## Jerusalem Talmud Gittin Chapter 8

###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:1:1)

**משנה:** הַזּוֹרֵק גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ אוֹ בְתוֹךְ חֲצֵירָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. זְרָקוֹ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ בְתוֹךְ חֲצֵירוֹ אֶפִילוּ הוּא עִמָּהּ בַּמִּיטָּה אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. לְתוֹךְ חֵיקָהּ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קָלָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in her own house or her own courtyard, she is divorced¹. 24:1 requires the bill of divorce to be delivered “into her hand”. Legally, “hand” means “possession” (as in Latin and many other languages). Since anything lying in somebody’s real estate is in his possession, delivery of the bill into the wife’s real estate is legal delivery.. If he threw it to her inside his house or his courtyard, even if he was together with her in a bed, she is not divorced². Into her bosom or her wool basket³, she is divorced².

footnotes:
¹ The verse Deut
² If the wife is in his real estate, only delivery into her hand or her personal belongings (the folds of her garment or her wool basket) is legal delivery.
³ Greek κάλαθος “wicker-basket”, e. g., basket for wool.
² If the wife is in his real estate, only delivery into her hand or her personal belongings (the folds of her garment or her wool basket) is legal delivery.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַזּוֹרֵק גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. וְכָתַב וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְיָדָהּ. בְּגִינָּתָהּ בַּחֲצֵירָהּ מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וְנָתַן. וְנָתַן. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וַיִקַּח אֶת כָּל אַרְצוֹ מִיָּדוֹ וְעַד אַרְנֹן. וְכִי מִיָּדוֹ לָקַח. אֶלָּא מָהוּ מִיָּדוֹ. מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. “He shall write,” “he shall deliver into her hand.” Not only into her hand; from where also into her garden or into her courtyard? The verse says “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.”⁴. 24:1 and 24:3, he concludes that any legal delivery is acceptable. Is this following Rebbi Ismael? It is following Rebbi Aqiba. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael⁵. 21:26 which notes that Siḥon the Amorite “took all the land from the Moabite king’s hand”. Since land cannot be grasped in one’s hand, “hand” must mean “possession”. (A hint of this argument is in *Sifry Deut*. 269. The Babli, *Baba Meṣi‘a* 56b, following only R. Aqiba, accepts the interpretation of “hand” as “possession” only in extraordinary cases.), “he took all his land from his hand, up to the Arnon.” Did he take it out of his hand? What means “from his hand”? From his possession.

footnotes:
⁴ A shortened version of this argument is in the Babli, 77b. The argument follows R. Aqiba, who derives rules from every word which could be considered not absolutely necessary. Since “he shall deliver” is mentioned both in Deut
⁵ R. Ismael holds that “the Torah speaks in everybody’s language.” Therefore, if “hand” is to be interpreted as “possession”, a verse has to be found in which this sense is documented. This is Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:1:3)

וְגִינָּתָהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ אֵינָן מְשׁוּעֲבָדִין לָאִישׁ לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. עַד שֶיִּכְתּוֹב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. אֲפִילוּ לא כָתַב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. וְאַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי כְרַבָּנִין וּדְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי כְרַבָּנִין. דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיַּד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ הוּא זָכָה גִיטּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וְגִינָּתָהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהֵן מְשׁוּעֲבָדִין לָאִישׁ לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. עַד שֶיִּכְתּוֹב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּנִין. הוּא יַד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ וְהוּא זָכָה גִיטָהּ. וּדְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְיַד בַּעֲלָהּ הִוא זָכְתָה גִיטָּהּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְגִינָּתָהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מְשׁוּעֲבָדִין לָאִישׁ לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת אֲפִילוּ לא כָתַב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. נָפְלוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים וְלָהּ. אֲפִילוּ כָתַב כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא כָתַב. הָיָה נָשׂוּי אֶת בַּת אָחִיו. אֲפִילוּ כָתַב כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא כָתַב. נָתַן לָהּ אַחֵר מַתָּנָה. וְאָמַר לָהּ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַעֲלָהּ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁאַתְּ נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּפִיךְ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא כָתַב לָהּ כְּמִי שֶׁכָּתַב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct⁶ subject to his obligation to restitute the full value at the termination of the marriage. Property coming to the wife during the marriage is *paraphernalia* property about which the husband assumes the duty of administration and from which he has the usufruct. In any case, it is impossible to say that (in the absence of a contract of separation of properties) the wife’s properties were in her actual possession during her marriage. Cf. *Yebamot* 7:1, Note 1.? Rebbi Joshua⁷.*v*. מה, 77b): R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties⁸ 9:1 (Notes 1–4) about the different formulations of separation of properties..” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.⁹” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr¹⁰ 23b), the attributions are switched: R. Meїr holds that neither slave nor wife have powers of acquisition separate from husband or master, and the rabbis disagree.. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand¹¹. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand¹²? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband¹³, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write¹⁴. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote¹⁵ 11:8 (Notes 69,70)..

