Gittin — Talmud Jeruschalmi

Gittin

Gittin — Talmud Jeruschalmi på Beth HaMidrash: den hebreiska texten och dess svenska översättning, med Raschi och de stora kommentatorerna. Gratis, på nätet.

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 6:1, Notes 47, 51. 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.

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. 24:1): “He shall write for her”. While the text of the bill must mention the names of husband and wife, it cannot be ascertained from the text whether the scribe was instructed to write the text specifically for that woman; there must be a live witness available who can be examined about this point. A second opinion notes that the signatures of the witnesses themselves would need confirmation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned 10:1.. 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 15:4, Notes 92–93.. 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, it follows that in matters of bills of divorce the single messenger has the power to validate money claims as long as they are included in or dependent upon the bill of 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 became a full Jew. A Jew cannot be enslaved by a fellow Jew (Lev. 25:42). The reason why the master’s protest is void has nothing to do with monetary claims; there seems to be no reason why the master cannot disclaim 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: 11:5, explained in Notes 97–102, and Makkot 1:16. The variant readings are given in Ketubot. The messenger who delivers the document of manumission, which in this case is a document about money matters, is believed as if he were a group of two in regard of the manumission but is disqualified for the money part. All the questions asked up to this point can be answered if one decides whether to follow R. Joḥanan or R. Simeon ben Laqish. 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: R. Yasa. Since rabbis Yasa (Assi) and Immi (Ammi) form a permanent pair in the Babli, there is no real difference in the attributions.: 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. 49:27), and Λίς “lion” (in epic poetry, cf. Semitic ליש), a substitute for Jehudah (Gen. 49:9). Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins: An Etymological Dictionary (Ktav, 1992; German edition Etymologisches Wörterbuch der jüdischen Familiennamen, Saur 1996), Introduction: Sobriquets, Animal Names.? 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, Vol. 1, p. 489.. 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. 24:1 requires that in a divorce the husband deliver the bill into the wife’s hand. The question arises whether the required declaration is valid after the bill is already in the wife’s hand. In the Babli 78a, Rebbi is quoted as holding that the bill is invalid unless given as a bill of divorce; R. Simeon ben Eleazar permits the husband to reclaim the bill from his wife and deliver it a second time accompanied by the required declaration. In the Tosephta, Rebbi is reported not to require the declaration, R. Simeon ben Eleazar requires that the declaration accompany the delivery. The language of the Tosephta is that of the Yerushalmi; it is not clear whether R. Simeon ben Eleazar permits taking the document back., 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, she can bring it herself and declare before the court that “it was written and signed before me.”: “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 by two reliable witnesses, not its delivery.? How is it? The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is to make her known as divorcee in front of two [witnesses].

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin.1.1