MISHNAH: If somebody had an attack of seizures, “extravagant dance in Greek comedy.” The nature of the seizures is not described in either Talmud, but it is implied that during an attack the person is not of sane mind. and said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, he did not say anything. If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are nothing. If somebody became paralyzed, one asks him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nods his head, one checks him out three times. If he answers no for no, yes for yes, they shall write and deliver.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody had an attack of seizures”, etc. 1:1, Notes 38–50 . In the variants, ת denotes the Leiden ms. of Terumot and ר the Rome ms. The symptoms of an insane person: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog, gndryps-qntrwpys , Lešonenu 35 (1971) 201–207 (Hebrew); Talmudic evidence for Greek spelling , Studi classici in onore di Quintino Cataudella, vol. iv, U. Catania (1972) 1981, 313–314. ; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is [a choleric person], missing here. , and he who destroys what one gives to him is a Cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these symptoms is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these by itself is reasonable for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The one attacked by seizures does not exhibit any of these signs. What is one attacked by seizures? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. This is the cordiacus described by the Sages.
1:1, Notes 52–55 . The slightly different Terumot text is given in the second column. “If sometimes he is insane and sometimes healthy. When he is insane he is insane in all regards, when healthy he is normal in all regards.” A case came before Samuel who said, when he is of sound mind he should deliver the bill of divorce. Why? Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he regains his sanity. It follows that Samuel acted according to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, only if he is of sound mind may he deliver the bill of divorce; ( Is . 38:16 ) “make me healthy and let me live!. ”
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even while he is suffering an attack of seizures, one writes the bill of divorce and delivers it to his wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he regains his sanity. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, since they disagreed: (Note 10) and a related text in the Babli, Zebaḥim 12b . The completed text must read: “If somebody had eaten forbidden fat and already had prepared his separation sacrifice when he became…” A purification sacrifice is personal; if its owner died it cannot be transferred to another owner or another use, nor can it be redeemed. The question is whether insanity makes a person lose his individuality; if the answer is positive then during the period of insanity the sacrificial animal was ownerless and cannot then or afterwards be of any use; it has to be put away until it dies a natural death. If he became deaf-mute Chpater 1, Note 134, Yebamot 14:1 . , or insane, or became an apostate. 1:2 : “If a person from among you present a sacrifice …” is interpreted to mean that the rules of obligatory sacrifices apply to converts but exclude apostates [ Babli Ḥulin 5a , 13b ; Erubin 69b ; Sifra Wayyiqra Paršata 2(3)]. , or the Court ruled that fat may be eaten, Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi (Joḥanan) [Aḥa], R. Aḥa, is correct, since R. Joḥanan, who is quoted in the text here, has no influence over what future generations report in his name. R. Aḥa’s tradition is the source of the quote in the Babli (Note 11). switches traditions, to avoid that a word of Rebbi Joḥanan contradict his own word. For Rebbi Samuel. bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person terminally ill. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa: R. Immi, the permanent companion of R. Yasa. It follows that the R. Ḥiyya mentioned here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, student and successor to R. Joḥanan. , one follows the one, the other follows the other.
The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are disregarded.” He explains it: After he regains his sanity, his later words are disregarded. If he gave her a bill of divorce saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he threw her bill of divorce to her saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Eleazar said that Rebbi Abin asked: If he separated heave 1:1). from his grain heap and said, it shall be heave only tomorrow but the next day he suffered an attack of seizures, is this the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it: If somebody had been crucified or mortally wounded when he signalled to write a bill of divorce to his wife, one writes and delivers on the assumption that his soul hangs on in him. Is it not impossible that his mind should not have been disturbed for an hour? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it.
1:1 ( ת ), Notes 19–32 ). The Rome ms. is indicated by ר . Variants which are introduced by the hand of the corrector in Terumot are indicated by מ . It was stated: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, to what does this refer? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf and dumb, he writes and others confirm his signature.”
