MISHNAH: Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he wrote [a bill] to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one by, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.
HALAKHAH: “Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife,” etc. Who is dictating? School teachers. . What means “in addition”? There it was not written as a bill of divorce but here it was written as a bill of divorce. What means “in addition”? There it was written neither in his name nor in her name but here it was written in his name but not in her name. What means “in addition”? There it was written in his name but not in her name but here it was written in his name and in her name but it was not written for divorce from the start. 24:1 requires that the husband “write her a scroll of divorce”; it must be written from the start for one and only one divorce. .
Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage 1:1 states that a preliminary marriage can be effected either by a transfer of valuables, or a contract, or sexual relations. It is then explained [ Qiddušin 1:1 (58c 1. 29), Babli 9a ] that the contract is a written statement by the groom declaring his future bride to be his wife; the marriage is effected by the acceptance of the letter by the adressee (or, if she is underage, her father). not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce. 24:1 “if a man take a wife” as “if a man buy a wife” since in Mishnaic Hebrew the verb לקח means “to buy” [ Qiddušin 1:1 (58b 1.35), Babli 4b ]. The possibility of marriage by document is inferred from Deut . 24:2 : “She [the divorcee] left his house, went and became another man‘s.” Since “becoming a manʻs” means to marry him, the verse connects leaving (divorce) with becoming (marriage). Since leaving is effected by a document, so becoming can be effected by a document [ Qiddušin 1:1 (58b 1.33), Babli 9b ]. Therefore, a document invalid for leaving must be invalid for becoming. , and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married 9b . There, the question is attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish; the argument agrees with the latter’s position as given here. .
Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose asked before Rebbi Yose: Concerning what you say that one bill of divorce is invalid for two women, should not two bills of divorce be invalid for two women? He asked him, what is the question? He answered, did we not state: “If two people sent two [identical] bills of divorce which were intermingled, he gives both documents to both women.” There, it is a divorce for this one and a divorce for the other one; the mix-up caused [the problem]. But here, neither this one is divorced in her name nor is that one divorced in her name.
After it was delivered to her, could it not be considered as if written in her name from the start? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi [Abin bar Ḥiyya]: It follows Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated 1:14. : “If one said to a craftsman, make me two bells, one for the ground 1:13) but a doorbell cannot become impure. and one for an animal, make me two mats, one to sit on and one for a tent, make me two sheets, one to lie on and one for [a pattern] 24:13 ; concurrent explanation by Arukh , Maimonides, and R. Simson of Sens, based on a Gaonic source.) The Leiden ms. text, “for hides” is difficult to understand since a sheet used as wrapping is an implement and subject to the impurity of utensils. , only if he designated them in purity. Rebbi Simeon declares them pure unless he designated them for impurity.” As he said there, only if it was a utensil from the start, so he says, unless it was a divorce in her name from the start.
Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya, [this is Rebbi’s opinion.], on Alfasi #556). One still discusses the case of the man with two wives whose names are identical; Rebbi rejects the bill of divorce since he holds that its meaning must be clear before it is delivered; cf. Note 45 . Rebbi Joḥanan said, and it was stated so is quoted in the Babli, 84b . : “All conditions. 24:1 . This is interpreted to mean that all ties between husband and wife have to be cut; a divorce in which the husband retains any influence in his wife’s life is invalid. invalidate a bill of divorce, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, what invalidates orally invalidates in writing, and what does not invalidate orally does not invalidate in writing.” “You are permitted to marry anybody except Mr. X,” because this invalidates orally it invalidates in writing. “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz ”; because this does not invalidate orally it does not invalidate in writing within 30 days, then the divorce would become valid if and only if the money had been paid within 30 days. If it had read: only if you pay me 200 zuz , the divorce would be invalid since without a time limit there is no separation. The Babli’s concerns, whether the stipulation was written in the declaration of divorce or attached to it, are unknown to the Yerushalmi and all explanations of the Yerushalmi text based on the Babli have to be rejected, as noted by Naḥmanides (Note 39). . Rebbi Yudan said, when do they disagree? If he rescinded his condition. But if he did nor rescind his condition, even Rebbi agrees. Otherwise, we would have to say that all conditions which were stated for bills of divorce do not follow Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥinena said, there when he writes “on condition,” here if he gives “on condition.” Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does this imply that Rebbi does not recognize formulaic texts? He answered him, about whom do you ask? About Rebbi! He follows Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulaic texts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, everybody agrees that all conditions invalidate a bill of divorce. There came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah and he acted following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one neglect Rebbi Joḥanan and act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered him, is Rebbi Joḥanan’s instruction an instruction but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s instruction not an instruction? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, but he understood a baraita and acted accordingly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish fights against Rebbi Joḥanan when he disagrees with him only to extract a ruling from him. If he finds a baraita , he depends on it; if he does not find a baraita , he retracts his opinion before Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion.
