MISHNAH: If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in her own house or her own courtyard, she is divorced. 24:1 requires the bill of divorce to be delivered “into her hand”. Legally, “hand” means “possession” (as in Latin and many other languages). Since anything lying in somebody’s real estate is in his possession, delivery of the bill into the wife’s real estate is legal delivery. . If he threw it to her inside his house or his courtyard, even if he was together with her in a bed, she is not divorced. Into her bosom or her wool basket, she is divorced.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. “He shall write,” “he shall deliver into her hand.” Not only into her hand; from where also into her garden or into her courtyard? The verse says “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.”. 24:1 and 24:3, he concludes that any legal delivery is acceptable. Is this following Rebbi Ismael? It is following Rebbi Aqiba. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael. 21:26 which notes that Siḥon the Amorite “took all the land from the Moabite king’s hand”. Since land cannot be grasped in one’s hand, “hand” must mean “possession”. (A hint of this argument is in Sifry Deut . 269. The Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 56b , following only R. Aqiba, accepts the interpretation of “hand” as “possession” only in extraordinary cases.) , “he took all his land from his hand, up to the Arnon.” Did he take it out of his hand? What means “from his hand”? From his possession.
But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct subject to his obligation to restitute the full value at the termination of the marriage. Property coming to the wife during the marriage is paraphernalia property about which the husband assumes the duty of administration and from which he has the usufruct. In any case, it is impossible to say that (in the absence of a contract of separation of properties) the wife’s properties were in her actual possession during her marriage. Cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1 . ? Rebbi Joshua. v . מה , 77b): R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties 9:1 (Notes 1–4 ) about the different formulations of separation of properties. .” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr 23b ), the attributions are switched: R. Meїr holds that neither slave nor wife have powers of acquisition separate from husband or master, and the rabbis disagree. . Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote 11:8 (Notes 69 ,70). .
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. 1:4 (60b 1. 32). The text of the following Tosephta (attributed to the Elder R. Ḥiyya) is slightly garbled here; it is translated following the text of Qiddušin (and its parallels in Babli Baba batra 85a , Tosephta Baba batra 5:2 ). Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them 1:4 states that “movables can only be acquired by being moved” (unless they are acquired together with real estate.) It is a peculiarity of rabbinic law (for which no biblical tradition is claimed) that transfer of money does not transfer ownership of the commodity bought. Delivery is effected and responsibility for the merchandise is transferred from the seller to the buyer uniquely by an act of acquisition by the buyer, which in theory should be actual moving of the merchandise. . But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.85a , recognizes only R. Ḥiyya’s position. ”
Ulla bar Ismael said, he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Think of it, if her wool basket was of gold? Certainly he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it is being used. Rebbi Yose said, only if she is using it at that moment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if it is tied to her; Rebbi Yose said, if she lifts it for her purpose. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if he threw it into her maloš is unexplained; the hypothetical meaning “baking trough” from לוש is adopted by the classical commentaries. {Perhaps explain as Greek μαλλός, ὁ “flock of wool, tress”, as contents of her κάλαθος ( Note 3 ) (E. G.). In Galilean speech, no difference existed between שׁ, שׂ and ס.} she is divorced.
MISHNAH: If he said to her, “take this bond,” or she found it behind his back, she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If he put it into her hand while she was asleep, after she awoke she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If she was standing in the public domain when he threw it to her and it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.
HALAKHAH: “If he said to her, ‘take this bond,’ ” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan says, this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon, since Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon says it never is a bill of divorce unless he says at the moment of delivery: “this is your bill of divorce.. 269, the opinion of R. Eleazar ben Simeon is quoted anonymously and referred to the verse Deut . 24:1 about the bill of divorce “… hands it over to her and sends her out of his house;” meaning that handing the bill to his wife and making it clear that she is divorced must be simultaneous. ”
How close is “near”? Rav said, four cubits 3:9, Note 120 . . Rebbi Ilai the heir said, four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Stretching out hands, and we have stated: “stretching out hands.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: Stretching out hands. The argument of Rav is inverted; there, he says four cubits and here he says so? There in theory, here in practice. “Rebbi Eleazar stated: Even if it was closer to her than to him but a dog came and took it away, she is not divorced.” Samuel agrees with Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees. The clearest way is that he puts it into her hand. If there was room for stretching out hands between him and her, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [states]: If it was closer to her than to him she is divorced, closer to him than to her she is not divorced, half and half she is divorced and not divorced. Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: In all cases in which we have stated “divorced and not divorced”, support is on him.