footnotes:
⁶ In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the wife’s dowry, brought into the marriage, becomes the husband’s property as mortmain
⁷ No R. Joshua is known among Amoraïm. One has to read with Tosaphot (s
⁸ Cf. Mishnah Ketubot
⁹ In the words of the Babli, 77a: In a divorce, her bill of divorce and her entering into full possession of her properties are simultaneous. Even if the husband had the administration of the properties when he dispatched the bill of divorce, the moment the latter landed on his wife’s property he has lost the administration, and all property rights revert to his ex-wife.
¹⁰ In the Babli (Qiddušin
¹¹ While anything the slave acquires automatically becomes his master’s property, the master by delivering the bill of manumission empowers the slave to own property, in particular, himself.
¹² This is a rhetorical question; the answer was already given, cf. Note 11.
¹³ The husband possibly is the administrator but not the owner.
¹⁴ The right to joint property can be renounced only by transfer of property rights, not by a disclaimer.
¹⁵ If the husband never had any rights of administration, he does not have to disclaim them. It is a recognized way of giving property to one’s daughter to shield it from the son-in-law; Mishnah Nedarim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:1:4)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. זְרָקוֹ לָהּ בְּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן מָהוּ. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. צְרִיכָה לְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רַב וְרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי זְעִירָה רַב חִיָיה בַר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה וּפְלִיג. אֵימָתִי אָמְרוּ. הַמְטַלְטְלִין נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה. בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר זָכָה. לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹ עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ וְיוֹצֵא חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים. בִּרְשׁוּת זֶה שֶׁהָיוּ מוּפְקָדִין אֶצְלוֹ לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיְּזַכּוּהוּ בָהֶן אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule¹⁶? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. ¹⁷ 1:4 (60b 1. 32). The text of the following Tosephta (attributed to the Elder R. Ḥiyya) is slightly garbled here; it is translated following the text of *Qiddušin* (and its parallels in Babli *Baba batra* 85a, Tosephta *Baba batra*5:2). Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them¹⁸ 1:4 states that “movables can only be acquired by being moved” (unless they are acquired together with real estate.) It is a peculiarity of rabbinic law (for which no biblical tradition is claimed) that transfer of money does not transfer ownership of the commodity bought. Delivery is effected and responsibility for the merchandise is transferred from the seller to the buyer uniquely by an act of acquisition by the buyer, which in theory should be actual moving of the merchandise.. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it¹⁹. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited²⁰ he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.²¹85a, recognizes only R. Ḥiyya’s position.”

footnotes:
¹⁶ If the bill of divorce is deposited in a private domain which belongs neither to the husband nor to the wife, can the wife legally acquire the document by lifting it up or drawing it close to her so that it could be lifted up. In the public domain this is possible as explained in Mishnah 2.
¹⁷ This is also referred to in Qiddušin
¹⁸ Mishnah Qiddušin
¹⁹ Since “a person’s courtyard acquires for him” (cf. Note 1.)
²⁰ The merchandise was deposited with a third person. Then the owner of the property may grant the buyer the right (with or without payment) to use his property for the acquisition. Without an explicit grant, the merchandise can be acquired only by actual removal from the premises.
²¹ For Rav, a divorce document can be delivered on another person’s property only by direct delivery. For R. Ḥiyya, the delivery can be indirect as long as no party has an interest in the property. The Babli, Baba batra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:1:5)

עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. לֹא עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לִזְכוֹת בְּקָלָתָהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה קָלָתָהּ שֶׁלְּזָהָב. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לֹא עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לִזְכוֹת בְּקָלָתָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וּבִלְבַד בְּמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּבִלְבַד בְּמִשְׁתַּמֶּשֶׁת בָּהּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בִּקְשׁוּרָה לָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּבְמַגְבָּהַת מַחְמָתָהּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיֵה וּמְסַיֵּיעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲפִילוּ זְרָקוֹ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּלוֹשׁ שֶׁלָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ulla bar Ismael said, he never thought to have a right to her wool basket²². Think of it, if her wool basket was of gold? Certainly he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it is being used²³. Rebbi Yose said, only if she is using it at that moment²⁴. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if it is tied to her; Rebbi Yose said, if she lifts it for her purpose²⁵. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if he threw it into her *maloš*²⁶ is unexplained; the hypothetical meaning “baking trough” from לוש is adopted by the classical commentaries. {Perhaps explain as Greek μαλλός, ὁ “flock of wool, tress”, as contents of her κάλαθος (Note 3) (E. G.). In Galilean speech, no difference existed between שׁ, שׂ and ס.} she is divorced.

footnotes:
²² He explains why the wife is divorced if the husband throws the bill of divorce into her wool basket in his house. According to the Tosephta quoted in the preceding paragraph, the wife should not be able to acquire anything on the husband’s premises without bodily removing it from the premises. It is now stated that this excludes the wife’s personal things.
²³ If she is using the wool basket at the moment, it is part of her outfit. If the husband puts the bill of divorce into one of her bags which is not being used, it is no delivery.
²⁴ R. Yose only makes R. Joḥanan’s statement clear.
²⁵ Similar statements of the parties involved are in the Babli, 78a.
²⁶ This hapax


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:2:1)

**משנה:** אָמַר לָהּ כִּינְסִי שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה אוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאַתּוּ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו קוֹרְאָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִיטָּהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ הֵא גִיטֵּיךְ. נָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁינָה נֵיעוֹרָה קוֹרְאָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִיטָּהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ הֵא גִיטֵּיךְ. הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ קָרוֹב לָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת קָרוֹב לוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If he said to her, “take this bond,” or she found it behind his back, she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If he put it into her hand while she was asleep, after she awoke she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If she was standing in the public domain when he threw it to her and it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:2:2)