MISHNAH: If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time. For bonds, he has to leave space for the lender, the borrower, the sum, and the time. For commercial deeds, he has to leave space for the buyer, the seller, the sum, the field, and the time, because of good order. Rebbi Jehudah invalidates all of these. Rebbi Eleazar validates all of them except women’s bills of divorce, for it is said: “He shall write for her”, in her name.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing to collect her due. (The Babli permits only in emergencies to divorce such a couple without due characterization or in the presence of the other couple; 66a.). . Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines 162b ; Tosephta Giṭṭin 7:11 ). about one subject 10:1 ; this belongs to another editorial team. Cf. Halakhah 9:8 .) is invalid in any case.
What is “the good order”? Rebbi Sabbatai in the name of Ḥizqiah: Because of the good order of Jewish women, lest they frequently be divorced. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is valid, and you say so? If it were invalid, then [the explanation] would be acceptable. Rebbi Abun said, for the good order of the scribe, that his livelihood be guaranteed.
Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah for bills of divorce and Rebbi Eleazar in commercial documents. Could we not say, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar for bills of divorce and Rebbi Jehudah in commercial documents. Could we not say, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah? But because Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rebbi Eleazar; in order not to let you think that here it is the same, it was necessary to state that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah for bills of divorce and Rebbi Eleazar in commercial documents.
MISHNAH: If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it, if he finds it on the spot it is valid, otherwise it is invalid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a box, if he recognizes it, it is valid. If somebody transports a bill of divorce from an old or sick man, he delivers it to her under the presumption that the man is alive. The daughter of an Israel who is married to a Cohen and whose husband went overseas, may eat heave under the presumption that he is alive. If somebody sends his purification offering from overseas, it is sacrificed under the presumption that he is alive. 88:6 ). The last two statements are included to illustrate the principle that in matters of ritual law one may always act on the assumption of the permanence of the status quo ante . .
HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it,” etc. What means “on the spot”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, as long as nobody passed by there. In the Babli, it is attributed to the Tanna R. Simeon ben Eleazar and the Amora R. Abba bar bar Ḥana (27b,28a); there it is declared as practice. It is also the only explanation offered in Tosephta 2:11 . . Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: as long as three people did not pass by there. If a Gentile passed by there? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana transported a bill of divorce; he lost it and a Saracen found it. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan, “before the rabbis” is preferable since the verb is in the plural. ; they declared [the bill] valid. This means that if a Gentile passed by it is valid. Could we say that he had a mark to identify it? But was it not stated: There are no marks for bills of divorce. That is, if he said, two or three lines. But here, the ה in it had a spot. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Why is it invalid here? I say, it was another [husband] whose name was like his name. Think of it, if they checked out that entire place and did not find another man whose name was like his name! But it is because of the severity of adultery. But did we not state 16:6 : “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry”? Rebbi Mana told him: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid, the other invalid. He lost the valid one and threw away the invalid. When he found it, I say that what he found was the invalid bill 36a. .
Bar Qappara stated: Even if he left [the man] when he was 100 years old and spent another 100 years on the way, he delivers it to her under the presumption that he is alive away, that a person who has reached 100 years of age might go on to live much longer, and implies that a person between the ages of 81 and 99 can be presumed to die soon. Since the Yerushalmi quotes the statement without commentary, it appears that it endorses an unrestricted application of the permanence of the status quo ante until further notice. .