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others execute his written instructions? They upheld it, if he was illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the bill] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, (here also it is invalid). Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!
Rebbi Ze‘ira: R. Ezra. asked before Rebbi Mana: Just as you say that three times he must give a sign with his head, (must one equally hear his voice three times)? He said to him, hearing his voice once, giving a sign with his head three times.
Rebbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such. Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: He should have understanding for the future if he has understanding for the past; (if he has no understanding for the past,) he would not have understanding for the future! Rebbi Abba Mari said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated thus: “When was this said? When he was paralyzed while being healthy. But if he was paralyzed by a prior sickness, once is enough.”
But only if it is intermittent. Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he says, yes. For your mother, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your daughter, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your sister, and he says, no. v . בודקין. . Is it the same for testimony? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is the same for testimony, since a person may testify while sitting. 19:17 requires only that the parties to a suit stand before the judges, not the witnesses. Therefore there is no biblical impediment to ascertaining testimony from a paralyzed person. . The same holds for vows. Rav Sheshet stated: Just as one checks three times for bills of divorce, so one checks for inheritance, commercial transactions, and gifts.
MISHNAH: If they said to him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? If he said to them, write, and they told the scribe who wrote, and the witnesses who signed; even though they wrote, signed, and delivered it to him and he delivered it to her, this is an invalid bill of divorce unless he said to the scribe, write, and to the witnesses, sign.
HALAKHAH: “If they said to him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife,” etc. If he said to two people, say to X that he shall write and to Y and Z that they shall sign. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this happened in the days of Rebbi, and he said, such a thing should not be done in Israel. Samuel said, it certainly should be done. Rav Jeremiah asked Samuel: If he said to two people, say to X that he write and you sign. He said to him, that is a bill of divorce but it needs study. The opinion of Samuel seems inverted. There, he said, it certainly should be done, and here, he says so? There is a difference, because they changed their testimony.
We understand, to the witnesses, sign! But to the scribe, write? Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. He explains it following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulas.
MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce if I should die from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,” he did not say anything. “From today if I should die, from now if I should die,” that is a bill of divorce. “From today after my death” is no bill of divorce; if he dies since she might be a widow; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot . she must receive ḥalîṣah but is barred from levirate marriage.
HALAKHAH: “ ‘This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,’ he did not say anything.” 3, explained there in Notes 93–97 . “Rebbi Jehudah the Prince” may be Judah II, Rebbi’s grandson; cf. Note 51 . But our teachers said, it is a bill of divorce 72b , reports the same but in 76b refers the decision to Mishnah 7:9 : “If he says, this is your bill of divorce if I do not return within 12 months; if he dies in the meantime, the bill of divorce is void.” In this case also, he did not specify from today . The Babli explains that in both cases they follow R. Yose who holds that “the date of a document is proof of its validity;” a bill of divorce executed before the husband’s death is valid (cf. below, Note 67 ). The Yerushalmi’s interpretation is given in the second and third paragraphs following. . Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court 1:1 (3d 1.20), Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d 1.17), Avodah zarah 2:8 (41d 1.48); obliquely mentioned in the Babli Giṭṭin 72b , 76b ; Ketubot 2b , Avodah zarah 37a . . In three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil 2:9. The Mishnah has a list of foods that cannot be taken from Gentiles without kosher supervision since one cannot be sure that no forbidden ingredients were used, but which are not forbidden for usufruct. A first group includes milk, bread, and olive oil, with a note that “our teachers permitted olive oil” [to be used without supervision.] In the Babli, this permission is attributed to Rebbi, not his grandson R. Jehudah the Prince. (The chronology of the House of Hillel in the Third Cent. and the attribution of decrees between Rabbis Jehudah I, II, and III is in dispute.) , and a sole. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael simply: R. Yudan. said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce.
May she be allowed to remarry? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rebbi Yose: she is forbidden to remarry; I say that a miracle happened to him and he survived.