**הלכה:** אָמַר לָהּ כִּינְסִי שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. הֵא גִיטֵּיךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If he said to her, ‘take this bond,’ ” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan says, this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon, since Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon says it never is a bill of divorce unless he says at the moment of delivery: “this is your bill of divorce.²⁷. 269, the opinion of R. Eleazar ben Simeon is quoted anonymously and referred to the verse *Deut*. 24:1 about the bill of divorce “… hands it over to her and sends her out of his house;” meaning that handing the bill to his wife and making it clear that she is divorced must be simultaneous.”

footnotes:
²⁷ The Babli (78a, Tosephta 6:1), quotes a disagreement between Rebbi, who accepts the husband’s declaration even after delivery of the bill, and R. Eleazar ben Simeon, who requires a repeat delivery if the declaration was not made at the moment of delivery. In Sifry Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:2:3)

כַּמָּה הוּא קָרוֹב. רַב אָמַר. אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אִלַאי הַיּוֹרֵשׁ. אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כְּפִישׁוּט יָדַיִים. וְתַנִּינָן. בְּפִישׁוּט יָדַיִם. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. בְּפִישׁוּט יָדַיִם. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר אָכֵן. כָּאן לַהֲלָכָה כָּאן לְמַעֲשֶׂה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב לָזֶה מִלְּזוֹ וּבָא הַכֶּלֶב וּנְטָלוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. שְׁמוּאֵל כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר וּפְלִיג. הַמְחָוּוָר בְּכוּלָּן עַד שֶׁיִתְּנֶנָּה לְתוֹךְ יָדָהּ. הָיָה פוֹשֵׁט יָדַיִים בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קָרוֹב לָהּ מִלּוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. לוֹ מִלָּהּ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. אַבָּא בַּר רַב יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. כָּל הֵן דְּתַנִּינָן מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. מְזוֹנוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How close is “near”²⁸? Rav said, four cubits²⁹ 3:9, Note 120.. Rebbi Ilai the heir said, four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Stretching out hands, and we have stated: “stretching out hands.³⁰” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah³¹, in the name of Rav: Stretching out hands. The argument of Rav is inverted; there, he says four cubits and here he says so? There in theory³², here in practice³³. “Rebbi Eleazar stated: Even if it was closer to her than to him but a dog came and took it away, she is not divorced.³⁴” Samuel agrees with Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees. The clearest way is that he puts it into her hand. If there was room for stretching out hands between him and her, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [states]: If it was closer to her than to him she is divorced³⁵, closer to him than to her she is not divorced, half and half she is divorced and not divorced. Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: In all cases in which we have stated “divorced and not divorced”, support is on him³⁶.

footnotes:
²⁸ This starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah.
²⁹ A person standing in the public domain acquires anything movable that is within a circle of four cubits (about 2.2 m) of him if (1) it is his intent to acquire and (2) no other person is present in that circle; cf. Yebamot
³⁰ The bill of divorce is legally delivered only if the wife can pick it up by stretching out her hands without moving her feet. (It seems that this includes the possibility that she has to kneel down to reach the document.)
³¹ He is Rav’s colleague who in the Babli is called Rav Jeremiah.
³² The principle explained in Note 29 is generally accepted in money matters. For example, if one finds something in the street, he can claim it for himself and sue anybody who would snatch it away from him if the two conditions of acquisition are met. The Babli, 79a/b, goes to great lengths to uphold the principle; its arguments are irrelevant for the understanding of the Yerushalmi.
³³ In practice, a divorce is definitive only if the document was picked up by the wife. The Babli emphatically agrees in the names of Samuel and Rav Ashi, 79b.
³⁴ Tosephta 6:1. The sources are divided on whether to read Eliezer or Eleazar. In the Tosephta, R. Eleazar disagrees with the restriction of the distance to four cubits; this is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi. The corresponding text in the Babli, 79b, is noncommittal in the matter.
³⁵ Even if he was standing within 4 cubits of her when he threw the bill to her, which would prevent her from acquiring ownerless property.
³⁶ Since she cannot remarry unless she receives a new, clean bill of divorce, for all consequences in civil law she remains married.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:1)

**משנה:** וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַקִּידּוּשִׁין וּלְעִנְיָין הַחוֹב. אָמַר לוֹ זְרוֹק לִי חוֹבִי וּזְרָקוֹ לוֹ קָרוֹב לַמַּלְוֶה זָכָה הַלּוֹוֶה קָרוֹב לַלּוֹוֶה הַלּוֹוֶה חַיָיב. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה שְׁנֵיהֶן יַחֲלוֹקוּ. הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הַגַּג וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַאֲוֵיר הַגַּג הָרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. הוּא מִלְּמַעֲלָן וְהִיא מִלְּמַטָּן וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא מֵרְשׁוּת הַגַּג נִמְחַק אוֹ נִשְׂרַף הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The same applies for preliminary marriages³⁷ 3:9, Note 120. and for [liquidation of] debts. If he³⁸ said to him, throw to me³⁹ what you owe me and he threw it close to the lender⁴⁰, the borrower is acquitted, close to the borrower, the borrower remains obligated, in the middle both of them must share it⁴¹. If she was standing on top of her roof and he threw it to her⁴², as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace⁴³ she is divorced. If he was on top and she below⁴⁴, once it left the domain of the roof she is divorced even if it was blotted out or burned.

footnotes:
³⁷ Cf. Mishnah Yebamot
³⁸ The creditor (who is explicitly mentioned in most Mishnah and Babli mss.)
³⁹ In the public domain.
⁴⁰ The borrower threw it in the public domain close to the lender. The borrower is free even if the creditor is unable to pick up the money.
⁴¹ If the money is lost, the borrower and the creditor each have to cover half the loss.
⁴² The flat roof has the same standing as a courtyard; delivery to the roof is legal delivery (Mishnah 1).
⁴³ Even if the wife never could pick it up since, as explained in the next sentence, it might have landed in a puddle and become illegible or landed in a fire and be destroyed.
⁴⁴ In her own domain.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:2)