But did we not state 69b . : From where that “if somebody says to his wife, this is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, or he says to his slave girl, this is the document of your manumission one hour before my death, each would be immediately forbidden to eat heave?” There, she is disabled immediately, but here she will only be disabled when he has died. The Tosephta does not contradict the principle. The explanations of the Babli in Giṭṭin and Yebamot are inconsistent with one another and the Yerushalmi. .
MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar ben Parṭa said three things before the Sages and they confirmed his words: [People in] a city which was surrounded by palisades, on a ship in emergency at sea, or a person about to be judged, are presumed to be alive. But on [people in] a city conquered from palisades, a ship lost at sea, or a person led to execution, one puts the restrictions of the living and the dead: neither an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may eat heave.
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Jabne: About [people in] a city which was surrounded by palisades.” which seems to have disappeared from Tosephta 2:12 (quoted in the next paragraph) which is missing an introduction. What are palisades? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: For example if bells, chains, and dogs, and geese, and chickens, and soldiers surround the town. And Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, it happened that a blind woman was able to flee from there. If there was one breach, it saved all. If there were hiding places, it is questionable. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Only if there were palisades of that government. But palisades from another government are like robbers.
They added three additional cases: One who was dragged away by a wild animal, one who was swept away by a river, and one buried by a collapse. One puts the restrictions of the living and the dead on her: neither an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may eat heave.
MISHNAH: If somebody is transporting a bill of divorce in the Land of Israel when he falls sick, he may send it by somebody else. If [the husband] had told him, take from her such and such, he cannot send it by somebody else since he 9:5, Note 144 . does not want to see his valuables in somebody else’s hand.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody is transporting a bill of divorce in the Land of Israel when he falls sick,” etc. Because he falls sick; therefore not if he did not fall sick.
This does not disagree with what Rebbi Joḥanan said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if an agent handed over to another agent, the first one is responsible 1:4 (60b 1.48). In the Babli ( Baba Qama 11b , 56b ; Baba Meṣi‘a 36a ) the matter is in dispute. In this opinion, the messenger who chooses a substitute if there are valuables involved accepts responsibility for any accidents that may befall the substitute for his mishandling of the matter. . Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Because of a condition of the divorce. What is the difference between them? If the husband came earlier and took it. If you say, because of a condition of the divorce, that is understandable appoint a substitute, meaning that the appointment of a substitute invalidates the divorce. . If you say, because I do not want to see my valuables in somebody else’s hand, his valuables are not in somebody else’s hand appoint a substitute, but such an appointment does not invalidate the divorce. . Is it the same for preliminary marriages? What is the difference between divorces and preliminary marriages? One can divorce through the agency of anybody. One cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody.
MISHNAH: If somebody transports a bill of divorce overseas and falls sick, he assembles a court to send it and declares before them: “it was written and signed before me.” The later messenger does not have to say: “it was written and signed before me,” but he says: “I am an agent of the court.
HALAKHAH: If somebody transports a bill of divorce overseas and falls sick,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, this is only necessary if he already has arrived in the Land of Israel. Lest you say, since he arrived in the Land of Israel it should be treated as a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel, and for bills of divorce from the Land of Israel one does not have to say: “it was written and signed before me.”
If the messenger fell sick. Rebbi Ḥanina said, a case came before the son of Rebbi Abba and he sent to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi. They instructed him that the first messenger does not have to say: “it was written and signed before me,” but he says, “I am an agent of the court. latter messenger”, to the effect that the appointment of successive messengers is explicitly authorized by the Mishnah. There, the main actor is the son of R. Abba hu . ”
Does he have to deliver the entire agency to him? Rebbi Jeremiah said, he has to deliver the entire agency to him. Rebbi Abin bar Cahana said, he need not deliver the entire agency to him. Rebbi Abin bar Cahana brought it from this: “The later messenger does not have to say: ‘it was written and signed before me,’ but he says: ‘I am an agent of the court.’” Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Abin bar Cahana retracted this, because of: “The later messenger does not have to say: ‘it was written and signed before me,’ but he says: ‘I am an agent of the court.’”
