Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Yose ben Kipper descended to collect there for a colleague when they were slandered. They came and wanted to take it back from them. They answered, we already acquired it. They said, we wish for you to accept it in good faith; they answered, we are unpaid trustees. They approached Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai who told them, there it is, all of it. They took Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, whipped him with ropes, and took it from him. When they returned here, he went to his father and told him, look what your son did to me! He asked him, what did he do to you? He answered, if he had taken my position, they could not have taken anything from us. He asked him, why did you act in such a way? He said, I saw that they were a unanimous court, their hats were a cubit wide, they were directing blows, my brother Yose was bound and the whip ascended and descended. I said, does my father have another Dositheos? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, you say that for somebody who cannot give a warranty in good faith. But if somebody gives a warranty in good faith, one takes from this one and gives to the other.

דֵּין דְּמָחַל שְׁטָר לְחַבְרִיהּ. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי מָנָא. חַד אָמַר. מָחַל. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לֹא מָחַל עַד דְּמָסַר לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא.

If somebody forgave a bond to another person. Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mamal: one said it is forgiven; the other said it is not forgiven unless he handed over the bond.

תֵּן מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. וָמֵת. אִם רָצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין לְעַכֵּב אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין. אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בָּאוֹמֵר. זְכֵה לוֹ. כָּאוֹמֵר. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי. הֵן. אָמַר רַבָּא בַּר מָמָל. בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אִם בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּהָדָא אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. זְכֵה לוֹ. הִתְקַבֵּל לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. קִיַימְתִּיהָ מִדְּאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כְּבָרִיא שֶׁכָּתַב וְנָתַן. וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת מֵאוֹתוֹ חוֹלִי. הָא אִם הִבְרִיא לֹא. אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בָּאוֹמֵר. זְכֵה לוֹ. הִתְקַבֵּל לוֹ.

“ ‘Give this mina to X,’ then he died. If the heirs want to hinder [the delivery] they are powerless. It is unnecessary to say that it is so if he said, acquire for him, if he said, accept by my orders.” Rebbi Abba barMamal said, this baraita refers to a sick person. If he is sick, does he not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this by what Rebbi Abba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They treated verbal instructions by a sick person as if they were written and delivered. But only if he died from that sickness, not if he recovered, he did not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him.

תְּנוּ מְנָה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי. וָמֵת. יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע הִיא מַתְנִיתָא.

“ ‘Give this mina to Mr. X’ and he dies, they shall deliver it after his death”. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: The Mishnah refers to a sick person.