**הלכה:** וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַקִּידּוּשִׁין כול׳. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם אַבָּא כֹהֵן בַּר דָּלָא אם זָכָה בִּמְצִיאָה בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַה טַעַם. הִנֵּה בְּעוֹנְיִי הֲכִינוֹתִי לְבֵית יי זָהָב כִּכָּרִים מֵאָה אֶלֶף וְכֶסֶף אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים כִּכָּרִים וְלַנְּחוֹשֶׁת וְלַבַּרְזֶל אֵין מִשְׁקָל כִּי לָרוֹב הֲכִינוֹתִי וְעֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים הֲכִינוֹתִי וַעֲלֵיהֶם תּוֹסִיף.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The same applies for preliminary marriages”, etc. ⁴⁶ 4:2, Notes 30–58. (Variant readings **פ**). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself. What is the reason? (*1Chr*. 22:14) “Look, in my poverty I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 *kikkar* of gold, 1’000’000 *kikkar* of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much; I prepared wood and stones, and you should add to them.”

footnotes:
⁴⁶ The following is from Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָּעִי. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עָשִׁיר הוּא. וְאִם חוּץ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת יֵשׁ אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. קִיַימְּנוּהָ בְּמַקְדִּישׁ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his? We confirmed it if he dedicated it piece by piece.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. מַהוּ בְּעוֹנְיִי. שֶׁאֵין עֲשִׁירוּת בִּפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. דָּבָר אַחֵר. הִנֵּה בְעוֹנְיִי. שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַנֶּה וּמַקְדִּישׁ סְעוּדָתוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abun said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: בְּעוֹנְיִי “in my deprivation,” because he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:5)

הָתִיב רב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִּי קוֹמֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. וְהָתַנִּינָן. רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ. זֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָהּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר. יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְהָתַנִּינָן. נָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ פָרַס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ הֵימֶינָּהּ. עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְהָא תַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְבַּתְּשִׁין עַל הָעוֹמֶר וּבָא אַחֵר וַחֲטָפוֹ. זֶה שֶּׁחֲטָפוֹ זָכָה בּוֹ. עוֹד הֵם בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ. יִזְכּוּ לָנוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah *Baba Meẓi‘a* 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: (Tosephta *Peah* 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another person came and grabbed it from before them, the one who grabbed is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, they did not say that our four cubits should acquire it for us.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:6)

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זוֹ בְגִיטִּין מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנָה. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרוּבָּהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה אִם מְצִיאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה בָּהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַתָּנָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. רוּבָּהּ דְּרֵישּׁ לָקִישׁ. מַה אִם מַתָּנָה שֶׁאִם זָכָה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה מִדַּעַת אַחֵר. מְצִיאָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply *a fortiori* to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which could only be acquired within four cubits by the knowledge of another person, should this not *a fortiori* apply to a find?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:7)

הָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הוּא גִּיטִּין הוּא קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַחוֹב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לוֹ. זוֹרְקֵיהוּ לַיָּם וִיהֵא מָחוּל לָךְ. מָחוּל לוֹ. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב לְלוֶֹה זָכָה הַלּוֶֹה. וְתַנִּינָן. קָרוֹב לַלּוֹוֶה הַלּוֹוֶה חַיָיב. שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לוֹ. זוֹרְקֵיהוּ עַד שֶׁיִיכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. וַאֲדַיִין לֹא נִכְנַס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין כָּל אִילֵּין מְתִיבָתָא דַּהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מֵשִּׁיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְרֵישּׁ לָקִישׁ מֵשִׁיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל מִינַייהוּ פָּתַר לָהּ כְּאִילֵּין פִּתְרָיָיתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, but it did not yet enter his domain. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:8)

רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. נִשְׂכָר הַלִּבֶּלָּר שֵׁינִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abin in the name of Ḥizqiah: The second scribe earns money⁴⁷.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ Even though the Mishnah stated that the woman is divorced if the bill reached the airspace of her property, the practice explained in Note 33 forces the parties to have a second document written since otherwise the woman could not remarry and, consequently, the husband could not escape his obligation to support her. {The corrector added a word: נשכר הלבלר שיני שנו “they taught that the second scribe earns money”. The attempts of the classical commentators to replace שיני by שנו are most unconvincing.}


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:3:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:3:9)

אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַתְנִיתָא בְּגַג שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲקֶה וְהוּא שֶׁיָּרַד לַאֲוֵיר מַעֲקֶה. וְשֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַעֲקֶה וְהוּא שֶׁיָּרַד לַאֲוֵיר שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לַגַּג. שֶׁכָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לַגַּג כַּגַּג הֵן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי בָּא בַּר הַמְנוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב אָדָא בַּר אֲחַוָוה. לְעִנְיָין שַׁבָּת. שֶׁכָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לִמְחִיצָה כִּמְחִיצָה הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. דְּלָא דַמְיָא. גִיטִּין מִלְּמַעֲלָן וְשַׁבָּת מִלְּמַטָּן. גִּיטִּין אֲפִילוּ לֹא נַח. שַׁבָּת עַד שֶׁיָּנוּחַ. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּרַד לַאֲוֵיר מְחִיצוֹת. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי עֲבַד מְחִיצָה כְמַמָּשׁוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא הָכָא דְגִיטִּין. וְיָתִיבִינֵיהּ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. מְקוּרָה. וְאַתְּ אוֹמֶרֶת. אֵינָהּ מְקוּרָה. מַה בֵין גִּיטִּין וּמַה בֵין שַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. בַּשַׁבָּת כְּתִיב לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה. נַעֲשֵׂית הִיא מֵאֵילֶיהָ. בְּרַם הָכָא וְנָתַן בְיָדָהּ. בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet⁴⁸. 22:8)., or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof⁴⁹ 97a, *Erubin* 16b.] This explanation is also quoted in *Erubin* 10 (26b 1. 39).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition⁵⁰. Rebbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the below⁵¹. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest⁵², for the Sabbath only if it rested⁵³ 1:1). If any of the three stages is missing, the biblical law was not violated. Therefore, if a document was moved from one domain to another (as from the husband’s courtyard to the wife’s roof) and burned while still flying, it was delivered as a bill of divorce but not moved by the laws of the Sabbath. (Cf. *Kilaim* 1:9, Note 188).. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions⁵⁴. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up⁵⁵ 1:1 2c 1. 63, 11:1 12c 1. 59; Babli 4a, 5a, *Giṭṭin* 79a).? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion⁵⁶. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed?⁵⁷ 11:1: “If somebody throws an object from a private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to a private domain, he is guilty. From a private to a private domain across the public domain, R. Aqiba declares him guilty but the Sages declare him not prosecutable.” It is then explained that throwing from the public to a private domain is prosecutable only if the object came to rest. On that it is noted that Rebbi does not require it to come to rest (only to be received within the walls), but R. Abba bar Huna in the name of Rav said that “Rebbi did only find him guilty if the private domain was roofed.” It is noted there that R. Joḥanan objected to the latter statement, which explains that no answer is given to the question raised. What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically⁵⁸. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ The Mishnah in which the bill of divorce is considered as delivered if it arrived at the wife’s roof must consider a roof shielded from the wind by a parapet (which by biblical standard must be at least 10 handbreadths high; Deut
⁴⁹ Any opening which is less than 3 handbreadths wide can be disregarded. [In the terminology of the Babli, this is called לְבוּד “glued (to the wall or the ground)”, Šabbat
⁵⁰ It is forbidden on the Sabbath to move anything from a private (enclosed) domain to the public domain. The corresponding rules have nothing to do with property rights.
⁵¹ The bill of divorce is delivered as soon as it enters the roof space defined by the parapet from the top; the rules of “gluing” a hanging wall to the ground refer to the three handbreadths closest to the ground.
⁵² As the Mishnah explains, even if the bill was burned in a fire on the top, the delivery is valid.
⁵³ In the rules of the Sabbath, moving an object has three stages: Lifting the object from a state of rest, transporting it from one domain to another, and depositing it (Mishnah Šabbat
⁵⁴ This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah. If the husband throws the bill from his roof to her courtyard, it is possible to say that the bill was delivered the moment it cleared the roof only if the walls of the wife’s courtyard are higher than the husband’s roof. Otherwise it would be delivered only if the bill fell below the level of the courtyard walls. (The same argument is quoted in Samuel’s name in the Babli, 79a.)
⁵⁵ Rebbi considers it a violation of the Sabbath if the object was brought within the walls of the domain for which it was intended; he does not require it actually to come to rest (Šabbat
⁵⁶ The Babli agrees, 79a, that the delivery of bills of divorce is governed by the rules of property rights, not those of the Sabbath.
⁵⁷ This refers to Mishnah and Halakhah Šabbat
⁵⁸ As long as it was not intended that the object should come to rest by the force of the thrower (but it was moved along by some mechanical contraption not directly controlled by the thrower), no violation of the Sabbath occured. But for delivery of a bill of divorce, it is the fact of delivery rather than its mode which counts.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:4:1)

**משנה:** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים פּוֹטֵר אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט יָשָׁן וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. וְאֵי זֶהוּ גֵּט יָשָׁן כָּל שֶׁנִּתְיָיחֵד עִמָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The House of Shammai say, a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce, but the House of Hillel forbid it⁵⁹. And what is an old bill of divorce? If he was again alone with her after he wrote it for her.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ In Mishnah 9:11, the House of Shammai forbid divorce except for adultery (whether or not it is provable in court). Therefore, the House of Shammai can assume that the parties hate one another and will not sleep together. But the House of Hillel, who permit divorce for any (or no) reason, must be afraid that the wife could become pregnant after the bill was written and this would put her child in an untenable position. In any case, everybody agrees that the bill of divorce is valid in biblical law.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:4:2)

**הלכה:** בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים כול׳. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְמוּאֵל. וְכוּלָּן אִם נִישְׂאוּ לֹא תֵצֵא. שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לִיזָה עַל בָּנֶיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The House of Shammai say,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: And any one of them if she was married should not leave, in order not to cause talk about her children⁶⁰.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ Since the bill of divorce is valid in biblical law, there is no reason to punish any woman who remarries based on such a bill. The court has no reason to force her to leave the new husband. The Babli, 79b, agrees and even notes that if the first husband is unavailable to give a corrected bill, the court will instruct the woman to remarry on the basis of the old bill.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:4:3)

אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ. מְסַיֵיעַ לְבֵית שַׁמַּי. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ. מְסַיֵיעַ לְבֵית הִלֵּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
We stated: “After he wrote it for her.” Some Tannaïm state “after he delivered it to her.” He who says “after he wrote it for her” supports the House of Shammai⁶¹; he who says “after he delivered it to her” supports the House of Hillel⁶².