“ ‘From today if I should die, from now if I should die,’ that is a bill of divorce. ‘From today after my death’ is no bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yudan said, the rabbis and our teachers [discussed.] Our teachers objected to the rabbis: Why do you say, it is a bill of divorce? Because he said, “if”! But in the last statement, he said “if” and you say, it is no bill of divorce! But it must be because he said, “from today”. We also hold that “from today” is the main point. Rebbi objected to the rabbis. Why do you say, it is not a bill of divorce? Because he said, “from today”! But in the earlier statement, he said “from today” and you say, it is a bill of divorce! But it must be because he said, “if”. I also am holding that “if” is the main point. There, they switch attributions. Both Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav say that the words of Rebbi [interpreted] there are the words of the rabbis [interpreted] here: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “on condition.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, “on condition that I die” or “on condition that it be after my death”? He said to him, “on condition that I die.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi [interpreted] here are the words of the rabbis [interpreted] there: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “after death.”
There 8:7 . , we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death. 27:6–11 ) except that the firstborn male in rabbinic interpretation receives a double portion ( Deut . 21:17 ). If the father wants to distribute his property unevenly, or leave real estate to his daughters, he has to execute a will which has to become valid during his lifetime since nobody can act in law after his death. . Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof 136a . . The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition איסרטה and Arabic شرطة “stipulation, clause” which might be Aramaic שטר, Accadic šeṭrum , šaṭārum “document”. . Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi Ila said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body 72b) reads: “the bill of divorce is unclear” (He also reads לְשַׁייֵר לוֹ גוּפָהּ, a better Yerushalmi style). to himself. Rebbi Bibon “alive” as equivalent of חַיִים; cf. also the Roman name Bibulus . (E.G.)] bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”
The same situation obtains for bills of manumission. “This is your bill of manumission valid after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is a bill; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is no bill. The same situation obtains for abandoning. “My field shall be abandoned after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is abandoned 9:6, Note 85 . ; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is not abandoned. Is it the same for dedications? Everybody agrees that “my speaking to Heaven is equivalent to my delivering to a person.” 1:6 . Promises of charitable giving always are absolute and irrevocable. Is it the same for preliminary marriage? It was found stated: Rebbi says, she is completely preliminarily married3:1 : “ ‘(You are preliminarily married to me) after 30 days from today’, if another man married her preliminarily within the thirty days she is married and not married.” In the Babli, Qiddušin 59b , Rav holds that she is permanently disabled from marrying anyone unless she receives a bill of divorce from both men; Samuel holds that she cannot definitively marry until the 30 day period has passed, when the claim of the second man disappears automatically. In contrast, Rebbi here asserts that the preliminary marriage of the second man never was valid in law. .
MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should die from this illness;” if he got up, walked on the market, fell ill again and died, one estimates whether he died from the original sickness, in which case it is a bill of divorce; otherwise it is no bill of divorce. She may not be alone with him except in the presence of witnesses, which may be even a male or a female slave except her personal slave girl since she has no shame in the presence of her personal slave girl. What is her status in those days? Rebbi Jehudah says, she is a married woman in all respects. Rebbi Yose says, she is divorced and not divorced.
HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce from today,” etc. If he overate on groats it is as if he died from that illness, hazelnuts alone and he did not get out of bed it is as if he did not die from that illness.
“If he died from that sickness,” and a stone heap fell on him, or a snake bit him, it cannot be a bill of divorce unless he died of that sickness. “If I should not recover from that sickness,” and a stone heap fell on him, or a snake bit him it is a bill of divorce since he did not recover from that sickness.
It was stated: “Also the one in mortal danger.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it happened in such a case that he died during intercourse.