MISHNAH: If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account, he can proceed on the assumption that they are alive and does not worry whether the Cohen or Levite died or the poor person became rich. If they died, he has to receive permission from the heirs; if the loan was executed in court he does not need permission.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there 2:8 . The Mishnah speaks of a rancher whose ewe gave birth to twin lambs, one of which is a firstling but it is not known which. A firstling has to be given to a Cohen ( Deut . 15:19 ); it may not be shorn (or, if a calf, used for work). The rancher can fulfill his monetary obligation by giving one of the two lambs to the Cohen; the other lamb has to be put out to graze until it develops a defect; then it can be eaten by its owner ( Deut . 15:21–22 ). If it was known which lamb was a firstling, that one would have to be given to the Cohen and if the other lamb were slaughtered, some parts would have to be given to a Cohen ( Deut . 18:3 ). But in the case under consideration, R. Yose holds that no gifts to the Cohen are due since potentially the lamb was the Cohen’s and a Cohen who slaughters does not have to give away anything. He equates potential possession and real possession. The application to the Mishnah here is that the Cohen can dispose of the heave as if he had received it. R. Meїr holds that the gifts are due since they would be due if it was known which one was the firstling. In the Babli, 30a , this is Ulla’s opinion. : “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow 5:5, Note 113 ), R. Yose’s argument cannot be applied to our case. ! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. 12:6,8); it refers to people who regularly give all their priestly gifts or tithes to the same Cohen or Levite. Then heave and tithes have the status of annuities and cannot be said to be nonexistent. In the Babli, 30a , this is Rav’s opinion. Samuel requires that heave or tithes be actually given to a third party Cohen or Levite, acting as recipient for the debtor, who then returns the produce to the farmer. That opinion has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. . But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him, separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following 7:15 . The Levite cannot tell the Israel to arrange with other farmers that they pay him to give tithes for them and deduct the sum from the Levite’s debt, since no Levite can dispose of another Levite’s tithes. : “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate, but from his own he may separate.
There is no “he does not worry,” since he has to worry lest the poor became rich. It was stated so p. 824, Note 16. The last clause means that if the poor person temporarily became rich (i. e., was ineligible for public welfare as defined in Peah 9:9) and then poor again, the lender cannot use the tithe of the poor of the time of ineligibility but must give it away to another poor person since that tithe was lost for the borrower. The Yerushalmi text considers poor and rich as different persons residing in the same body since they fall in different legal categories. : “If somebody lends money to a poor and rich person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost.”
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The Mishnah speaks of the heirs in priesthood and Levitic status. But concerning the poor, the poor has no inheritance. Bar Qappara stated: No person is immune from this; if not he then his son, if not his son then his grandson. This means, he can change the terms. Can the creditor change the terms? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody lends money to a first rich and then poor person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost and the poor acquired what is in his hand.” This implies that the creditor cannot change the terms.
Does this not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan given before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. He explains it for a documented loan. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan given before witnesses can be collected from heirs, on condition that they inherited real estate. As those from the house of Rav Neḥemiah, who lent money to the public. The case came before the rabbis who said, the public is neither all rich nor all poor.
MISHNAH: If somebody sets aside. produce to be used for future heave and tithes, or money to be used for Second Tithe. , can refer to them on the presumption that they exist. If they were lost, one worries about them for 24 hours back, the words of Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Jehudah says, three times a year one has to check the wine: At the time of East wind after Tabernacles wind. , when the vines blossom, and when fluid starts to enter unripe grapes.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody sets aside produce,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Antigonos in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Yannai: This means that nothing is in disorder for 24 hours but the last day. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Nothing is in order for 24 hours but the first day, as we have stated there 2:2: If a miqweh was measured and found deficient (containing less than 40 se’ah of water), all things and persons purified by immersion in the miqweh after the last preceding check are considered impure. As pointed out by M. Margalit, R. Joḥanan proves too much since by his reason everything should have to be re-tithed, even what was put in order during the first 24 hours. : “If a miqweh was measured and found deficient.” Ḥinena the son of Rav Assi bar Mamal in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is to negate the words of Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “If they were lost, one worries about them for 24 hours back, the words of Rebbi Eleazar. is inconsistent with that in Giṭṭin . This proves that the Mishnah here, which is formulated in the name of a single person, represents a minority opinion. The Mishnah in Miqwa’ot is from the anonymous majority. The same argument is quoted in R. Eleazar’s name in the Babli, 31b . ”
There, we have stated 7:5; Notes 60–62 . The Mishnah states that one may drink Samaritan wine (which is kosher but certainly not tithed) immediately on condition that one declare that one will take a stated amount from it as heave and tithe as soon as the wine is in storage. : “If someone buys wine from Samaritans.” It was stated 7:5, Note 63 . : “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, for the wine bag might spring a leak and it may turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel is untithed produce, whose consumption at times other than during the harvest is a deadly sin. .” Does the Mishnah here not follow Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there that everything is in order. it was not in order from the start. But here it is not in order from now to the future.