footnotes:
⁶¹ This refers to the House of Shammai in Mishnah 11: “If a person divorced his wife and stayed with her in a hostelry, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him,” since after a divorce for adultery we do not assume that the husband would sleep with his ex-wife.
⁶² They always expect a man and a woman to take any occasion to sleep together if they were once married.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:5:1)

**משנה:** כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת מָדַי וּלְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת יָוָן לְבִנְיַין הַבַּיִת וּלְחוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת. הָיָה בַמִּזְרָח וְכָתַב בַּמַּעֲרָב בַּמַּעֲרָב וְכָתַב בַּמִּזְרָח תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וּצְרִיכָה גֵּט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתוּבָּה וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה וְאִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה תַּחֲזִיר וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. לֹא זֶה וְזֶה מְטַמְּאִין לָהּ וְלֹא זֶה וְזֶה זַכָּאִין לא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. הָיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָה בַּת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וּבַת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. אֵין יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁלָּזֶה וְשֶׁלָּזֶה יוֹרְשִׁין כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. מֵתוּ אָחִיו שֶׁלָּזֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁלָּזֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת הָלְכוּ הַצָּרוֹת הָאֵילּוּ וְנִישְּׂאוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ אֵילּוּ אַיְלוֹנִיּוֹת תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government⁶³, in the name of the government of Media⁶⁴ or the government of Greece⁶⁵, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple⁶⁶; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”⁶⁷, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them⁶⁸ 10:1, Notes 3–6., she has neither *ketubah* nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her *ketubah*. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform *ḥaliṣah* but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city⁶⁹,*An Etymological Dictionary*, Ktav Publishing 1992; *Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen*, K. G. Saur 1996. she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her.
Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her⁷⁴ 1:1). If the relative turns out to be a she-ram, who cannot be married, the release of the other wives turns out to have been erroneous and their new marriages incestuous for those who hold that the outside marriage of a candidate for levirate marriage is incestuous (which is an opinion of R. Aqiba rejected by his successors.).

footnotes:
⁶³ If the document was dated by the regnal years of a king who did not rule over the place at which the bill was written.
⁶⁴ The government of Media had ceased with Cyrus, many centuries earlier. An astronomer like Ptolemy could base his computations (during the reign of Antoninus Pius) on the era of the Assyrian king Nabonassar, but a legal document had to refer to the years of the Princeps in Rome or the Parthian, later the Persian king in Babylonia.
⁶⁵ Probably this refers to any one of the successors of Alexander.
⁶⁶ This way of dating probably was proscribed by the Roman government.
⁶⁷ If the place of writing the document was described incorrectly.
⁶⁸ The situation of a woman remarrying based on an invalid bill of divorce is identical with that of a woman wrongly informed of the death of her husband who remarried based on that information; cf. Mishnah Yebamot
⁶⁹ As noted in the Halakhah, only this section of the Mishnah represents practice; it has given rise to an enormous literature dealing with the correct spelling of Jewish names of persons and places; cf. the Introductions to E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and Their Origins
⁷⁴ A “she-ram” is an infertile woman lacking secondary sex characteristics. Her marriage is considered non-existent by biblical standards. It is the basic tenet of the House of Hillel that if a man dies without issue and any of his wives is forbidden to any of his brothers, all of his wives are forbidden to all the brothers and are free to marry outside the family without further ceremony (cf. Mishnah Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:5:2)

**הלכה:** כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת. לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת מָדַי כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. עָשׂוּ אֶת הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. כָּל הָדָא פִירְקָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. חוּץ מִשִּׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ. רִבִּי מָנָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. אַף הַמְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית פִּירְקָא דִידְכוֹן אֶלָּא דִידָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They declared the child a bastard because of the danger⁷⁰. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: This entire Chapter is Rebbi Meїr’s⁷¹ except for “if he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city.” Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yasa: Also “if somebody divorced his wife”⁷²? He said to him, not your Chapter but our Chapter⁷³.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ There is no biblical reason why a bill of divorce should be invalid as long as it is possible to identify its date. The only reason that people are made afraid of the consequences of incorrect dating is to avoid repressive measures by the Roman government. The Babli agrees, 80a.
⁷¹ None of the rules which require a double divorce are practice except that which forbids changing the names of the parties or their places of residence. The Babli agrees implicitly by labelling the rules as R. Meir’s.
⁷² The following Chapter 9.
⁷³ Only the rules in Chapter 8 which require a double divorce.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:6:1)

**משנה:** הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה צָרָתָהּ וְנִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְנִמְצְאָה זֹאת שֶׁהִיא אַיְלוֹנִית תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody married his sister-in-law while her co-wife went and married somebody else, if the sister-in-law turns out to be a she-ram, the co-wife shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her⁷⁴ 1:1). If the relative turns out to be a she-ram, who cannot be married, the release of the other wives turns out to have been erroneous and their new marriages incestuous for those who hold that the outside marriage of a candidate for levirate marriage is incestuous (which is an opinion of R. Aqiba rejected by his successors.).