“Whether he died from the original sickness.” Are male or female slaves trustworthy? The witnesses know that at the time she was alone with him a male or female slave was present. 1:1, Note 52 . “If she was alone with him with the knowledge of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him. One witness, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. One in the morning and one in the afternoon, that was a case and Rebbi Eleazar bar Thaddeus, the two parallel (and additional) Babylonian sources, against the reading “Tradion” here. asked the Sages who said, this is not [testimony of] being alone 1:1, Note 52 . . If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about intercourse but not about preliminary marriage 1:1 ); this is biblical standard. A marriage ceremony which is not witnessed is automatically invalid but it is possible to consider the witnesses to their being alone together as witnesses of intercourse. In Mishnah 8 :11 the House of Hillel require only minimal standards from witnesses once the parties had been definitively married and living together. . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage.” Rebbi Jeremiah explains the baraita : If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about immoral intercourse but not about preliminary marriage. If the time was not long enough for intercourse, one does not suspect anything. Rebbi Yose explains the baraita : If she was alone together with him long enough for intercourse, one suspects her about immoral intercourse but not about preliminary marriage by intercourse. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage by intercourse. If the time was not long enough for intercourse, one does not suspect preliminary marriage bymoney. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one also suspects her about preliminary marriage by money. Rebbi Abin said, It turns out that the House of Shammai parallels the rabbis and the House of Hillel Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.
For what? Rebbi Eleazar said, to inherit from her, as we have stated there 4:6 . The reference is to the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted, viz., that the husband has the usufruct from the wife’s properties (and inherits from her should she die during the marriage.) : “He has a claim on what she finds and on her earnings, to dissolve her vows.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is what is implied by “she is a married woman in all respects.”
The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There 1:1 . On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest first has to atone for “himself and his house” ( Lev . 16:6 ). “His house” is interpreted to mean “his wife”; an unmarried High Priest is unable to officiate. R. Jehudah requires that the married High Priest preliminarily marry another woman lest his wife die in the week before the Day of Atonement and prevent him from serving. He cannot definitively marry another woman since he alone among all Jews is required to be monogamous ( Lev . 21:13 ). The other rabbis consider R. Jehudah’s precaution to be excessive. , he says that death is frequent but here, he says that death is not frequent. There in public, here in private, as it was stated 6:5 (belonging to Mishnah 6:7 ). The Mishnah enumerates 13 chests which were maintained at the Temple gate for the public to deposit its contributions. One of the chests was labelled for “nests”, the pairs of birds required as a purification sacrifice ( Lev . 12:8 ) before a woman after childbirth could partake of family sacrifices. The women would deposit the money in the chest and every day the priests would offer the corresponding number of pairs of birds to purify the women. R. Jehudah holds that there was no such automatic arrangement in the Temple but that every woman after childbirth had to provide the pair of birds and personally hand them to a Cohen. His problem was that one of the birds was a holocaust but the other a purification offering and purification offerings might be presented only for living persons. If a woman died between the time she deposited the money in the chest and the next morning when the money was counted and the number of birds determined, then not only her purification offering would be invalid (it could not be offered, nor could it be released; it had to be kept in isolation until it died) but it would invalidate all other offerings of the same day (cf. Babli Yoma 55b/56b ). R. Jehudah goes to extraordinary lengths for fear of sudden deaths; his position in the Mishnah here becomes more difficult to understand. : Rebbi Jehudah says there was no chest for nests in Jerusalem because of the mixing, maybe one of them would die and money for purification offerings destined to die would be mixed in with them.
What is the status of her intercourse? Some Tannaïm state, her intercourse is certain, but some Tannaïm state, her intercourse is in doubt. According to him who says that her intercourse is certain, he brings a “hung” sacrifice. 5:17–19 for an unintentional sin whose nature eludes the perpetrator. . According to him who says that her intercourse is in doubt, if [the husband] dies, he is free; if [the husband] does not die, he brings a purification sacrifice. 4:27–35 ) for unintentional adultery. No sacrifice can ever atone for intentional sin ( Num . 15:30 ). .
MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz ;” she is divorced and has to pay or remarry) before she paid up. . “On condition that you give me within thirty days,” if she paid within thirty days she is divorced, otherwise she is not divorced. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, it happened in Sidon that someone said to his wife “this is your bill of divorce on condition that you return to me my stole “garment, ceremonial robe”. ” and it turned out that his stole was lost; then the Sages said, she shall pay him its value.
HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz ,” etc. It was stated 60b ), Tosephta 5:5 , this is formulated as a dispute: “If he died before she paid, she is subject to levirate marriage; after she paid, she is not subject to levirate marriage; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said …” : If she did not manage to pay before he died, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, she pays his father or his brother and is free from ḥalîṣah and levirate marriage. As the Babli explains, 74a , “anybody who says ‘on condition that’ means to say ‘valid immediately on condition that’ ” ( Tosephta 5:6 ). The delay in fulfilling the condition does not change the fact that the divorce preceded the husband’s death. . 3:2 (63d line 16) as tannaïtic, the parallel about marriage is presented as amoraic inference. It is obvious that at the moment of preliminary marriage the groom has to give some valuables to the bride. The same holds for preliminary marriage: “You are preliminarily married to me on condition that I shall give you 200 zuz ;” if he did not manage to pay before he died, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, his father or his brother pay and she is subject to ḥalîṣah or levirate marriage.
Rebbi Yudan said, we deal with the case that it was lost by compulsion 9:4, Note 121 ). . They treated her like an unpaid trustee who may stipulate to be free from an oath. Rebbi Yose said, do we state here that the unpaid trustee is free from an oath? But we deal with the case that it was lost by mishandling. They treated the stole according to its value. But the rabbis say that in any case it has to be treated as a case of condition of a bill of divorce 69a , Baba meṣi‘a 38b, Baba batra 174a , Ketubot 77a , Sanhedrin 31b , Bekhorot 24a ), practice is decided following the rabbis. This is reported as Babylonian practice in Baba batra 10:14 (17d 1. 9). .
MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you serve my father,” “on condition that you breast-feed my son,” how long does she have to breast-feed him? Two years 4:4, Notes 55 ff. She does not have to nurse the baby for two years after the divorce but only until he reaches the age of two years ( Tosephta 5:6 ). Since the expenses of child-rearing are the father’s responsibility, the mother does not have to nurse her child if she is divorced before the child is weaned. ; Rebbi Jehudah says, eighteen months. If the son or the father died, it is a valid divorce. “On condition that you serve my father for two years,” or “on condition that you breast-feed my son for two years;” if the son died or the father said, I cannot stand you serving me (without being offended), it is no divorce. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is a divorce. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated a principle: Given any hindrance which is not from her side, it is a divorce.
HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you serve my father,” etc. Rebbi Abba has “R. Ḥiyya bar Abba”. But since the opposite opinion is referred to as R. Simeon ben Laqish’s, one of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s teachers, the final text of the ms. is the correct one, against the editio princeps . said: During his lifetime, on condition that she serve all his needs, on condition that she breast-feed all his needs. Even if she did not serve all his needs, even if she did not breast-feed all his needs, but even if she served him for one hour, or breast-fed him for one hour service or any breast-feeding satisfies the condition and validates the divorce. . After death, even if she never served him or never breast-fed him. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “How long does she have to breast-feed him? Two years, Rebbi Jehudah says, eighteen months.” Rebbi Abin said, this was taught about the cost of a wet-nurse 4:4, Notes 55 ff.) but that the wife pay for a wet-nurse to care for the child in the husband’s house, with the wife being free to remarry 90 days after the divorce. .
