## Jerusalem Talmud Gittin Chapter 4 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:1:1) **משנה:** הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ בַּשָּׁלִיחַ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אַחֲרָיו שָׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לוֹ גֵּט שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָךְ בָּטֵל הֲרֵי זֶה בָטֵל. קָדַם אֶצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אֶצְלָהּ שָׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהּ גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי לָךְ בָּטֵל הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה בָטֵל. אִם מִשֶׁהַגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ שׁוּב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife and caught up with the agent, or he sent another agent after him and said: the bill of divorce I gave you is annulled, it is annulled¹. If he met his wife or he sent an agent to her and said: the bill of divorce I sent to you is annulled, it is annulled. After the bill of divorce came into her possession, he no longer can annul it. footnotes: ¹ It is not active and cannot be reactivated. If the husband changed his mind again, he would have to write a new bill. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:1:2) **הלכה:** הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אָדָם מְבַטֵּל שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים. פָּתַר לָהּ מִשּׁוּם חוֹמֶר הוּא בָעֲרָיוֹת. עָשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַגֵּט צָרִיךְ לִיתְּנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. וְאֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנַיִם. הָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַגֵּט צָרִיךְ לְבַטְּלוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹלֶה מִשֵּׁם שְׁנַיִם. הָלַךְ לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַגֵּט. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ בְּאִיסְטְרָטָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. הַהוּא גִיטָא דִּיהָבַת לָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יְכִילִי לָהּ. מִי מִישְׁתָּעֵי שֶׁמָּא נְפַל מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא אָמַרְתָּ לִי יְכִילִית לָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יְכִילִי לָהּ וְאָמְרָת לִי. יְהֵא לִי בְיָדֵיךְ. מָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לְגָרֵשׁ נֶאֱמָן. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְיָדוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. חָלָה שָׁלִיחַ. מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ. כְּגִיטִּין כְּקִידּוּשִׁין. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ כְּגִיטִּין. בְּיַד כָּל אָדָם מָצוּי לְגָרֵשׁ. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ כְּקִדּוּשִׁין. לֹא בְיַד כָּל אָדָם מָצוּי לְקַדֵּשׁ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. This disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates the agent appointed by him by a declaration² 4:9; in the parallel in the Babli, *Qiddušin* 59a, his reason is that words can be invalidated by words; he is opposed by R. Simeon ben Laqish. As an Amora, R. Joḥanan should not have the authority to contradict a Mishnah.. He explains it by the stringency of the rules of incest³. If he appointed an agent to deliver the bill of divorce, the latter has to deliver it in the presence of two [witnesses]; the agent is not counted as one of the two⁴. If another agent went to invalidate the bill of divorce, he has to invalidate it in the presence of two [witnesses] and the agent is counted as one of the two⁵. If he met him on the road and asked him, what about the bill of divorce I gave you? He answered, I delivered it to her⁶. While they were talking there, he dropped it⁷. He said, did you not tell me that you delivered it to her? He explained, I delivered it to her and she said, keep it for me. What? Can he be believed since it is in his power to divorce, or can he not be believed because it is in his hand⁸? If the agent⁹ fell sick, how do you treat this? By the rules of divorces or the rules of preliminary marriages? By the rules of divorces one can divorce through the agency of anybody. By the rules of preliminary marriages one cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody¹⁰. footnotes: ² If a person can declare the agency void by a declaration at his place without informing the agent, why does the Mishnah accept voiding the agency only if either the agent for delivery or the recipient of the bill is informed of the annulment? R. Joḥanan’s statement is also in Qiddušin ³ Adultery is always included under the rules of incest. R. Joḥanan may hold his opinion in matters of agency in civil law, but marriages and divorces are also matters of criminal law since as long as a woman is married, she is forbidden by criminal law to have relations with men other than her husband. Therefore, agency for delivery of a bill of divorce has to follow the standards of criminal law. ⁴ Since the agent represents the husband, he is party and cannot be a witness under the rules of criminal procedure. ⁵ This follows the rules of civil procedure since the husband could have invalidated the agency alone and without witnesses. ⁶ The husband cannot invalidate the divorce retroactively. ⁷ The bill of divorce fell from the agent’s hand. This seems to indicate that it was not delivered and the husband still can invalidate it. ⁸ The question is not answered; it can easily be resolved by asking the (ex-)wife. ⁹ The second agent, sent to inform the first that his agency was terminated. It already was stated in Chapter 3 that the original agent can appoint successor agents. ¹⁰ Cf. Chapter 3, Notes 114–115. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:2:1) **משנה:** בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בֵית דִּין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמְבַטְּלוֹ. הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין כֵּן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ וְהִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁיְּהֵא כוֹתֵב אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה פְלוֹנִית וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder¹¹ instituted that one should not do that because of the public good¹². In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change¹³; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good¹⁴. footnotes: ¹¹ Hillel’s grandson, the grandfather of Rabban Gamliel of Jabneh. ¹² If it was not assured that both the agent and the wife were informed of the annulment, all kinds of complications could arise which are described in the Halakhah. ¹³ For example, if he lived in the city where the bill was written under a name different from the one he used earlier in the city where his wife still lives, the court in his wife’s city will not recognize the bill as valid for divorce of the wife. ¹⁴ It is not clear, and there were different interpretations given in rabbinic practice, whether the Mishnah requires that a bill enumerate correctly all names under which either party ever lived, or only a statement that the parties (or the town) also were known by other names. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:2:2) **הלכה:** בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בֵית דִּין כול׳. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין אָדָם מְבַטֵּל שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁכּוֹחוֹ מְרוּבֶּה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “In earlier times, he could go to court,” etc. Does this¹⁵ court, that the husband was able *ad hoc* to assemble three people as a court, and declare before them that he was revoking the agency given to the agent. This is the explanation accepted in the Babli in the name of Rav Naḥman, 32b. not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that nobody can annul an agency by speech¹ 4:9; in the parallel in the Babli, *Qiddušin* 59a, his reason is that words can be invalidated by words; he is opposed by R. Simeon ben Laqish. As an Amora, R. Joḥanan should not have the authority to contradict a Mishnah.¹⁶. Explain it in a fully constituted court¹⁷. footnotes: ¹⁵ This question is based on the interpretation of the term “court” in the Mishnah as an ad hoc ¹ If a person can declare the agency void by a declaration at his place without informing the agent, why does the Mishnah accept voiding the agency only if either the agent for delivery or the recipient of the bill is informed of the annulment? R. Joḥanan’s statement is also in Qiddušin ¹⁶ For money transactions, this is credited to R. Johanan in the Babli, 32b. ¹⁷ He will hold that even in earlier times the agency could be revoked only by a public act of the local court who was presumed to transmit a copy of the document to the court at the wife’s place of residence. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:2:3) מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. אָמְרִין בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידִי מַמְזֵירוּת. וְאָמְרִין בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. סְבוּרָה שֶׁבִּיטְּלָהּ וְהוּא לֹא בִיטֵּל וְנִמְצֵאת יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידֵי מַמְזֵרוּת. סְבוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִיטֵּל וְהוּא בִיטֵּל. וְהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וְנִישֵּׂאת בְּלֹא גֵט. וְנִמְצְאוּ בָנֶיהָ בָאִין לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. סְבוּרָה שֶׁבִּיטֵּל וְהוּא לֹא בִיטֵּל וּבָא אַחֵר וְקִידְּשָׁהּ תּוֹפְסִין בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהִיא סְבוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא תוֹפְסִין בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהִיא מַמְתֶּנֶת עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וְנִישֵּׂאת. וְנִמְצָא בָנֶיהָ בָאִין לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. סַלְקִית לִשְׁיָירָא וְשָׁמְעִית לְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וְרִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא. אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה אִית לֵיהּ שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Because of the public good.” They say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy¹⁸. Some say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not remain anchored¹⁹. He who said, that she should not remain anchored, [is afraid that] she turns out to be anchored if she thought that he annulled²⁰ when he did not annul. He who said, that she should not risk bastardy, [is afraid that] her children will be bastards if she thought that he did not annul when he annulled²¹, she goes and marries without a bill of divorce. If she thought that he annulled when he did not annul, another man comes and marries her preliminarily; the preliminary marriage is valid but she thinks it is invalid²² 1:1, Note 64).. She waits until her first husband dies, then she goes and marries [another man]²³; the result is that her children will be bastards. Rebbi Mana said, I went with a caravan and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Rav Huna said, even the one who said that she should not remain anchored also agrees that she should not risk bastardy. footnotes: ¹⁸ In the Babli, 33a, this is R. Joḥanan’s opinion. ¹⁹ This is a technical term. Just as an anchored ship cannot move, so an abandoned woman without a clear bill of divorce cannot move into another man’s house.In the Babli, 33a, this is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion. ²⁰ That the bill of divorce delivered to her was worthless since the husband could have annulled it at a place unknown to her. ²¹ She received the bill in due form in the presence of two witnesses. The husband can later reappear when she is remarried and declare her divorce void and her children from the second husband bastards born in adultery. ²² Any adulterous or incestuous marriage is null and void (cf. Yebamot ²³ Then in reality she is [preliminarily] married to the man to whom she thinks she is not married; her new [definitive] marriage is adulterous and her children bastards. In all these cases, the adultery is unknown to her and the world; the children are bastards only in the eyes of Heaven; it is the duty of the judicial system to see to it that such cases do not occur. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:2:4) עָבַר וּבִיטְּלוֹ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אִם בִּיטְּלוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְבוּטָּל. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ וְלֹא לְהוֹסִיף עַל תְּנָאוֹ. יְאוּת אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי. דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל וְהֵן אָמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִיטֵּל. וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְכִי שֶׁמֶן עַל זֵתִים וַעֲנָבִים עַל הַיַּיִן לֹא תוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיִּתְרוֹם מִפְּנֵי גֶזֶל הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְהֵן אָמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרוֹם. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁאָמְרוּ. עָבַר וְתָרַם אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. רִבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר לְרִבִּי יוֹדָן נְשִׂיָיא. בַּאֲגָדָה דְסַבָּךְ מָאן דַּיֵיק לָן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following²⁴: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly²⁵. What is the reason of Rebbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul²⁶ but they²⁷ said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But is it not from the Torah that one may [give as heave] olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe²⁸ 1:4, Mishnah and Note 137. Biblical heave is due only for “grain, cider, and oil”. The prohibition to satisfy the tithing duty with unprocessed grapes and olives is strict only according to the House of Hillel; they hold that if olives were given as heave for olive oil then both the olives and the oil remain *ṭevel*, untithed, by rabbinic decree and their consumption is a deadly sin. they said not only that one may not give heave [in this way] but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rebbi Oshaia bar Abba said to Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor²⁹ meant? footnotes: ²⁴ Tosephta 3:3, Babli 33a. Did Rabban Gamliel the Elder decree that any annulment not in the presence of agent or wife was null and void? ²⁵ It seems that the names of Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel are switched here and in the next sentence. The Babli, 33b, decides practice following Rebbi. ²⁶ The biblical text decrees that the husband has to hand his wife a bill of divorce if he has decided to divorce her. The text contains no hints to any restriction as to the exercise of his free will. ²⁷ In this case, the rabbinic authorities of the first half of the first century C. E. ²⁸ Terumot ²⁹ In modern Hebrew, סבא means “grandfather”. In the Talmudim, generally it means “old man”; since “grandfather” usually is formulated as ,אֲבִי אַבָּא סַבָּא can also mean “great-grandfather”. The interpretation of the word depends on the reading of the names in this discussion. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:2:5) אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דַּהֲוָה שְׁמֵיהּ רְאוּבֵן וָאַפִּיק שְׁמֵיהּ שִׁמְעוֹן. אֶלָּא אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן אָמְרוּ. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים אַחַת בִּיהוּדָה וְאַחַת בַּגָּלִיל. וְלוֹ שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת אֶחָד בִּיהוּדָה וְאֶחָד בַּגָּלִיל. וְכָתַב זֶה שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה לְגָרֵשׁ זוֹ שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל וְשֶׁבַּגָּלִיל לְגָרֵשׁ זוֹ שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה. אֵינָהּ מְגוּרֶשֶׁת. מַתְנִיתָא שֶׁהָיָה מִיהוּדָה וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בַּגָּלִיל. מִגָּלִיל וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בִּיהוּדָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מִיהוּדָה וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בִּיהוּדָה. מִגָּלִיל וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בַּגָּלִיל. הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוּרֶשֶׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילַי. כַּתְּחִילָּה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי שֶׁמִּיהוּדָה עִם כָּל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בַגָּלִיל. אִם הָיָה שָׁרוּי בַּמָּקוֹם אֶחָד מְגָרֵשׁ לְאֵי זֶה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִילָּה צָרִיךְ לְמֵיעֲבַד כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי אִילַי. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אִם יָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ³⁰“Mr. X and all his names.” Think of it, if his name was Reuben and he went away³¹ under the name of Simeon. But: “I am X and³² every other name which I have.” ³³“In addition, they said if he had two wives, one in Judea and one in Galilee, and he is known by two names, one in Judea and one in Galilee. He used [his name] in Judea to divorce the one in Galilee and [his name] in Galilee to divorce the one in Judea. Neither one is divorced.” This *baraita* if he was in Judea³⁴ and wrote to divorce in Galilee or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Judea. But if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Judea, or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Galilee, she is divorced³⁵. Rebbi Ilai said, according to the rules he has to say: “I am X with every other name which I have in Galilee.³²” If he was at another place, he can divorce either one he wishes³⁶. Rebbi Yose said, one says that if he did it³⁷ והוא.. But to start out³⁸ he has to follow Rebbi Ilai. Rebbi Abin said, if he is known by (another) name at another place, he has to mention all three. footnotes: ³⁰ This paragraph is quoted by R. Nissim Gerondi in his commentary to Alfassi (#456). While his spelling is still more babylonized than the ms. text and it is not clear that his deviations from our text are from his text or are his interpretation, his text is very clear in its meaning and is followed in the commentary. ³¹ R. Nissim: אפיך “he changed it to”. ³² R. Nissim: עם כל שם “with every name”, i.e., all the names have to be spelled out. This is the ms. text later in the name of R. Ilai, so probably the ms. text here is original. ³³ Similar texts are in the Babli, 34b, and Tosephta 6:5. ³⁴ The translation uses the text of R. Nissim: כשהיה ביהודה. The ms. text could be read as: If he used the name from Judea, ³⁵ If only the local name was used. The divorce is valid only if both the witnesses signing the document and the witnesses to the delivery are able to identify the husband; therefore, both names (possibly with an indication where which name is being used) are required. ³² R. Nissim: עם כל שם “with every name”, i.e., all the names have to be spelled out. This is the ms. text later in the name of R. Ilai, so probably the ms. text here is original. ³⁶ R. Nissim: באיזה מהם שירצה “with any [name] he chooses”. If he is not known locally, he can identify himself in any way he chooses (as long as the name is recognized as his at the place of delivery of the bill.) ³⁷ If the bill was written without asking for rabbinical advice. This is quoted in Tosaphot 34b, s. v. ³⁸ If he asks for instructions, he has to be told to enumerate all names under which he is known. (It is not clear whether the reference, in the edict on Jewish names by the German Emperor Joseph II, to Jews having different names at different places, refers to a reality in the 18th Century or to the talmudic discussion.) ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:2:6) תַּמָּן תַּנִינָן. כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. וְשׁוֹבֵר לְאִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלָהּ עִמָּהּ. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּירָם. וְהַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר לָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט וְלָאִשָּׁה בְּשׁוֹבְרָהּ. רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהֵבִיא אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת וְגִירֵשׁ בָּהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ וְיָעִידוּ הָעֵדִים. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. עָשׂוּ עֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִים עַל הַשְּׁטָר כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. תַּמָּן בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ. לֹא חָתַמְנוּ כָּל עִיקָּר. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּאוֹמְרִים. בַּזֶּה חָתַמְנוּ וְלֹא חָתַמְנוּ עַל זֶה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי אַבָּא. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ. אִם בַּמַּכִּירָהּ בְּזֶה צָרִיךְ לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת שְׁמוֹתָם. אִית בַּר נַשׁ דְּחַכְמִין לְחַבְרֵיהוֹן בְּאַפִּין וְלָא יָדְעִין שִׁמְהַתְהוֹן. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי אִילַי. הִתְקִין רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ כוֹתְבִין. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. אִשָּׁה פְלוֹנִית וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ. מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. מַתְנִיתָא בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּעַל כּוֹרְחוֹ. מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אִילַא בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בִּרְצוֹנוֹ. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים. מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אִילַי בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** There, we have stated³⁹ 10:4. The statements of rabbis Abba and La (Ilai) are also quoted there in Halakhah 10:4.: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt⁴⁰ due her at her divorce. for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee⁴¹.” Rebbi Abba said, he⁴² has to know both of them. Rebbi La⁴³ 167b, his statement is attributed to Rav. said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ⁴⁴ 3:5). ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her⁴⁵ from the husband’s local property?. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say⁴⁶ 2:3, Note 56, *Ševi‘it* 10:5, Note 96 (*Baba Batra* 10:16, 14d 1.26); Babli 3a, *Ketubot* 18b. Signatories of documents cannot claim that they never signed unless they claim that the signatures are forgeries. that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that⁴⁷. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names⁴⁸? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names⁴⁹, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce⁵⁰ 7:10) when the husband’s cooperation cannot be taken for granted., Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place⁵¹. footnotes: ³⁹ Mishnah Baba Batra ⁴⁰ A receipt for the amount of the ketubah ⁴¹ The scribe’s fee. ⁴² The scribe. ⁴³ He is R. Ilai. In the Babli, Baba Batra ⁴⁴ Clearly, a name is missing. R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is known to have asked questions of R. Ilai (Yoma ⁴⁵ Can the agent of an absent husband not fraudulently give the bill of divorce to another woman, not the wife, and have that woman foreclose the ketubah ⁴⁶ Cf. Ketubot ⁴⁷ The witnesses can identify the persons for whom they signed; this is not a second testimony. ⁴⁸ If the scribe knew all persons involved, he could not be tricked into writing a misleading document. ⁴⁹ The Mishnah treats husband and wife on an equal footing but R. Ilai does not. ⁵⁰ One of those cases in which the wife can force a divorce (cf. Ketubot ⁵¹ Where he has to prove his and his wife’s identities to the scribe. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:2:7) כְּהָדָא דּוֹשׁוֹ אַחֲוֵי דְדוֹדוֹ הֲוָה מַשְׁבָּק אִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. הִיא תִתֵּן אַגְרָא. וְהָתַנִּינָן. הַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. רִבִּי אִילַי בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. בְּמוֹחֶלֶת לוֹ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁵² For example Doso, Dodo’s brother, divorced his wife. The case came before the rabbis who said that she should pay the fee⁵³ 168a, agrees that current rabbinic practice requires the wife to pay the scribe to prevent the husband from dragging his feet once the couple has decided on a divorce.. But did we not state: “the husband pays the fee”? Rebbi Ilai in the name of Samuel: If she forgives him her *ketubah*⁵⁴. footnotes: ⁵² This discusses the statement of the Tosephta that the husband has to pay the expenses for the divorce document. The statement that the husband cannot change the conditions of the divorce once the document is no longer in his hands was discussed in Chapter 3, Note 45. ⁵³ The Babli, Baba Batra ⁵⁴ If he makes money out of the divorce, he will not drag his feet and one can make him pay. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:3:1) **משנה:** אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת לַיְּתוֹמִים כָּל מַה שֶׁיִּרְצוּ וְגוֹבָה אֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְהָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. הִּלֵּל תִּיקֵּן פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only by an oath⁵⁵ without swearing that nothing of her *ketubah* already came into her hand, similar to a woman who had received a down payment on her *ketubah*, cf. *Ketubot* 9:8,9.. When they avoided letting her swear⁵⁶; if she then swore that she had received nothing, the widow involuntarily transgressed the prohibition of false oaths and the rabbis the prohibition of “putting a stone in the path of the blind.”, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should make a vow⁵⁷. For these “vows of mortification”, see Introduction to Tractate *Nedarim*. on the instruction of the orphans for anything they would decide on and collect her *ketubah*, and that witnesses sign the bill of divorce because of the public good. Hillel instituted *prozbol* for the public good⁵⁸ is a document which turns a private debt (subject to the laws of revocation in the Sabbatical year) into a public debt (exempt from these laws) in order to maintain an operating banking system; cf. *Ševi‘it* 10:3 ff.. footnotes: ⁵⁵ If the widow continued to live in her husband’s house, she is suspected to have taken from her husband’s property more than was necessary for her guaranteed support and, therefore, if she decides to leave that house she cannot collect her ketubah ⁵⁶ The rabbis became worried that the widow while caring for the orphans took things which she thought were payment for her work but which legally should be counted as part payment of the ketubah ⁵⁷ A vow that she would prohibit on herself the use of anything (food, vessel, place) chosen by the orphans if she had received any down payment for her ketubah ⁵⁸ Prozbol ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:3:2) **הלכה:** אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין כול׳. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ נִשְׁבָעוֹת לַשֶּׁקֶר וְקוֹבְרוֹת אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לַשָׁוְא הִכִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם. וְעוֹד שֶׁאֵימַת נְדָרִים עֲלֵיהֶן יוֹתֵר מִן הַשְּׁבוּעוֹת. עָבְרָה וְנִשְׁבְּעָה. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אִם נִשְׁבְּעָה נִשְׁבְּעָה. רַב אָמַר לְכַלָּתֵיהּ. אִילּוּלֵיהּ דַאֲנָא וַותְּרָן אֲפִילוּ קֳלוֹסִיתֵּיהּ דְּעַל רֵישָׁךְ דִּידִי הוּא. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זָכַת בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל. אֵין לוֹ לֹא בִכְסוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא בִכְסוּת בָּנָיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only,” etc. Earlier they swore falsely and buried their children, since it is written⁵⁹. 2:30. For the statement that children die for the parents’ sins of vows cf. *Ketubot* 7:7, Note 66.: “For vain [vows] I smote your children.” In addition, they fear vows more than oaths⁶⁰, for vows with oaths only mentioned as an afterthought; cf. introduction to Tractate *Nedarim*, Note 4.. If she transgressed and swore? Rav Huna said, if she swore, she swore⁶¹. Rav said to his daughter-in-law: If I were not a person readily making concessions, even the cover on your head would be my property. Samuel said, she acquires the garments which she is wearing⁶², is in the Babli *Ketubot* 54a.. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “Neither his wife’s garments nor his children’s are his property⁶³ 6:5. The family’s clothing cannot be counted as the husband’s property in bankruptcy proceedings. In the Babli, nevertheless practice is decided following Rav, against the Yerushalmi..” footnotes: ⁵⁹ Jer ⁶⁰ For example, there is an annual revocation rite, Kol Nidre ⁶¹ If she swears on her own initiative to expedite the process, it is valid and she has to be paid. The same statement in the Babli, 35a. ⁶² The same disagreement, whether or not garments, which the husband has to supply during the marriage, are counted against the ketubah ⁶³ ‘Arakhin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:3:3) רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי מַה הִתְקִינוּ זְמַן בַּגֵּט. מִפְּנֵי מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאִירַע. מַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי אֶת בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ וְזִינָת עַד שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. הֶָלַךְ וְהִקְדִּים זְמַנּוֹ בַגֵּט. אָמַר. מוּטָב שֶׁתִּידּוֹן כִּפְנוּיָה וְאַל תִּדּוֹן כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav Huna said, why did they require a date on the bill of divorce? Because of an actual case. It so happened that a man was married to his sister’s daughter who committed adultery when she was still married. He predated the bill of divorce and said, it is better she should be judged as single rather than as a married woman⁶⁴. footnotes: ⁶⁴ In the Babli, 17a/b, R. Joḥanan refers to this story; the editors of the Babli assumed that this Yerushalmi was generally known. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:3:4) אָמַר רַב הוּנָא. קַשִּׁיתָא קוֹמוֹי רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. מַעְשְׂרוֹת מִן דִּבְרֵיהֶן. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. מַעְשְׂרוֹת מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְהִילֵּל מַתְקִין עַל דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְכִי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁגָּלוּ לְבָבֶל כְּלוּם נִפְטְרוּ אֶלָּא מִמִּצְוֹת הַתְּלוּיוֹת בָּאָרֶץ. וְהַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. חָזַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְאָמַר. זֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִיטָּה שָׁמוֹט. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַשְּׁמִיטָּה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה הַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַשְּׁמִיטָּה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרץ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן הַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. מַעְשְׂרוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מוֹדֶה בִשְׁמִיטָּה שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִיטָּה שָׁמוֹט. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. שְׁנֵי שְׁמִיטִּין שְׁמִיטָָּה וְיוֹבֵל. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג הַשְּׁמִיטָה נוֹהֶגֶת מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. פָּסְקוּ הַיּוֹבֵילוֹת נוֹהֶגֶּת שְׁמִיטָּה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. אֵימָתַי פָּסְקוּ הַיּוֹבֵילוֹת. לְכָל יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁיּוֹשְבִין עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא בִזְמַן שֶׁגָּלוּ מִתּוֹכָהּ. הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא הָיוּ מְעוּרְבָבִין שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה בְבִנְיָמִן וְשֵׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִן בִּיהוּדָה יָכוֹל יְהֵא הַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ. לְכָל יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁגָּלוּ שֵׁבֶט רְאוּבֵן וְגָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה בָּטְלוּ הַיּוֹבֵילוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁶⁶ 10:3, explained there in Notes 83–88. The Leiden ms. is denoted by **ל**, the Rome ms. by **ר**. Rav Huna⁶⁷, “*Rebbi* Ḥuna”, “*Rebbi* Jacob”, are the only ones which make sense in place and time. said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes are from their words. But following him who says tithes are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (*Deut*. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed in the Land as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed in the Land as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. (*Deut*. 15:2): “This is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (*Lev*. 25:10) “For all its inhabitants.” In the time when they lived on it, not when they went from it into exile. If they lived on it but did (not)⁶⁸ intermingle, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee was operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished. footnotes: ⁶⁶ Ševi‘it ⁶⁷ The readings from Ševi‘it ⁶⁸ This clearly is a scribal error; see the variant readings. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:4:1) **משנה:** עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּפְדָאוּהוּ אִם לְשׁוּם עֶבֶד יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד אִם לְשׁוּם בֶּן חוֹרִין לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁיחְרְרוֹ שׁוּרַת הַדִּין אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַיָיב כְּלוּם אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If a slave was kidnapped and ransomed⁶⁹, if it was as a slave⁷⁰ he shall serve⁷¹, if as a free person he shall not serve⁷²; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in any case he shall serve⁷³. A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed⁷⁴ in strict law does not owe anything⁷⁵, but for the public good⁷⁶ one forces the master to formally manumit him and he⁷⁷ writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes⁷⁸. footnotes: ⁶⁹ A Jewish community at another place ransomed him. Since he is under the laws of the Torah, any Jewish community is obligated to ransom him. ⁷⁰ If they knew that he was a slave and ransomed him as such. ⁷¹ His former master, who has to indemnify the community which provided the ransom. ⁷² A person who was a free Jew even for one moment cannot be enslaved. ⁷³ He holds that a slave can be freed only by a formal act of manumission, otherwise he will be forbidden to marry a Jewish woman. Since the act of ransom does not change the slave’s status in marriage law, it cannot change it in civil law. ⁷⁴ The act of manumission breaks the chattel mortgage; this is declared as a general principle in the Babli, 40b. ⁷⁵ Since the evil act was his master’s, not his own. ⁷⁶ Lest the creditor come and enslave a free person. ⁷⁷ The slave, who owns no money. ⁷⁸ The slave is free and free from debt. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:4:2) **הלכה:** עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּפְדָאוּהוּ כול׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁאֲפִילוּ לְשֵׁם עֶבֶד לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ יִשְּׁתַּעְבֵּד. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הָעֶבֶד מַבְרִיחַ עַצְמוֹ מִן שַׁבּוֹיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. רַבּוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶת דָּמָיו וּמְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא רַבּוֹ. הָא אַחֵר לֹא. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. בְּדִין הָיָה אֲפִילוּ לְשֵׁם בֶּן חוֹרִין יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לוֹזָה עַל בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִם כֵּן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּוִּין לִפְדּוֹת בֶּן חוֹרִין כָּךְ הֵן מְצוּוִּין לִפְדּוֹת אֵת הָעֲבָדִים. אָהֵן תַּנָּיָיא קַדְמִיָיא סְבַר מֵימַר. מִצוּוִּין הֵן לִפְדּוֹת בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְאֵין מְצוּוִּין לִפְדּוֹת אֵת הָעֲבָדִים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If a slave was kidnapped and ransomed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Ḥizqiah: It would be logical that even as a slave he should not have to serve⁷⁹. And why did they say, he has to serve? That a slave should not run away to the kidnappers⁸⁰. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a *baraita*⁸¹ implies this: “His master pays his ransom and frees him.⁸²” They said that only about his master, not anybody else⁸³ clause that the master frees the slave. The Tosephta implies that the community which ransoms the slave sends his master the bill with the slave. No other person has an interest in the slave.. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It would be logical that even as a free person he should have to serve⁸⁴. Why did they say that he does not have to serve? Not to damage the reputations of free persons⁸⁵. Rebbi Yose said, but it is so: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in any case he shall serve; just as Israel are obligated to ransom free persons so they are obligated to ransom slaves.⁸¹” The first Tanna is of the opinion that they are obligated to ransom free persons but they are not obligated to ransom slaves⁸⁶. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel⁸⁷ 77a); the Babli does not have to state that practice follows him.. footnotes: ⁷⁹ In the Babli, 37b, Ḥizqiah is quoted in a discussion whether the occurred when the owner still had hope to recover his slave or whether he had given up this hope. Since the case that the owner had given up hope ransom mentioned in the Mishnah and therefore relinquished his claim to ownership is discussed later, the Yerushalmi must hold that the Mishnah deals with the case that the slave still was a slave in fact, not only in name, i.e., that the original owner had not given up hope to recover him. As R. Yose explains later, the slave should not have to serve since he was ransomed as a Jew. ⁸⁰ Offer himself to kidnappers as a sure way to gain his freedom. ⁸¹ Tosephta 3:4; Babli 37b. ⁸² If the master wishes, he may free him once the community which provided the ransom is reimbursed. ⁸³ It is not clear what is the meaning of the baraita ⁸⁴ Since there was no formal manumission, there seems to be no reason why the slave, redeemed in the erroneous belief that he was a free Jew, should not remain a slave. ⁸⁵ If it were possible later to enslave a person redeemed as a free person, nobody would be safe. ⁸¹ Tosephta 3:4; Babli 37b. ⁸⁶ Since Rabban Gamliel has to spell out his opinion in the Tosephta, it follows that the dissenting opinion also applies in this case. The slave of a Jew is obligated to keep the Sabbath and eat only kosher food; since he cannot do that as slave of a Gentile, the Jewish community is responsible for him. ⁸⁷ In the Babli, it is a Saboraic principle that “practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in his statements in the Mishnah” almost always (Ketubot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:4:3) רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר יֵיסִי בֶּן שָָׁאוּל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי. הַמִּתְיָיאֵשׁ בְּעַבְדּוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְשַׁעְבְּדוֹ וְצָרִיךְ לִכְתוֹב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. שָׁמַע רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאָמַר. יָפֶה לִימְּדֵנִי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. כְּלוּם לָמְדוּ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר לֹא מֵאִשָּׁה. מָה אִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ שֶׁצְּרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט. אַף עֶבֶד אִינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Yossi ben Shaul said in the name of Rebbi: A person who had given up hope to recover his slave⁸⁸ 2:1, first line). It is stated later that an adult slave, being able to become a responsible person, acquires himself if he becomes ownerless. Since then he is a full Jew, if the owner later finds him, he cannot reduce him to slavery. But the former slave cannot marry a Jewish partner without a bill of manumission. is not entitled to enslave him but has to write him a bill of manumission. Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁹ heard this and said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly. Did they not infer the rules of a bill of manumission from women⁹⁰ 29b,41b; *Ḥagigah* 10a; *Qiddušin* 23a) from a comparison of the language used for the manumission of a handmaid (*Lev.* 19:20) and the divorce of a wife (*Deut.* 24:1).? Just as a woman is not freed if [the husband] has given up hope⁹¹, but she needs a bill of divorce from him, so a slave is not freed if [the master] has given up hope, but he needs a bill of manumission. footnotes: ⁸⁸ It is a general rule that anything abandoned becomes ownerless and may be taken by anybody who finds it. If a person gives up hope to recover something he lost, this is abandonment (Baba meṣi‘a ⁸⁹ In the Babli, 39a, the entire statement is in R. Joḥanan’s name. ⁹⁰ This is nowhere explicit in the Yerushalmi or the halakhic Midrashim; it is found in the Babli (Giṭṭin ⁹¹ If a woman left her husband and the latter has given up hope that she ever would return to him, she still cannot remarry without a formal bill of divorce. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:4:4) שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֶבֶד שֶׁבָּרַח מִן הַשַּׁבּוֹיִין אֶצֶל רַבּוֹ אֵין רַבּוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְשַׁעְבְּדוֹ וְצָרִיךְ לִכְתוֹב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְשַׁעְבְּדוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִכְתוֹב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כָּל עָמָּא אָמְרִין דְּהוּא צָרִיךְ. וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מְעַכְּבוֹ מִלּוֹכַל בַּפֶּסַח. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. וְכָל עֶבֶד אִישׁ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף וּמַלְתָּה אוֹתוֹ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ הוּא מְעַכְּבוֹ לוֹכַל בַּפֶּסַח. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְעַכְּבוֹ מִלּוֹכַל בַּפֶּסַח. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a slave fled from the kidnappers to his master, the master may not enslave him⁹² but has to write him a bill of manumission⁹³. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody declares his slave as ownerless he can neither enslave him nor write him a bill of manumission⁹⁴, free but unable to marry.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, everybody says that he needs one⁹⁵; do you say that he does not need? Would he hinder him from eating the Passah [sacrifice]⁹⁶ is not circumcised (or if a female slave, not inducted into the Jewish faith by immersion in a *miqweh*), Ex. 12:43–45.? As it was stated: “The slave of any man, acquisition of his money, if you circumcise him.” Anytime he serves his master, he prevents his master from eating the Passah; if he does not serve his master, he does not prevent his master from eating the Passah⁹⁷; the master no longer is a patron.. footnotes: ⁹² Since he was not ransomed, it is as if his owner had given up hope to recover him. ⁹³ In order to permit him to marry a Jewish partner. ⁹⁴ Since a bill of manumission can be written only by the owner and this master has formally declined ownership, there is nobody who can write a bill of manumission for this slave. The Babli, 39a/b, holds in the name of R. Joḥanan that the owner can only renounce his ownership in money matters; for ceremonial law he can divest himself of ownership only by writing a bill of manumission. The Babli agrees that if the original owner dies before writing the bill of manumission, his children do not inherit any rights to the slave and the latter cannot be rescued from his state in limbo ⁹⁵ In the Babli, 39a, this is a statement of Ulla in the name of R. Joḥanan. ⁹⁶ A person is prevented from eating the Passah sacrifice if any member of his familia ⁹⁷ Therefore, the slave declared ownerless is no longer part of his owner’s familia ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:4:5) סִימֵּא שְׁתֵּי עַינָיו כְּאַחַת. הִפִּיל שְׁנֵי שִׁינָּיו כְּאַחַת. יוֹצֵא בָהֶן לַחֵירוּת. זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ. יוֹצֵא לַחֵירוּת בְּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ דָמִים בַּשְּׁנִיָיה. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְתוֹב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. צָרִיךְ לִכְתוֹב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר. וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא בְשֵׁן וְעַיִן. מְנַיִין הַיּוֹצֵא בְכִיפָּה וּבהרנירק טיאונוס וּבְחֵרוּת שֶׁלַּמְּלָכִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לַחָפְשִי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ מִכָּל מָקוֹם. בָּנָיו מָה הֵן. הַיּוֹצֵא בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן בָּנָיו עֲבָדִים. וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ בָּנָיו בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא. חִילּוּפִין. הַיּוֹצֵא בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן הוֹאִיל וְשִׁיחְרְרָתוֹ הַתּוֹרָה בָּנָיו בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שִׁיחְרְרָתוֹ הַתּוֹרָה בָּנָיו עֲבָדִים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If [the master] blinded [the slave’s] two eyes simultaneously, or broke two of his teeth simultaneously, the slave thereby obtains his freedom⁹⁸. 21:26–27 ordains freedom to a slave whose owner destroys one of his eyes or teeth. By rabbinic interpretation, this is extended to all important body parts.. One after the other, he obtains his freedom from the first [injury] and [the master] has to pay for the second⁹⁹. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Following the opinion that [the master] does not have to write a bill of manumission for him. But following the opinion that [the master] has to write a bill of manumission for him, can you say that he has to pay him¹⁰⁰ 24b), this is a dispute among Tannaïm which is resolved by deciding that a bill of manumission is not needed for injury to teeth or eyes since the verse represents the bill of manumission, but is needed for all other body parts whose loss results in freedom to the slave only by rabbinic interpretation. The following sentence shows that this interpretation is not accepted in the Yerushalmi. In case a bill of manumission is required, damages can be claimed only after delivery of the bill. It seems that the *baraita* in *Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim* 9, contains a polemic against the argument here since it emphasizes that the verse requires to send the slave to freedom for his tooth or for his eye; the singular implies that the slave can request payment for the second injury independent of his legal status.? Not only does this¹⁰¹ apply to one who gains his freedom for a tooth or an eye, from where also that he may gain his freedom by a cap¹⁰², or הרנירק טיאונוס¹⁰³ as text woven into the cloth (but see next paragraph). In *Massekhet ‘Avadim*, end of Chap. 3, the *baraita* quoted here appears in one ms. as: “If he broke his two teeth simultaneously, or blinded his two eyes simultaneously, the slave goes to freedom and is not paid anything, one after the other he obtains his freedom for the first and is paid for the second. If he cut his flesh or destroyed a tooth which did not come out yet, he is freed by אנטוקטא, a tablet, a writing tablet, but not by קיפה of kings.” The word אנטוקטא was read by Pineles, דרכה של תורה, as *vindicta*, a reading accepted by all later lexicographers. It is likely that אנדוכתרי and its variants also represent forms of *vindicta* in Babylonian spelling, which does not show the usual exactness of transliterations in the Yerushalmi, standing for *manumissio per vindictam*, manumission by having the slave touched with a *vindicta*, or staff, by a duly authorized government official. Such a manumission is invalid in any case not ordered by the Torah., or the king’s freedom¹⁰⁴, and per epistulam, also manumission in Egyptian law by declaration before a notary public and payment of the applicable tax (cf. R. Taubenschlag, *The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in Light of the Papyri*, New York 1944, p.73).? The verse says, “he shall send him to freedom”, in any way. What is the status of his¹⁰⁵ children? The children of him who leaves for a tooth or an eye are slaves, the children of him who leaves by the loss of hope are free. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is unreasonable; it is the other way around. The children of one who leaves for a tooth or an eye are free because the Torah freed him. The children of one who leaves by the loss of hope are slaves because the Torah did not free him. footnotes: ⁹⁸ Ex ⁹⁹ For the second injury, the slave can already require the damages due to a free person. ¹⁰⁰ In the Babli, 42a (quoted also Qiddušin ¹⁰¹ Even an authority who requires a bill of manumission for the slave freed by the Torah will not insist that the rules of these bills be followed to the letter but all forms of manumission accepted in Gentile courts are acceptable. ¹⁰² A Phrygian cap given to the slave by his master as a sign of freedom. ¹⁰³ These words are unexplained. In the Babli 20a, speaking of manumission in general, not of the slave freed by the Torah, it is stated that a bill of manumission engraved on a writing tablet is valid, but not one written on a cap and אנדוכתרי (var. אנדרכתן, אדוכתן, אנדרוכתרי) explained in Arukh ¹⁰⁴ The acts of manumission recognized in Roman law, manumissio per vindictam, inter amicos ¹⁰⁵ This should read “her” here and in the sequel since a male slave cannot marry and has no family relationship with his children. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:4:6) גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְכָסָיו. וְהָיוּ שָׁם עֲבָדִים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים. יָצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. גְּדוֹלִים יָצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת. קְטַנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת. לָמָּה. שֶׁהֵן יָצְאוּ בְמִיתַת רַבָּן. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ גְדוֹלִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. גְּדוֹלִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן דַּעַת לְזַכּוֹת אֶת עַצְמָן יָצְאוּ לְחֵרוּת. קְטַנִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דַּעַת לְזַכּוֹת לְעַצְמָן לֹא יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וְרִבִּי יוֹסִי בֶּן שָׁאוּל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי. הַמִּתְיָיאֵשׁ מֵעַבְדּוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְשַׁעְבֵּד בּוֹ. אָמְרִין. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְשַׁעְבֵּד. דְּלָא יְהַב לָא יְהַב. דִּילְמָא הֲלָכָה לְשַׁעְבְּדוֹ וְצָרִיךְ לִכְתוֹב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. שֶׁמַעְנוּ דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יָפֶה לִימְּדֵנִי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דִּילְמָא הֲלָכָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. אָמָתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר זוּטְרָא עֲרָקָת. אִיתְיָיאֵשׁ מִינָּהּ. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה וּלְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָמְרוּ. אֵינוֹ רַשַׁאי לְשַׁעְבְּדָהּ. מָהוּ לִכְתוֹב לָהּ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ. אִם כָּתַבְתָּ יְאוּת אַתְּ עֲבַד. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵה. עֶבֶד שֶׁנָּשָׂא בֶּן חוֹרִין לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֶמֶשׁ הָיִיתִי יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹנֶה. הַכּוֹתֵב כְּתַב קִידּוּשִׁין לְעַבְדּוֹ אוֹ כְתַב נִישּׂוּאִין לַאֲמָתוֹ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. זָכָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לֹא זָכָה. אָהֵן תַּנַּיָיא קַדְמִיָיא סָבַר כְּרִבִּי זָכָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If a convert died¹⁰⁶ and Jews plundered his property, if there were slaves, either adult or underage, they gain their freedom¹⁰⁷. Abba Shaul said, the adults gain their freedom, the minors do not become free. Why? They are no longer property after their owner’s death¹⁰⁸. Then even adults? Rebbi Abba said, since adults are competent to acquire themselves, they gain their freedom. Minors, who are not competent to acquire for themselves, do not gain their freedom. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Abba Shaul¹⁰⁹. The opinions of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi are contradictory. There, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi said: A person who has given up hope to recover his slave⁸⁸ 2:1, first line). It is stated later that an adult slave, being able to become a responsible person, acquires himself if he becomes ownerless. Since then he is a full Jew, if the owner later finds him, he cannot reduce him to slavery. But the former slave cannot marry a Jewish partner without a bill of manumission. is not entitled to enslave him¹¹⁰. They said, what Rebbi Joshua said about enslaving, if he did not give, he did not give¹¹¹; perhaps practice would be to enslave him, therefore he has to write him a bill of manumission¹¹². And here, he says so! We heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly, perhaps practice follows Abba Shaul¹¹³. The slave girl of Rabba bar Zuṭra ran away and he gave up hope to recover her. He went to ask Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They said, he is not entitled to enslave her¹¹⁴. How is it to write her a bill of manumission? They said to him, if you wrote, you did the right thing¹¹⁵. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: A slave who married as a free person¹¹⁶ read בַּת חוֹרִין “a free woman” instead of בֶּן חוֹרִין “a free man” in the ms. One has to assume that the Venice typesetter was influenced by the Babli since the ms. shows no correction by the editor of the print; the text makes perfect sense as it stands. Since a slave cannot marry, if the master organizes a marriage for him it is obvious (a) that the owner manumits the slave and (b) that the woman he marries must be free. in the presence of his master gained his freedom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and formulating: If somebody writes a document of preliminary marriage for his slave or a document of definitive marriage for his girl slave, Rebbi says, they acquired¹¹⁷, but the Sages say, they did not acquire¹¹⁸. The first Tanna¹¹⁹ follows Rebbi: he acquired. footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ He failed to start a Jewish family. Since he no longer is a member of his Gentile family and did not acquire Jewish heirs, his property becomes ownerless. ¹⁰⁷ Since they become ownerless, they go free, cf. Note 94. This Tanna holds that the ownerless slave does not need a bill of manumission. In the Babli, 39a, Rav Naḥman explains that since the rules of bills of manumission are derived from those of bills of divorce, since a widow does not have a bill of divorce, the slave who gains freedom by his master’s death does not need a bill. ¹⁰⁸ And can be acquired by anybody who takes them. ¹⁰⁹ The Babli, 39a/b, agrees and is ambivalent in the matter, as is the Yerushalmi. ⁸⁸ It is a general rule that anything abandoned becomes ownerless and may be taken by anybody who finds it. If a person gives up hope to recover something he lost, this is abandonment (Baba meṣi‘a ¹¹⁰ And he asserts that the master has to write a bill of manumission for the slave. But the adult slave who gains his freedom by his master’s death does not need a bill of manumission. ¹¹¹ The owner cannot be forced to write a bill of manumission for the absconded slave. ¹¹² It may be that any ownerless slave is automatically free without a written document; it also may be that the runaway slave whose master has given up hope of recovery is not free. Therefore, that slave cannot marry in the Jewish community without being formally freed. ¹¹³ Practice follows Abba Shaul, not as a necessity but as recommended action. ¹¹⁴ Even if he found her later, he could not bring any action to recover her as a servant. ¹¹⁵ He cannot be forced to write a bill but, since the runaway girl probably will reappear as a Jewish woman in some distant community and marry there, for the benefit of the community it is appropriate that the former owner write her a bill of manumission and appoint a local person to receive it in her stead (since one may give benefits to absent persons without their knowledge) to legitimize the children from any marriage she might contract. ¹¹⁶ The Babli, 39b/40a, and the editio princeps ¹¹⁷ He accepts the marriage document as a bill of manumission; the slave acquires his own legal personality with the marriage document. ¹¹⁸ Since a slave’s hand is his master’s hand, a slave cannot acquire a document for himself unless he first was manumitted. ¹¹⁹ R. Ismael ben R. Yose. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:4:7) מִי מְשַׁחְרֵר. רַב אָמַר. בֵּין רַבּוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבֵין רַבּוֹ הַשֵּׁינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין לָךְ מְשַׁחְרֵר אֶלָּא רַבּוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. הָתִיב רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת הַנָּכְרִי עַל חָמֵיצוֹ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוֹתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. אִין תֵּימַר. [בִּרְשׁוּת] יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא וִיהֵא אָסוּר מָה עֲבִיד לָהּ רַב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. קַל הוּא בְשִׁחְרוּר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׂה עַבְדּוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי. מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. שִׁיחְרְרוֹ מְשׁוּחְרָר. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִן הָדָא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר. אִילּוּ הַמְשַׁעְבֵּד שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלַךְ וּמְכָרָהּ שֶׁמָּא אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב בָּא וְטוֹרֵף. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. פָּתַח לָנוּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פֶּתַח (ר׳) מֵאִיר בְּדָה כְאוֹרָה. לֹא מָצִינוּ עֶבֶד מִשְׁתַּחְרֵר וְחוֹזֵר וּמִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִכְתוֹב לוֹ שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. מוּטָּב שֶׁיֹּּאמַר לוֹ. תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ. וְלֹא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. עַבְדִּי אַתָּה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אָמְרִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בִּיסָּא. אַתְיָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. כְּמַה דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר קוֹנֵס בִּדְבָרִים כֵּן רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קוֹנֵס בִּדְבָרִים. דְּתַנֵּי. שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה לֹא אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִיבִּית. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִיבִּית. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ¹²⁰ 2:2, 1. 24 ff.; variants noted **פ**. Who frees¹²¹, the mortgaged slave who was manumitted.? Rav says, either his first or his second master¹²². Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free¹²³. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a *baraita* disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights¹²⁴ in it, it would be forbidden¹²⁵ 2:2 states that leavened matter pledged to a Jew is forbidden after Passover. This is explained in both Talmudim to refer to a contract which in case of foreclosure would retroactively transfer property rights to the creditor from the moment the loan was given. If the loan was given before Passover and foreclosed after Passover, the leavened matter was in the Jew’s possession during Passover and is permanently forbidden to Jews. In the Yerushalmi *baraita* one assumes that the contract states explicitly that the creditor would acquire property rights only after foreclosure.. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed¹²⁶ 7:1, Notes 23–27.. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes⁷⁸. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate¹²⁴. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed¹²⁷. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 *zuz* which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave¹²⁸! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasa’s¹²⁴ name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meїr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meїr¹²⁹ 10a 1.60; Babli 72a, *Baba Qama* 30b, *Baba Batra* 94b. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that the manumission of a pledged slave is illegal and therefore the perpetrator has to pay.. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest¹³⁰. footnotes: ¹²⁰ A parallel is in Pesaḥim ¹²¹ Here starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah, viz. ¹²² Both the owner and the mortgage holder can free the slave (Babli 40a). ¹²³ A mortgage holder is not a proprietor. ¹²⁴ The translation follows פ. ¹²⁵ In fact, Mishnah Pesaḥim ¹²⁶ Yebamot ⁷⁸ The slave is free and free from debt. ¹²⁴ The translation follows פ. ¹²⁷ The moment the slave gains his freedom he is a full Jew and is protected by all biblical laws regarding treatment of converts. ¹²⁸ The only reason the rabbis require the ex-slave to write a bond to the creditor is for his own protection. ¹²⁴ The translation follows פ. ¹²⁹ Cf. Baba Meṣi‘a ¹³⁰ The bond is valid and those parts which conform to the law can be enforced. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:5:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:5:1) **משנה:** מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים תִּיקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל יִבָּטֵל. וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לְפִירְיָיה וְרִבְיָיה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תוֹהוּ בְּרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** A person who is half slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, you provided for his master but you did not provide for him. He can marry neither a slave woman¹³¹ nor a free woman¹³²: shall he be alone? But the world was created only for procreation and increase, as it is said¹³³. 45:18.: “He did not create it to be empty, He formed it to be settled.” For the public good one forces his master to manumit him and he writes a bond for half his value¹³⁴. The House of Hillel changed and instructed following the House of Shammai. footnotes: ¹³¹ The free part in him is forbidden any sexual relation with a slave. ¹³² The free woman is forbidden any sexual relation with the slave part in him. ¹³³ Is ¹³⁴ This entered Roman law by a decree of Justinian, c. 1. C. 7,7. Most earlier jurists rejected the idea of partial manumission; cf. R. Taubenschlag (Note 104), p. 75. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:5:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:5:2) **הלכה:** מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין כול׳. הֵיאַךְ אֶיפְשָׁר חֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. תִּיפְתָּר אוֹ כְרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. אוֹ דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵי שׁוּתָפִין וְעָמַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְשִׁיחְרֵר חֶלְקוֹ. מָצָא מְצִיאָה. בְּיוֹם שֶׁל רַבּוֹ שֶׁל רַבּוֹ. בְּיוֹם שֶׁלְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁלְּעַצְמוֹ. וְלֵית מָחָר בְּעֵי יְעַבְדָּהּ לֵיהּ לְמָרֵיהּ. קִידֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה. בְּיוֹם שֶׁל מָרֵיהּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. בְּיוֹם שֶׁלְּעַצְמוֹ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין קִידֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשָׁיו. דִּכְוָותָה גֵּירַשׁ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְגֵירוּשָׁיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “A person who is half slave and half free,” etc. How is it possible that anyone be half slave and half free? Explain it either following Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave¹³⁵ 25b) one holds that in the opinion of the rabbis opposed to Rebbi a person cannot free half of his slave but the freedom of a slave can be bought in installments., or following everybody in the case of a slave belonging to two partners, when one of them manumitted his part. If he found anything of value, on his master’s day it belongs to his master¹³⁶ 6:1, Note 10; *Nedarim* 11:8, Note 70), what he finds belongs to his master., on his own day it belongs to him. But would he not on the next day turn it over¹³⁷ to his master? If he entered a preliminary marriage. On his master’s day, one would not consider his marriage¹³⁸, on his own day one would consider his marriage¹³⁹. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage¹⁴⁰. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce¹⁴¹. footnotes: ¹³⁵ In the Babli (41b, 23b, Temurah ¹³⁶ Since at least for R. Meїr a slave’s hand is his master’s hand (Ketubot ¹³⁷ Reading יעברה for יעבדה. Since a slave cannot own property, all he has would be intermittently his owner’s. This is legally an impossible situation; even without the argument of the House of Shammai it would be necessary to totally free the partially manumitted person or to declare the partial manumission as void. ¹³⁸ As a slave, he cannot marry. A woman who receives valuables from a slave for a preliminary marriage is free to marry any other man without a divorce; she is not considered married. ¹³⁹ While the marriage could not be consummated (Note 132), there seems to be no reason why the preliminary marriage should not be valid according to the House of Hillel, who hold that on alternate days he is a free person. ¹⁴⁰ By a rabbinic decree, the half-free person is disqualified from entering a preliminary marriage. ¹⁴¹ If a half-free person entered a preliminary marriage and then, upon being informed that his act was invalid, gave the woman a bill of divorce; the recipient was never either married or divorced and is free to marry a Cohen. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:5:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:5:3) תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֵין נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים בְּמוֹעֵד. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל פִּרְיָיה וְרִבְיָיה. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עֵבֵד מָהוּ שֶׁיִּשָּׂא אִשָּׁה בְמוֹעֵד. אָמַר לֵיהּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. לִיבְטִיל. וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לְפִירְיָיה וְרִבְיָיה. וְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל שֶׁהוּא מְצוּוֶּה עַל פִּרְיָיה וְרִבְיָיה אָסוּר לוֹ לִישָּׂא אִשָּׁה בְּמוֹעֵד. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** There¹⁴² 1:7., we have stated: “One does not marry women on a holiday¹⁴³ rights..” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase¹⁴⁴ 1:7 1. 26ff. and the Babli, 8b/9a, the reason for the prohibition is a matter of disagreement among several authors.. They asked before Rebbi Yose: May a slave marry a woman on a holiday¹⁴⁵? He told them, let us hear from the following: “Shall he be alone? But the world was created only for procreation and increase!” And Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Anybody commanded to be fruitful and increase is forbidden to marry on a holiday¹⁴⁶ 1:7 80d l. 30, quoted by Tosaphot *Ḥagiga* 2b, *Giṭṭin* 41b, *s. v*. לא. Tosaphot point out that in a certain sense a male slave cannot fulfill the commandment to be fruitful because he cannot have any family relationship with his biological children.. footnotes: ¹⁴² Mishnah Mo‘ed Qaṭan ¹⁴³ The intermediate days of the Passover and Tabernacles holidays when acquisitions are permitted and in biblical law the man could acquire a wife and the woman the ketubah ¹⁴⁴ The prohibition to organize weddings on the intermediate days of a holiday is purely rabbinical, so that people should not refrain from marrying during the rest of the year in order to save money.In Mo‘ed Qaṭan ¹⁴⁵ The question is difficult to understand since the slave cannot marry as long as he is a slave but is a full Jew subject to all Jewish laws the moment he is manumitted. Maybe the question is about a slave manumitted on the holiday. ¹⁴⁶ Even if in this case the marriage has to be postponed for a few days. A slightly different version of this paragraph is in Mo‘ed Qaṭan ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:6:1) **משנה:** הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ לַגּוֹיִם אוֹ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יָצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין. אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת שְׁבוּיִים. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין סְפָרִים תְּפִילִין וּמְזוּזוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִים יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles or outside the Land, the slave gains his freedom¹⁴⁷. 259, this is connected to *Deut*. 23:16–17.). One does not ransom kidnap victims for more than the going rate¹⁴⁸ because of the public good. One does not smuggle kidnap victims out because of the public good; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, because of the welfare of the kidnap victims¹⁴⁹. One does not buy Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and *mezuzot* from Gentiles for more than their worth because of the public good¹⁵⁰. footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Since a slave is required to obey all of the biblical prohibitions imposed on Jews, a sale to a Gentile is equivalent to the slave’s removal from Jewish practice. Also, there are more commandments to be observed in the Land than abroad. In both cases, it is a rabbinic decree that the master has to buy the slave back and then formally manumit him. (In Sifry Deut ¹⁴⁸ If the kidnap victims were sold as slaves on the open market. If it were known that Jews be ready to ransom their co-religionists for any price, no Jew would be safe from kidnapping. ¹⁴⁹ The majority holds that one never tries to free kidnap victims without paying because then the robbers would put their next victims in chains and otherwise mistreat them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that one may not try to steal the kidnap victims if one cannot free all of them in the hand of a group of kidnappers, because those left behind then would be mistreated. He does not fear an adverse reaction in a larger context. ¹⁵⁰ Gentiles should not get the impression that stealing Jewish cult objects might be a particularly profitable business. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:6:2) **הלכה:** הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ לַגּוֹיִם כול׳. לְגוֹי אֲפִילוּ בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִי מְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. רַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן נוֹתֵן דָּמָיו וְהַשֵּׁינִי מְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲפִילוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. נֵימַר. אִם יָדַע רַבּוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי שְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹתְנִין אֶת דָּמָיו. וְאִם לָאו הָרִאשׁוֹן נוֹתֵן אֶת דָּמָיו וְהַשֵּׁנִי מְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי מוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדִּי פְלוֹנִי אַנְטִיוֹכֶי. יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. מִשֶּׁהוּא בְלוֹד לֹא יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. תַּנֵּי. יוֹצֵא עֶבֶד עִם רַבּוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מְכָרוֹ לְשָׁם מָכוּר. בָּא מֲחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עַל מְנָת לַחֲזוֹר כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְמָחָר לַחֲזוֹר. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲזוֹר אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לַחֲזוֹר. בָּרַח מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ רַשַׁאי לְהַחֲזִירוֹ. בָּרַח מֵאֶרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָא אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי מָרִינוֹס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה אָמַר. אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא פְלִיגִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר. בְּלָמוּד לִבְרוֹחַ לְשָׁם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אָסוּר. בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ לָמוּד לִבְרוֹחַ לְשָׁם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר. בְּיָכוֹל לַהֲבִיאוֹ מִשָּׁם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אָסוּר. בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַהֲבִיאוֹ מִשָּׁם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles,” etc. To a Gentile even in the Land. Who frees him? His original owner pays for him and the second frees him¹⁵¹ 3:18: “If somebody sells his slave to a place outside the Land he gains his freedom and the second master has to write him the bill of manumission.” The Babli, 44b, infers from the Tosephta that the sale in itself is valid, otherwise the buyer would not have the power to manumit the slave.. “Or outside the Land,” even to a Jew. Let us say that if the second owner knew¹⁵², both of them split the price¹⁵³; otherwise the first pays for him and the second frees him. “I X ben Y sold my slave Z to Antiochia”, he gains his freedom. But if he is in Lydda, he did not gain his freedom¹⁵⁴., in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: “ ‘I X ben Y sold my slave to Antiochia’, he gains his freedom; ‘to Z the Antiochian who dwells in Lydda’ he does not gain his freedom.” This is qualified in the Babli, 44b, by the statement that the Antiochian has to own an apartment in Lydda.. It was stated: A slave goes outside the Land with his master¹⁵⁵. Therefore, if he sold him there, he is sold¹⁵⁶. If he¹⁵⁷ came from outside the Land to the Land with the intention to return, one forces him to return. With the intention not to return, one does not force him to return. If he fled from outside the Land to the Land, he¹⁵⁸. 23:16,17 refers to the slave of a Gentile owner. may return him. If he fled from the Land to outside the Land, Rebbi Joshia in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, it is permigtted¹⁵⁹. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, it is permitted. Rebbi Marinos, the son of the great Rebbi Hoshaia said, it is forbidden¹⁶⁰. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he is used to flee there. But he who says, it is forbidden, if he is not used to flee there. Rebbi Yose said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he can return him from there; but he who says, it is forbidden, if he cannot return him from there¹⁶¹. footnotes: ¹⁵¹ This sentence and the next should be switched since if the slave was sold to a Gentile it is obvious that the Jewish owner has to manumit the slave; Mishnah 1:5 states that the manumission of a Jewish slave by the rules of a Gentile court is invalid. The original text probably was close to Tosephta ‘Avodah Zarah ¹⁵² That the sale was illegal by rabbinic rules. ¹⁵³ The seller has to repay only half the sale price. ¹⁵⁴ This is much clearer in the Tosephta, loc. cit ¹⁵⁵ In the Tosephta and the Babli, this is restricted to Syria. There is no indication in the Yerushalmi of any restriction on a person to take his slave with him on a trip as a valet. ¹⁵⁶ Since the slave was legally taken on the trip. The sale is only illegal if contracted in the Land. ¹⁵⁷ If a diaspora Jew comes to the Land for a visit, his slave cannot refuse to return with him. But if he came to immigrate, the slave acquires the rights of residence. A slightly garbled version is in the Tosephta. ¹⁵⁸ The owner of the slave can take him back. (Deut ¹⁵⁹ To forcibly return the slave to the Land. ¹⁶⁰ The question arises how the son can disagree with his father. ¹⁶¹ In that case, the slave gained his freedom when the owner gave up hope to recover him; cf. Note 88. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:6:3) נִיתְנֵי. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ מוּתָּר. עַד כְּדוֹן בִּגְדוֹלִים. בִּקְטַנִּים. נִיתְנֵי עִם רַבְּהוֹן. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל. הָיָה רַבּוֹ גּוֹי. רִבִּי טֶבֶלָא זְבִין עַבְדֵּיהּ וּמַתְנֵי עִם רַבְּהוֹן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק דַּהֲבָן הֲווֹן לֵיהּ עַבְדֵּיהּ עָרְקִין לִבְנוֹתְהוֹן. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אִימִּי וְאוֹרֵי לֵיהּ. אוֹנִי אָסוּר. אַנְטִרִיס שָׁרֵי. אפָּרָכוֹרֵים צְרִיכָא. אַמְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר אָדָא עָרְקַת לְקִלִּיסִיָיא. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי מָנָא וְהוֹרֵי לֵיהּ כְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אוֹנִי אָסִיר. אַנְטִרִיס שָׁרֵי. אפָּרָכוֹרֵים צְרִיכָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** There could be terms¹⁶². If he entered into terms with him¹⁶³, it is permitted. That means, with adults. With minors, the terms can be with their masters. That is, if the master was a Jew. If he was Gentile? Rebbi Tevele sold his slave and entered into terms with his master¹⁶⁴. Rebbi Isaac the goldsmith had slaves who fled to Bnoton¹⁶⁵. He came and asked¹⁶⁶ 8 (1937) 316–318, with a note by I. Ostersetzer, *Tarbiz* 9 (1938) 395–397. Rebbi Immi who instructed him that a sales contract¹⁶⁷ is forbidden, a loan for use¹⁶⁸ 5:3 (10b l.20) explicitly states that antichretic mortgages are valid and do not violate interest prohibitions. (In an earlier article, Epstein had read ἀντίδοσις “exchange”.) is permitted, a cession¹⁶⁹ is questionable. The slave girl of Rebbi Abba bar Ada fled to Cilicia. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who instructed him following Rebbi Immi: a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable. footnotes: ¹⁶² If the slave was bought on condition that he could be resold outside the Land, the deal might be valid. ¹⁶³ If the condition was stipulated with the slave, it is valid. ¹⁶⁴ This could even be a sale within the Land to a Gentile if the buyer guaranteed that the slave could continue following Jewish law, keeping the Sabbath and eating kosher. ¹⁶⁵ Name of an unidentified place, probably a corruption. As a noun, the word means “their daughters”. ¹⁶⁶ When the slaves were caught outside the Land, he asked how he could dispose of them there within the rules. The explanation of this passage follows J. N. Epstein, Tarbiz ¹⁶⁷ Greek ὠνή “sales contract, purchase”. The outright sale of the slave outside the Land is forbidden. ¹⁶⁸ Greek ἀντίχρησις “loan for use,” reading אנטיכריס for אנטריס, which is possible in such a heavily Babylonized text. An antichretic loan is a loan in which the creditor obtains the use of the mortgaged object, and the rental fee, instead of being paid to the borrower, is used to amortize the loan (cf. Taubenschlag, Note 104, p. 218, on antichretic loans of slaves.) Since the slave remains the property of the owner, there is no sale. J. N. Epstein points out that R. Immi in Baba Meṣi‘a ¹⁶⁹ Greek παραχώρησις “cession, surrender, assignment.” Rabbinic law accepts the division between possession (possessio) and ownership (dominium) found in Ptolemaic and Roman law. Parachoresis means handing over the pledge (in this case, the slave) by the debtor to the creditor for possession to be turned into ownership if the debtor fails to repay the loan. It is now stated that the sale of the slave in form of a fictitious chattel mortgage (when the owner of the slave has no intention to repay the sum he received) is of questionable character; it would be valid if the owner had the intention of repaying the loan and taking back his slave since, as antichresis shows, the (temporary) transfer of possessions without transfer of ownership is perfectly legal. Cf. Taubenschlag, pp. 172,316. (In an earlier article, Epstein had read ἐπίχειρον “wages, pay of manual labor”.) ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:6:4) אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין יוֹתֵר מִדְּמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשְּׁבוּיִין. דְּלָא יְהַוּוֹן קְטָרִינוֹן. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “One does not ransom kidnap victims for more than the going rate¹⁴⁸ because of the public good. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, because of the welfare of the kidnap victims.” That they should not be put in chains¹⁴⁹. “One does not smuggle kidnap victims out because of the public good.” footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ If the kidnap victims were sold as slaves on the open market. If it were known that Jews be ready to ransom their co-religionists for any price, no Jew would be safe from kidnapping. ¹⁴⁹ The majority holds that one never tries to free kidnap victims without paying because then the robbers would put their next victims in chains and otherwise mistreat them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that one may not try to steal the kidnap victims if one cannot free all of them in the hand of a group of kidnappers, because those left behind then would be mistreated. He does not fear an adverse reaction in a larger context. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:6:5) תַּנֵּי. גּוֹי מוֹכֵר סְפָרִים תְּפִילִין וּמְזוּזוֹת אָסוּר לִיקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ. וְהָא תַנֵּי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְגוֹי אֶחָד בְּצַיְדָּן שֶׁהָיָה מוֹכֵר תְּפִילִין וּמְזוּזוֹת. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ. מוּתָּר לִיקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָתָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲמָא בַּר חֲנִינָה. בְּגוֹי שֶׁחָזַר לְסוּרוֹ הֲוָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated: “It is prohibited to buy from a Gentile who sells Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and *mezuzot*¹⁷⁰ 3:6) permit to buy from the Gentile if the writing follows all established rules, in practice disapprove, 45b..” But was it not stated¹⁷¹ 3:7. This Tosephta is a polemic against the Yerushalmi baraita.: “It happened that a Gentile in Sidon sold phylacteries and *mezuzot*. The case came before the Sages who said that it was permitted to buy from him.” That one was a Gentile who reverted to his error¹⁷². footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ Since probably he is a fence. Babylonian sources in theory (Babli 45b, Tosephta Avodah Zarah ¹⁷¹ Babli 45b, Tosephta Avodah Zarah ¹⁷² He was a proselyte who had learned to write Jewish sacred texts. Since the status of being Jewish cannot be lost, when he reverted to Gentile ways he remained a Jew. Therefore, he is entitled to write these texts; he is not a fence. The Babli has the same explanation, 45b. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:7:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:7:1) **משנה:** הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁם רַע לֹא יַחֲזִיר מִשּׁוּם נֶדֶר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ בוֹ הָרַבִּים לֹא יַחֲזִיר וְשֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ בוֹ הָרַבִּים יַחֲזִיר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם לֹא יַחֲזִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם יַחֲזִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לֹא אָסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַיְדָּן בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי מְגָרְשָׁךְ וְגֵרְשָׁהּ וְהִתִּירוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנָּה מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation¹⁷³, he cannot take her back¹⁷⁴; because of a vow¹⁷⁵, he cannot take her back¹⁷⁴. Rebbi Jehudah says, for any vow known in public¹⁷⁶ 5:4, Note 56., he cannot take her back; not known in public, he can take her back. Rebbi Meїr says, for any vow which needs investigation by a Sage, he cannot take her back; if it does not need investigation by a Sage, he can take her back¹⁷⁷. Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other¹⁷⁸. Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah said, it happened in Sidon that one said to his wife, a *qonam*¹⁷⁹, Introduction. if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back¹⁸⁰, for the public good. footnotes: ¹⁷³ She has the reputation of an adulteress but he has no proof. ¹⁷⁴ As explained in the Halakhah, to protect the wife’s children in a subsequent marriage. This is in the public interest. ¹⁷⁵ Because of a vow she made. ¹⁷⁴ As explained in the Halakhah, to protect the wife’s children in a subsequent marriage. This is in the public interest. ¹⁷⁶ Which according to R. Jehudah cannot be dissolved; cf. Nedarim ¹⁷⁷ A vow made in error which never was binding. ¹⁷⁸ This is explained in the Halakhah. ¹⁷⁹ He forbade certain things on himself if he did not fulfill the conditions he imposed on himself; cf. Tractate Nedarim ¹⁸⁰ This is unproblematic since he fulfilled his vow. The case is quoted only to show that the prohibition to take her back is due only to a vow of hers, not his. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:7:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:7:2) **הלכה:** הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁם רַע כול׳. וְתַנֵּי. מִפְּנֵי מַה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים. הַמּוֹצִיא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁם רַע לֹא יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁם רַע וְהָלְכָה וְנִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בָנִים. לְאַחַר זְמָן נִמְצְאוּ הַדְּבָרִים בְּדָאִים. אָמַר. אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים בְּדָאִים אִילּוּ הָיָה אָדָם נוֹתֵן לִי בְאִשְׁתִּי מֵאָה מְנָה לֹא הָיִיתִי מְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְנִמְצָא גֵּט בָּטֵל וּבָנֶיהָ מַמְזֵירִין. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם הוּא מְגָרְשָׁהּ שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ אַף הוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ גֵּט שָׁלֵם מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation,” etc. And it was stated¹⁸¹: “Why did the Sages say that he who divorces his wife because of bad reputation cannot take her back¹⁸² only if he can show probable cause in court. If he divorces her and pays the *ketubah*, it is not classified as “divorce because of bad reputation”.? For if he divorced his wife because of bad reputation, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the accusations were baseless and he said, if I had known that the accusations were baseless, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated¹⁸³. 24:1 make the divorce dependent on the husband’s will, if later he retracts that will, he retroactively invalidates the divorce. This is also accepted in the Babli; in modern practice the husband has to agree that any later change of heart must be disregarded. and her children bastards. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” footnotes: ¹⁸¹ Babli 46a, Tosephta 3:5. ¹⁸² The court will not let him take her back. While a divorce as a matter of principle is a private affair between husband and wife and needs only two witnesses for the document and two for the delivery, a divorce because of probable cause of adultery is a public affair. The husband can divorce his wife without paying her ketubah ¹⁸³ Since Deut ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:7:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:7:3) תַּנֵּי. מִפְּנֵי מַה אָמְרוּ. הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵדֶר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵדֶר וְהָלְכָה וְנִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְנִמְצָא נֵדֶר בָּטֵל. אָמַר. אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהָיָה הַנֵּדֶר בָּטֵל אִילּוּ הָיָה אָדָם נוֹתֵן לִי בְאִשְׁתִּי מֵאָה מְנָה לֹא הָיִיתִי מְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְנִמְצָא גֵּט בָּטֵל וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם הוּא מְגָרְשָׁהּ שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ אַף הוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ גֵּט שָׁלֵם מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁעִילָּה הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְגֵרְשָׁהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם הָיָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁעִילָּה הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְגֵרְשָׁהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ בוֹ רַבִּים הָיָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. לֹא אָסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁאֲפִילוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁהַזָּקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֵּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. מִפְּנֵי מַה אָסְרוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. מִפְּנֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated¹⁸⁴: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife because of a vow cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of a vow, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the vow was void and he said, if I had known that the vow was void, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage¹⁸⁵ Chapters 10–11).! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which was not public knowledge¹⁸⁶! ¹⁸⁷ 7:9, explained there in Notes 117,118.“Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other.” The law should be that he can take her back even if it was a vow which needs investigation by a Sage, for the Elder uproots the vow. Why did they forbid a vow which needs investigation by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage¹⁸⁸. footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ Tosephta 3:5. ¹⁸⁵ The only invalid vows are those which do not need an Elder to be nullified. Therefore, the husband could have annulled the vow (Nedarim ¹⁸⁶ Also for a public vow, the situation described in the Tosephta cannot arise. ¹⁸⁷ This is quoted in Ketubot ¹⁸⁸ In which case the situation described in the Tosephta could arise. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:8:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:8:1) **משנה:** הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אַיְילוֹנִית רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא יַחֲזִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמרִים יַחֲזִיר. נִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְהָיוּ לָהּ בָנִים מִמֶּנּוּ וְהִיא תוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לָהּ שְׁתִיקוּתֵיךְ יָפָה מִדִּיבּוּרֵיךְ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody divorces his wife because she is a she-ram¹⁸⁹ was entered into in error. Cf. *Yebamot* 1:1, Note 65; *Ketubot* 7:7, Note 77. R. Jehudah holds that a she-ram should not be married, Mishnah *Yebamot* 6:5., Rebbi Jehudah says, he cannot take her back, but the Sages say, he may take her back. If she was married to another man, had children by him, and requests her *ketubah*, Rebbi Jehudah says, he tells her: Your silence would be better than your talking¹⁹⁰ and it turns out that she is not infertile, the husband tells her that if she goes to court, he will declare that he would never have divorced her, had he known that she was not infertile (or, according to Rashi, that he would have to pay the *ketubah*), and turn her children from the second husband into bastards.. footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ A woman lacking secondary female sex characteristics; she is presumed to be infertile. If she was married when very young and then failed to develop, the husband can claim the the marriage and his obligation of ketubah ¹⁹⁰ This gives R. Jehudah’s rationale. If she was divorced without payment of the sum promised her in the ketubah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:8:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:8:2) **הלכה:** הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אַיְילוֹנִית כול׳. תַּנֵּי. מִפְּנֵי מַה אָמְרוּ. הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אַיְילוֹנִית לֹא יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אַיְילוֹנִית וְהָלְכָה וְנִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בָּנִים. וְאָמַר. אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִשְׁתִּי יוֹלֶדֶת אִילּוּ הָיָה אָדָם נוֹתֵן לִי בְאִשְׁתִּי מֵאָה מְנָה לֹא הָיִיתִי מְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְנִמְצָא גֵּט בָּטֵל וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם הוּא מְגָרְשָׁהּ וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ אַף הוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ גֵּט שָׁלֵם מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁעִילָּה הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְגֵרְשָׁהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי כַּמָּה נָשִׁים נְשׂוּאִין אַיְילוֹנִיּוֹת וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן נַחַת רוּחַ מֵהֶן מְקַיְימִין אוֹתָן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** It was stated¹⁸⁴: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife as a she-ram cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife as a she-ram, when she went, married another man, and bore him children, and he said, if I had known that she can have children, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since there are women she-rams who are married and since [their husbands] are satisfied with them they keep them¹⁹¹ or let him take her back.. footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ Tosephta 3:5. ¹⁹¹ He rejects the Mishnah and its implications. If the court would tell him that he was lying when he claimed that he was divorcing her because of infertility, it could force him to pay the ketubah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:8:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:8:3) רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְאַתְּ אָמַר כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָָּאן רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְתַנֵּי כֵן מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אוֹמֵר לָהּ. שְׁתִיקוּתֵיךְ יָפָה מִדִּיבּוּרֵיךְ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Rebbi Jehudah says, he cannot take her back,” and you say so¹⁹²? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no Rebbi Jehudah but Rebbi Meїr¹⁹³. It was stated thus in Rebbi Meїr’s name: Your silence would be better than your talking. footnotes: ¹⁹² Since R. Jehudah prohibits him to take her back and he knows that the divorce is irrevocable, how can he then claim that he would not have divorced her? ¹⁹³ Who is represented by the “Sages” in the Mishnah. The Babli, 46b, disagrees and holds that for R. Meїr the bill of divorce is valid and immune from attack by the first husband unless the bill of divorce was delivered with the explicit declaration that it be valid if and only if she is a sterile she-ram. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:9:1) **משנה:** הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו לַגּוֹיִם אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַבָּנִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ לַגּוֹי וְחָזַר וּלְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַלּוֹקֵחַ מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרִים מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody sells himself and his children to Gentiles¹⁹⁴, one does not buy him back¹⁹⁵, but one buys his children back after their father’s death. If somebody sold his field¹⁹⁶ to a Gentile and then a Jew bought it back from him¹⁹⁷, the buyer brings first fruits because of the public good¹⁹⁸. footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ As slaves. ¹⁹⁵ With public money. ¹⁹⁶ In the Land of Israel. ¹⁹⁷ During the growing season, when the produce already was exempt from the obligation of First Fruits as Gentile property. ¹⁹⁸ In order to encourage people to buy agricultural properties in the Land. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:9:2) **הלכה:** הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו לַגּוֹיִם כול׳. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁמָּכַר עַצְמוֹ וְשִׁנָּה. אֲבָל אִם מָכַר עַצְמוֹ פַעַם אַחַת פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם מָכַר עַצְמוֹ לְלוּדִים אֲפִילוּ פַעַם אַחַת אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁמָּכַר אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְלוּדִים. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אָמַר. מַה נַעֲשֶה מִפְּנֵי חַיָיו עָשָׂה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If somebody sells himself and his children to Gentiles,” etc. The Mishnah, if he sold himself repeatedly. But if he sold himself once, one buys him back¹⁹⁹, but if he sold himself to the games²⁰⁰, one does not buy him back. There was a case of one who sold himself to the games; the case came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said, what can we do? He did it for his livelihood²⁰¹. footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ The Babli agrees, 46b. ²⁰⁰ As a gladiator. ²⁰¹ Otherwise he would have starved. He agreed to buy him back with money given for charity. In the Babli, 47a, this scenario is restricted to the case of a gladiator who continues to eat only kosher. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:9:3) מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אֵין קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעֲשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי יוּדָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִין. יֵשׁ קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעֲשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחוּזָּה. הֵקִישׁ עֲבָדִים לַאֲחוּזָה. מַה עֲבָדִים אַתֶּם קוֹנִין מֵהֶן וְאֵין הֵם קוֹנִין מִכֶּם. אַף אֲחוּזָה אַתֶּם קוֹנִין מֵהֶם וְהֵם אֵינָם קוֹנִין מִכֶּם. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִיתוּת. לְחוֹלְטָנוּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כָּל גַּמְרָא אָמְרָה דְּהִיא מְסַייעָה לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לֹא תִימָּכֵר. הָא אִם נִמְכְּרָה חֲלוּטָה הִיא. רִבִּי הוּנָא דְּצִיפּוֹרִי אָמַר. הִנְהִיג רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְצִיפּוֹרִין כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²⁰² 5:9, explained there in Notes 104–109. Variants are denoted by **ד**. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (*Lev*. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa²⁰³, the following supports Rebbi Meїr (*Lev*. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself²⁰³ supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon. footnotes: ²⁰² This is from Demay ²⁰³ This is the correct reading in ד. ²⁰³ This is the correct reading in ד. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:9:4) רִבִּי זְעוּרָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אֵין קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעוֹ מִן הַמַּעֲשְׂרוֹת. מוֹדֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ קִנְיָין נְכָסִים. מָהוּ קִנְיָין נְכָסִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. וְהָתַנִּינָן. הַלּוֹקֵחַ מֵבִיא בִּכּוּרִים מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְיָבִיא בִּיכּוּרִים דְּבַר תוֹרָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meїr said that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes, he agrees that he has property rights. What are property rights? Rebbi Abba said, the usufruct²⁰⁴; as we have stated: “the buyer brings First Fruits because of the public good,” otherwise he could have brought First Fruits by the word of the Torah²⁰⁵. footnotes: ²⁰⁴ All the yield rightfully belongs to the Gentile; the land is not ownerless and taking anything from there would be theft. ²⁰⁵ If the fruits were not the Gentile’s, his possession could not have freed the field from the biblical obligation of First Fruits. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:9:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/4:9:5) קָנָה שָׂדֶה בַיּוֹבֵל. רִבִּי אִילָא אָמַר. קָנָה קַרְקַע. אַבָּא בַּר מָמָל אָמַר. לֹא קָנָה קַרְקַע. מָתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מָמָל לְרִבִּי אִילָא. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר. קָנָה קַרְקַע. יַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה וְשָׁב לַאֲחוּזָּתוֹ. בְּעֵיינוֹ. אַייתֵי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא שְׁמוּעָתָא קֳדָמֵיהוֹן וְלֹא יָדַע דְּעוֹד אִינּוּן פְּלִיגין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא. מַה פְלִיגִין. בַּקִּרְיָיה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If somebody bought a field during a Jubilee period²⁰⁶ 1:1 Note 7, 10:3 Notes 83–88.. Rebbi Ila said, he acquired ownership of the ground²⁰⁷, Abba bar Mamal said, he did not acquire ownership of the ground. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to Rebbi Ila: In your opinion, since you say that he acquired ownership of the ground, why can he not dig cisterns, ditches, and caves²⁰⁸ 5(7); also *Parašah* 4(6) where it is stated that cisterns, ditches, and caves follow the rules of houses, which sometimes are not returned in the Jubilee year, but not those of agricultural land, which always is returned. The buyer/lessee has no right to change the legal status of the land; this seems to indicate that he has no ownership.? He said to him, the Torah said²⁰⁹. 25:28., “he shall return to his inheritance,” as it was. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa brought this topic before them and did not know that they still disagreed: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not bring and recite²¹⁰. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that he brings²¹¹. 26:10) “I brought the First Fruits of the land which You gave me, o Eternal”; cf. Mishnah *Bikkurim* 1:2,6.. Where do they disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he brings but does not recite. footnotes: ²⁰⁶ This discussion is purely theoretical since the institution of the Jubilee was abolished with the exile of the Ten Tribes, not to be re-instated; cf. Note 66; Ševi‘it ²⁰⁷ A sale of ancestral agricultural land in a Jubilee period is really a long-term lease since the land returns to the owner in the Jubilee year. The buyer certainly acquires possession; the question is whether he also acquires ownership (cf. Note 169). ²⁰⁸ The prohibition to alienate agricultural lands from their status is not found otherwise in either one of the Talmudim There may be a hint of this in Sifra Behar, Pereq ²⁰⁹ Lev ²¹⁰ In the Babli, 47b/48a, it is clearly stated that R. Joḥanan holds that possession is like ownership, R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that possession and ownership are distinct. In this, practice of the Babli strictly follows R. Simeon ben Laqish. ²¹¹ Possession of the land is sufficient for the property to be subject to the duty of first fruits but not enough for the farmer to declare (Deut