footnotes:
⁷⁴ A “she-ram” is an infertile woman lacking secondary sex characteristics. Her marriage is considered non-existent by biblical standards. It is the basic tenet of the House of Hillel that if a man dies without issue and any of his wives is forbidden to any of his brothers, all of his wives are forbidden to all the brothers and are free to marry outside the family without further ceremony (cf. Mishnah Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ כול׳. לֹא הָיְתָה צְרִיכָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא אֶלָּא לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. וְזוֹ הִיא יְבָמָה שֶׁנִּיסֵּית בְּלֹא חֲלִיצָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. זֶה חוֹלֵץ וְזֶה מְקַיֵים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תֵּצֵא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי פִינְחָס. הֵיךְ רִבִּי סָבַר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲזוֹר בָּךְ. דִּלֹא כֵן אֲנָא כְתַב עֲלָךְ זָקֵן מַמְרֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְבִידָא. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים בָּהּ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵין מַמְזֵר מִיְּבָמָה. הָא לָצֵאת תֵּצֵא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody married his sister-in-law,” etc.⁷⁵ If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without *ḥalîṣah*. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this man performs *ḥalīṣah*, the other one keeps her. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rebbi Zevidah said, a *baraita* supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rebbi Meïr who said it in the name of Rebbi Aqibah. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” Therefore she must leave.

footnotes:
⁷⁵ This text is Yebamot 10:5, Notes 116–121.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:7:1)

**משנה:** כָּתַב הַסּוֹפֵר וְטָעָה וְנָתַן גֵּט לָאִשָּׁה וְשׁוֹבָר לָאִישׁ וְנָתְנוּ זֶה לָזֶה וּלְאַחַר הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִיַּד הָאִישׁ וְהַשּׁוֹבָר מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אִם לְאַלְתָּר יָצָא אֵין זֶה גֵט אִם לְאַחַר זְמָן יָצָא הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. שֶׁלֹּא הַכֹּל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If the scribe wrote⁷⁶ and then in error handed the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man and they exchanged them, then later the bill of divorce is found with the man and the receipt with the woman⁷⁷, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her.
Rebbi Eliezer⁷⁸ says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later⁷⁹, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ In the Babylonian sources more in detail: “If the scribe wrote a bill of divorce for the husband and a receipt for the wife and then …” The husband has the money ready to pay the ketubah immediately and the wife will hand him the receipt if she obtains the money with the bill of divorce.
⁷⁷ Who had remarried in the meantime, thinking that she was divorced when in fact she was not divorced since she handed the bill of divorce to her husband instead of receiving it from him. One has to assume that both husband and wife were illiterate.
⁷⁸ Mishnah and Babli sources are divided on whether to read Eliezer or Eleazar; the Halakhah later reads “Eleazar”.
⁷⁹ After the wife had remarried one suspects the first husband to have obtained the bill of divorce illegally to cause trouble.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:7:2)

**הלכה:** כָּתַב הַסּוֹפֵר וְטָעָה כול׳. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁטָּעָה. אַף רִבִּי לָעְזָר מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא טָעָה. אוֹף רַבָּנִן מוֹדֵיי. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בִּסְתָם. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא לֹא טָעָה. וְרַבַּנִן חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא טָעָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If the scribe wrote,” etc. Where do we hold? If he made a mistake, even Rebbi Eleazar agrees⁸⁰. If he made no error, even the rabbis agree⁸¹. But we must hold that it was unexplained⁸². Rebbi Eleazar suspects that possibly he made no mistake; the rabbis suspect that possibly he did make a mistake.

footnotes:
⁸⁰ The scribe agrees that he made a mistake, R. Eleazar agrees that no divorce took place.
⁸¹ If the scribe denies making a mistake, the rabbis also have to assume that the bill of divorce in the hand of the first husband is fraudulent.
⁸² The scribe does not remember or is not available to be asked.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:7:3)

רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אִם עַל אָתָר יָצָא אֵינוֹ גֵט. וְאִם לְאַחַר זְמָן יָצָא הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. שֶׁלֹּא הַכֹּל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּת שֶׁל שֵׁנִי. אֵיזֶהוּ עַל אָתָר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְאָרְסָה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלָה אָמַר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִיסֵּית וְנִיסֵּית. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא הַכֹּל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ מִן הַשֵּׁינִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Eleazar says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.” What is immediately? Rebbi Ze‘ira says, before she was preliminarily married, or when she was preliminarily married. Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, before she was definitively married, or when she was definitively married⁸². The Mishnah supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “Since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second⁸³.”

footnotes:
⁸² The scribe does not remember or is not available to be asked.
⁸³ The second husband acquires his rights to the bride by the preliminary marriage.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:8:1)

**משנה:** כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ עַל תְּנַאי וְלֹא נַעֲשָׂה הַתְּנַאי לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, the House of Shammai say, he disabled her from the priesthood⁸⁴. 21:7). The House of Shammai forbid a woman to her priestly husband if the bill of divorce was written, even if it never was delivered.. But the House of Hillel say, even if he handed her [the bill of divorce] and attached a condition, if the condition was not satisfied he did not disable her from the priesthood⁸⁵.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ A priest is forbidden to marry a divorcee (Lev
⁸⁵ As long as the divorce was not effective, the priestly husband can take his wife back.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:8:2)

**הלכה:** כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם יִיחוּס כְּהוּנָה וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְזָהֲמִין אוֹתָהּ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה וַעֲבַד כְבֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב. מָה רָאִיתָ לְהַכְנִיס עַצְמְךָ לְמִיסְפֵּק הַזֶּה הַמְרוּבֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה עִמִּי וְקָרָא עֲלֵיהוֹן טוֹבִים הַשְּׁנַיִם מִן הָאֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: There is no problem because of the purity of the priestly line and the court will not denigrate her⁸⁶. There came a case before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he acted following the House of Hillel. Rav asked him, why did you bring yourself into this great doubt? He answered, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose⁸⁷ was with me. He quoted about them: “Two are better than one.⁸⁸. 4:9.”