3:2 (63d 1. 20), readings noted ק . The contract text is also in Erubin 3 (21b 1. 20 ), noted ע . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text 1:1 ), in certain circles in Galilee this was the preferred course of action (it is not mentioned in the Babli.) The main attraction of the contractual marriage for the woman was that it provided insurance against foot-dragging by the groom (cf. Mishnah Ketubot 13:5 ). : “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A anddefinitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in and Erubin . The text here would read: “but not transfer real estate to you”. , I shall have no claim on you.” If anything intervened beyond his control? Rebbi Joḥanan said, matters beyond his control are as if he were inactive. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, matters outside his control are as if he had acted annulled. . In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what would be necessary? “If that day should pass without you having taken me in, I shall have no claim on you.” When Rebbi Joḥanan was dying, he told his daughters to act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He said, maybe in the future there might be a court which follows him; then his descendants might be in danger of bastardy.
A person gave money for a ship when the canal dried up. The case came before Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: There is the ship, bring the canal! Abba bar Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba was praying that the canal should dry up and he could recover his money. He said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Abba are of the same opinion as Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel 75b, prefers to switch the attributions. He reads אשכחת אמר “it turns out that one has to say”, making the sentence an editorial remark, not R. Abba’s statement.) . If she cut off, she hindered. If her hand 75b) and the commentators to read דַּד instead of ׃יָד “If the woman who was divorced under the condition of breast-feeding her child cut off her breast herself, she violated her contract. If her breast was cut off by others, the hindrance is not her fault and the divorce stands.” (?) was cut off, it is not as if she hindered.
MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Judea to Galilee, came to Antipatris, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition, connecting Egypt with Damascus, leaves Judea at Antipatris, near today’s Roš Ha‘ayin, to enter Samaria. The Mishnah states that a person wanting to leave a country is considered to have left it already when he has reached the border, even if he did not actually cross the border. The person is considered to have left the country; if he then changed his mind and returned, he returned within 30 days and invalidated the bill of divorce. . “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Galilee to Judea, came to Kefar Othnay near the excavations of Megiddo was the border town at which the via maris , coming from the South, entered Galilee. , and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go overseas, came to Acco, and returned, it isinvalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should be absent from you for thirty days;” even if he repeatedly came and left, it is a bill of divorce if he never was alone with her.
HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce,” etc. For what? Rebbi Elazar said, for his house; Rebbi Joḥanan said, for places. The Mishnah supports him who said, for his house: “If he came to Acco, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce. But even if you say that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce, does that mean also for conditions imposed on a bill of divorce?
He is forbidden to be alone with her immediately, for maybe he shall not visit her for thirty days and then her bill of divorce would be older than her child.
MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is no bill of divorce. “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is a bill of divorce. “If I should not return within twelve months from today write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it within 12 months”. In any case the bill is invalid since the instructions of the husband were not followed to the letter. twelve months, it is no bill of divorce. “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife if I should not return within twelve months from today;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it after twelve months, it is no bill of divorce; Rebbi Yose says, this is an example of a bill of divorce. If they wrote after twelve months and delivered after twelve months but he had died, if the bill of divorce preceded the death it is a bill of divorce but if the death preceded the bill of divorce it is no bill of divorce. If it is not known, it is a case where they say, she is divorced and not divorced.
HALAKHAH: “If I should not return within twelve months from today,” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Because he mentioned writing earlier. But did he not also mention delivering earlier, and you say that it is no bill of divorce?
The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi: “This is your bill of divorce after the holiday.” He said to him, all of 30 days after the holiday are called “after the holiday”. Rebbi Bivon bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “This is your bill of divorce on Passover eve”? Even a person who says that all of 30 days after the holiday are called “after the holiday” will agree that 30 days before Passover are not like “after Passover”. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If somebody said, a qonam , p. 422. that I shall not taste wine at the end of the Sabbath? He said to him, after the end of the Sabbath he is forbidden, Sabbath eve he is permitted, the days in between are problematic. And so it is here, after the end of the Sabbath it is a bill of divorce, Sabbath eve it is no bill of divorce, but the days in between are problematic.