For freshly pressed wine one can allow for up to forty days presuming that it is wine; Rebbi Jehudah says, up to a break point. You find that there is a leniency and a restriction following Rebbi Jehudah, and a leniency and a restriction following the rabbis. following Rebbi Jehudah, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed, he cannot give heave , and a leniency if forty days passed without break point that he can give heave. A restriction following the rabbis, if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave, and a leniency , if a break point arrived before forty days had passed that he can give heave. Since wine and vinegar are considered two different products for the purpose of heave, it is forbidden to give heave for wine from vinegar and vice-versa (Mishnah Terumot 3:1). A leniency following Rebbi Jehudah, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed, and a restriction if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave. A leniency following the rabbis, if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave, and a restriction, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed that he cannot give heave. Rebbi Simon asked: If the fortieth day arrived and he did not check. He was lazy for two or three days, then he came and found it to be vinegar. Is it retroactively considered to be vinegar or only from there on to the future? What is the difference? If he had transgressed and given heave. If you say that retroactively it is considered to be vinegar, his heave is heave. . From there on to the future it is not heave. 6:1 (15b/c) edited differently. The first part also has a parallel in the Babli, Baba Batra 96a . If he had checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. When he returned, he found it to be vinegar. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard that from Rebbi Joshua ben Levi; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is wine, after that it is in doubt. There it is explained that they differ in the analysis of the process which turns wine into vinegar. This cannot be the background of the Yerushalmi since then the comparison to the status of the needle would be impossible. . Do they differ in the treatment of doubt? What Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to the case that he came and found it to be stale vinegar. What Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said refers to the case that he came and found it to be strong vinegar. Or their difference equals another difference, for what we have stated there 3:5 . There, “pure” means “cannot be impure” and “impure” “can become impure”. The only items which can become impure are humans, food, vessels, and tools. An impure tool or vessel is purified when it becomes unusable. : “A rusty or broken needle is pure 3:10 that if it was impure, rusted and became pure, then was rubbed clean, it returned to its original impurity. .” It was stated: He put it down smooth, then he came and found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, that is what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is impure, after that it is in doubt. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of all rabbis who are frequenting the House of Study: Concerning wine and needle practice follows Rebbi Joshua ben Levi 6:1 , practice is decided following R. Joshua ben Levi only in the case of the needle. The Babli Baba Batra 96a implies that practice follows R. Joḥanan in the case of the amphora (understood in this sense by Maimonides and R. Moses of Coucy.) .
Rebbi Crispus asked: Does he check every year or only once every three years? Let us hear from the following. If wine turns into vinegar before Tabernacles, usually in October, the buyer can declare the transaction as executed under false pretenses, return the wine, and request restitution of his money. : If somebody sells unspecified wine to another person, he has to warrant it until after Tabernacles. Rebbi Yudan. There is no Amora called “R. Judah” without additional qualifier. said, explain it for those Galileans who harvest only after the beginning of Tabernacles). This wine has to be guaranteed until the next Tabernacles and automatically has to be checked at R. Jehudah’s three break points. and you cannot deduce anything. That which was said, “old from the preceding year, very old aged three years 6:3 . Wine sold as old is warranted to be aged at least a full 12 months. ”, should we say because of the tasting? This means that any time it is declared old he has to warrant it for two years. This means that very old [wine] has to be warranted until Tabernacles. This means that he has to check every year. How does he check? May one check one amphora on which all others depend that they would not become vinegar? Rebbi Shammai said, there are people who knock on the barrel from the outside and know what is inside.