MISHNAH: The same applies for preliminary marriages 3:9, Note 120 . and for [liquidation of] debts. If he said to him, throw to me what you owe me and he threw it close to the lender, the borrower is acquitted, close to the borrower, the borrower remains obligated, in the middle both of them must share it. If she was standing on top of her roof and he threw it to her, as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace she is divorced. If he was on top and she below, once it left the domain of the roof she is divorced even if it was blotted out or burned.
HALAKHAH: “The same applies for preliminary marriages”, etc. 4:2, Notes 30–58 . (Variant readings פ ). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself. What is the reason? ( 1Chr . 22:14 ) “Look, in my poverty I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 kikkar of gold, 1’000’000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much; I prepared wood and stones, and you should add to them.”
Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his? We confirmed it if he dedicated it piece by piece.
Rebbi Abun said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: בְּעוֹנְיִי “in my deprivation,” because he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: ( Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4 ) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: ( Tosephta Peah 2:2 ) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another person came and grabbed it from before them, the one who grabbed is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, they did not say that our four cubits should acquire it for us.
Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which could only be acquired within four cubits by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find?
Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, but it did not yet enter his domain. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.
Rebbi Abin in the name of Ḥizqiah: The second scribe earns money.
Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet. 22:8 ). , or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof 97a , Erubin 16b .] This explanation is also quoted in Erubin 10 (26b 1. 39 ). . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition. Rebbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the below. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest, for the Sabbath only if it rested 1:1). If any of the three stages is missing, the biblical law was not violated. Therefore, if a document was moved from one domain to another (as from the husband’s courtyard to the wife’s roof) and burned while still flying, it was delivered as a bill of divorce but not moved by the laws of the Sabbath. (Cf. Kilaim 1:9, Note 188 ). . Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up 1:1 2c 1. 63, 11:1 12c 1. 59; Babli 4a , 5a , Giṭṭin 79a ). ? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? 11:1: “If somebody throws an object from a private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to a private domain, he is guilty. From a private to a private domain across the public domain, R. Aqiba declares him guilty but the Sages declare him not prosecutable.” It is then explained that throwing from the public to a private domain is prosecutable only if the object came to rest. On that it is noted that Rebbi does not require it to come to rest (only to be received within the walls), but R. Abba bar Huna in the name of Rav said that “Rebbi did only find him guilty if the private domain was roofed.” It is noted there that R. Joḥanan objected to the latter statement, which explains that no answer is given to the question raised. What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.
MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce, but the House of Hillel forbid it. And what is an old bill of divorce? If he was again alone with her after he wrote it for her.
HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: And any one of them if she was married should not leave, in order not to cause talk about her children.
We stated: “After he wrote it for her.” Some Tannaïm state “after he delivered it to her.” He who says “after he wrote it for her” supports the House of Shammai; he who says “after he delivered it to her” supports the House of Hillel.
MISHNAH: If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them 10:1, Notes 3–6 . , she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah . If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city, An Etymological Dictionary , Ktav Publishing 1992; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen , K. G. Saur 1996. she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her 1:1 ). If the relative turns out to be a she-ram, who cannot be married, the release of the other wives turns out to have been erroneous and their new marriages incestuous for those who hold that the outside marriage of a candidate for levirate marriage is incestuous (which is an opinion of R. Aqiba rejected by his successors.) .
HALAKHAH: “If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They declared the child a bastard because of the danger. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: This entire Chapter is Rebbi Meїr’s except for “if he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city.” Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yasa: Also “if somebody divorced his wife”? He said to him, not your Chapter but our Chapter.
MISHNAH: If somebody married his sister-in-law while her co-wife went and married somebody else, if the sister-in-law turns out to be a she-ram, the co-wife shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her 1:1 ). If the relative turns out to be a she-ram, who cannot be married, the release of the other wives turns out to have been erroneous and their new marriages incestuous for those who hold that the outside marriage of a candidate for levirate marriage is incestuous (which is an opinion of R. Aqiba rejected by his successors.) .
HALAKHAH: “If somebody married his sister-in-law,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥalîṣah . Rebbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥalīṣah , the other one keeps her. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rebbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rebbi Meïr who said it in the name of Rebbi Aqibah. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” Therefore she must leave.
MISHNAH: If the scribe wrote and then in error handed the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man and they exchanged them, then later the bill of divorce is found with the man and the receipt with the woman, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Rebbi Eliezer says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.
HALAKHAH: “If the scribe wrote,” etc. Where do we hold? If he made a mistake, even Rebbi Eleazar agrees. If he made no error, even the rabbis agree. But we must hold that it was unexplained. Rebbi Eleazar suspects that possibly he made no mistake; the rabbis suspect that possibly he did make a mistake.
“Rebbi Eleazar says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.” What is immediately? Rebbi Ze‘ira says, before she was preliminarily married, or when she was preliminarily married. Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, before she was definitively married, or when she was definitively married. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “Since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.”
MISHNAH: If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, the House of Shammai say, he disabled her from the priesthood. 21:7 ). The House of Shammai forbid a woman to her priestly husband if the bill of divorce was written, even if it never was delivered. . But the House of Hillel say, even if he handed her [the bill of divorce] and attached a condition, if the condition was not satisfied he did not disable her from the priesthood.
HALAKHAH: “If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: There is no problem because of the purity of the priestly line and the court will not denigrate her. There came a case before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he acted following the House of Hillel. Rav asked him, why did you bring yourself into this great doubt? He answered, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose was with me. He quoted about them: “Two are better than one.. 4:9 . ”
“A woman who engages in sex play 65a , Yebamot 76a , Sanhedrin 69b ; Tosephta Soṭah 5:7 (ms. Erfurt סלסל “to adorn”)]. The text is more explicit in Tosephta Soṭah 5:7 (Vienna ms.): “If a woman engages in sex play with her son who touches her genitals, the House of Shammai disqualify from the priesthood, the House of Hillel qualify.” The son must be less than 9 years of age for his sex play to be dismissed as meaningless (cf. Yebamot 10:13–14). {Also compare the Latin verb salio , -ui , “to jump; leap, cover”, also said of copulation of animals (E. G.).} with her son, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify.” Two women who mutually engage in sex play, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify 76a , the opinion that lesbian activity disqualifies a woman from marrying a priest is dismissed as not conforming to practice; lesbian activity is classified as “simply indecent”. Maimonides ( Issure Bi’ah 21:8–9) duly notes that lesbian activity cannot qualify as sexual but then based on a aggadic statement in Sifra ( Aḥare Parašah 9(8 )), which defines “the acts of Egypt” ( Lev. 18:3 ) as same-sex marriages and polyandry, authorizes rabbinic punishment for lesbian activities, which is nowhere to be found in Talmudic sources. This is copied in Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘ezer 20:2. These rules probably owe more to Islamic and Christian influences ( Romans 1:26) than to strictly Rabbinic rules. .
MISHNAH: If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him in a hostelry, the House of Shammai say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him, but the House of Hillel say that she needs a second bill of divorce from him. When? If she was divorced after definitive marriage. But they agree that if she was divorced after preliminary marriage, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him since he was not intimate with her. If somebody married her based on a bald bill of divorce, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce,” they say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man shall not divorce his wife unless he found in her a matter of immorality,” thy say that she is dirty in his eyes and he is not suspected of having relations with her, therefore she does not need a second bill of divorce from him.. Since the House of Hillel say, “even if she spoiled his food”, they say that she is not dirty in his eyes, he is suspected of having relations with her, and she needs a second bill of divorce from him’.
2:14, a different formulation is in the Babli ( Ketubot 27b/28a ). If somebody divorces his wife she should not live in the same courtyard or the same place #618) reads מבוי “dead-end-street” in place of מקום. This is the language of the Babli. . If the courtyard was the wife’s property, the husband has to move out, if the husband’s, the wife has to move out. If it was common property, who has to move because of whom? The woman because of the man, unless they can manage to have separate exits, if they can build a wall dividing the property, each section having its own entrance door from the courtyard. . When has this been said? If they were definitively married, not if they were not definitively married. But the wife of a Cohen if she was not definitively married, as well as the status of a preliminarily married woman in Jehudah 1:5 . , is that of one definitively married. Nobody has to move if a person gives ḥalȋṣah to his sister-in-law even if he had “bespoken 2:1, Note 6 . This is a rabbinic formality; if the couple had relations, they would be biblically married and the marriage could only be terminated by a bill of divorce. The act of ḥalȋṣah guarantees that they never were intimate and the precautions enacted for divorced couples do not apply to them. ” her since “bespeaking” does not fully acquire.
MISHNAH: Anybody can supplement a bald document following the words of Ben Nanas 3:3–4). . Rebbi Aqiba says, one supplements the signatures only by relatives who would be able to testify under other circumstances. What is a bald document? One whose knots are more than its signatures.
HALAKHAH: “Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. 10:1 . From where that a document can be knotted 10 that the use of “knotted” documents was a Palestinian peculiarity (such documents have been found in the Judean desert.) ? Rebbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,. 32:11 : “I took the document of acquisition, the sealed one, the orders and rules, and the public one.” The verse clearly states that a sealed document is the main object, accompanied by a public document. ” etc. “And [the sealed]”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two {witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back 10:1), the document was written with wide spaces between the lines, was signed by witnesses between the lines, and then was folded and sewn so that the document text was hidden but the signatures appeared on the outside. It seems impossible to accept this explanation for the Yerushalmi text. (Cf. H. Albeck’s commentary to Baba batra 10:1 ).} . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel, on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise. Rebbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Naḥman: Rav Ḥuna. This seems to be the correct attribution, confirmed in the sequel. wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid. But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Does Rav Huna not consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified 161b , R. Joḥanan accepts an erasure in a sealed document if it carries a note: “This is a correction”. .
Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is no “she shall be divorced”. Rebbi Immi said, several boxes of cases came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and they said, go and complete following Rebbi Aqiba.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah applies if one witness is missing, but only if there are three or more. Two or three at the beginning is invalid, one below the three is valid. Rebbi Mana asked: That is, if they are continuous. If they are with interruptions? As one says, they are considered like testimony at a distance, they only serve to certify the testimony. And so it is here. If there were nine, can he untie two and have two sign? Or are two witnesses on a knotted document nothing 10:3 ). ? If there were five, it is obvious that he unties one and has it signed. It turns out that his untying permits it following Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel, for Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, the essential part is what validates, even if he ties and signs after that. That is, if he ties all knots and after that the first three [witnesses] did sign. But if he tied the first three and had them signed, even if he makes many ties and lets many sign it is valid. Practice is that a knotted document is first knotted and then signed. If he made the first knots and had them signed right away, it is obvious that the first two did not sign the knotted document.
Where do we hold 10:1 where R. Ḥananiah ben Gamliel states that a knotted document can be converted into a simple one if its witnesses sign on the document side. ? If he knotted and signed it inside, everybody agrees that it can be made simple. If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside 10:1 implies that “knotted from the inside” means “had it signed on the inside and then sewed it and had it signed again on the outside”, where R. Ḥanania ben Gamliel holds that it can be used either way; but the opposing faction holds that once three validating signatures were on the back, the document can only be unsealed in court to be enforced. ; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple. {Rebbi objected to the statement of Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: “The body of the document.” If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple, but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple.) Rebbi objected to the statement of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The body 164a/b , Rebbi is stating that the methods of computation of regnal years in open and sealed documents are different. Since sealed documents were not used in Babylonia, this argument seems irrelevant. of the document shows whether it is simple or not simple. What is the body of the document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But did we not state: “That is the formula of a document”? Rebbi Mana said, that is the formula of a knotted document. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say it is the same for knotted and simple, for a knotted document it is a necessity, for a simple one it is not a necessity. Rebbi Aḥa said, if one adds to practice. A simple document [is witnessed] by two persons. If common usage is to have three, one makes it with three. A knotted document is signed on its back. If common usage is to sign it inside and out, one signs it inside and out.
The condition of validity is stated here and was stated there 8:12 and in Baba batra 10:1 one finds rules about sealed documents. These rules do not overlap. The rules about the bald document are not found in Baba batra , the requirement of three witnesses is not in Giṭṭin . One would have expected an argument why the rules of one tractate, dealing with divorce documents, also apply to the other, dealing with deeds of real estate and mortgages. For some reason, this seemed obvious to the editors of the Yerushalmi. . It was necessary to state it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that here it is invalid because of the restrictions connected with adultery but there, since no restrictions connected with adultery are involved, it would be valid. Or if it had been stated there but not here, we would have said that there it is invalid since one comes to collect money based on that document but here, where one does not collect money, it would be valid. Therefore, it was necessary both to state it here and to state it there.