footnotes:
⁸⁶ If a woman became a widow who had been given a bill of divorce but who was not divorced because the condition attached to the divorce was not fulfilled, the court will not intervene if she marries a Cohen.
⁸⁷ The greatest authority of his time.
⁸⁸ Eccl


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:8:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:8:3)

הַמְסַלֶּדֶת בִּבְנָהּ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ מְסַלְּדוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“A woman who engages in sex play⁸⁹ 65a, *Yebamot* 76a, *Sanhedrin* 69b; Tosephta *Soṭah* 5:7 (ms. Erfurt סלסל “to adorn”)]. The text is more explicit in Tosephta *Soṭah* 5:7 (Vienna ms.): “If a woman engages in sex play with her son who touches her genitals, the House of Shammai disqualify from the priesthood, the House of Hillel qualify.” The son must be less than 9 years of age for his sex play to be dismissed as meaningless (cf. *Yebamot* 10:13–14). {Also compare the Latin verb *salio*,*-ui*, “to jump; leap, cover”, also said of copulation of animals (E. G.).} with her son, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify.” Two women who mutually engage in sex play, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify⁹⁰ 76a, the opinion that lesbian activity disqualifies a woman from marrying a priest is dismissed as not conforming to practice; lesbian activity is classified as “simply indecent”. Maimonides (*Issure* *Bi’ah* 21:8–9) duly notes that lesbian activity cannot qualify as sexual but then based on a aggadic statement in Sifra (*Aḥare Parašah* 9(8)), which defines “the acts of Egypt” (*Lev.* 18:3) as same-sex marriages and polyandry, authorizes rabbinic punishment for lesbian activities, which is nowhere to be found in Talmudic sources. This is copied in *Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘ezer* 20:2. These rules probably owe more to Islamic and Christian influences (*Romans* 1:26) than to strictly Rabbinic rules..

footnotes:
⁸⁹ This meaning of the root סלד (usually “to jump”) is conjectural, similar to the corresponding root סלל (Biblical “to build a road”) in the Babylonian parallels [Šabbat
⁹⁰ In the Babli, Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:9:1)

**משנה:** הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוּנְדָקֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. וּמוֹדִין בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ. כְּנָסָהּ בְּגֵט קֵרֵחַ תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him in a hostelry⁹¹, the House of Shammai say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him, but the House of Hillel say that she needs a second bill of divorce from him⁹². When? If she was divorced after definitive marriage. But they agree that if she was divorced after preliminary marriage, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him since he was not intimate with her⁹³. If somebody married her based on a bald bill of divorce⁹⁴, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her.

footnotes:
⁹¹ Greek πανδοκεῖον.
⁹² The reasons are explained in Note 59.
⁹³ They will not sleep with one another as a matter of course.
⁹⁴ A “bald” document is an irregular “knotted” document. In a usual, “simple” document, the witnesses sign on the document after the text. In a “knotted” document, the scribe will write a few lines, then these are folded, sewn together, fixed with a knot, and a witness signs on the verso. The document is valid if the number of ties equals the number of witnesses on the verso. A “bald” document has less witnesses than ties and is invalid. A woman who remarries on the basis of an invalid bill of divorce commits adultery. The rules of “knotted” documents are discussed in Halakhah 12.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:9:2)

**הלכה:** הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בֵּית שַׁמַּי כְדַעְתְּהוֹן וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּדַעְתְּהוֹן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. פּוֹטֵר אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט יָשָׁן. אִינּוּן אִינּוּן דְּאָמְרִין. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי כְדַעְתְּהוֹן וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּדַעְתְּהוֹן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוָה אִינּוּן אִינּוּן דְּאָמְרִין. מְזוֹהֶמֶת הִיא מִלְּפָנָיו וְאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד עָלֶיהָ. לְפִיכָךְ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁינִי. בֵּית הִלֵּל דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִילוֹ. אִינּוּן אִינּוּן דְּאָמְרִין. אֵינָהּ מְזוֹהֶמֶת מִלְּפָנָיו וְהוּא חָשׁוּד עָלֶיהָ. לְפִיכָךְ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁינִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce,” they say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man shall not divorce his wife unless he found in her a matter of immorality⁹⁵,” thy say that she is dirty in his eyes and he is not suspected of having relations with her, therefore she does not need a second bill of divorce from him.. Since the House of Hillel say, “even if she spoiled his food⁹⁵”, they say that she is not dirty in his eyes, he is suspected of having relations with her, and she needs a second bill of divorce from him⁵⁹’⁹⁶.

footnotes:
⁹⁵ Mishnah 9:11.
⁹⁵ Mishnah 9:11.
⁵⁹ In Mishnah 9:11, the House of Shammai forbid divorce except for adultery (whether or not it is provable in court). Therefore, the House of Shammai can assume that the parties hate one another and will not sleep together. But the House of Hillel, who permit divorce for any (or no) reason, must be afraid that the wife could become pregnant after the bill was written and this would put her child in an untenable position. In any case, everybody agrees that the bill of divorce is valid in biblical law.
⁹⁶ Babylonian sources (Babli 81b, Tosephta 6:9) hold that the House of Hillel require a second bill of divorce only if it was known that the divorced couple shared a bedroom in the hotel. This is not the position of the Yerushalmi.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:9:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:9:3)

הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לֹא תִדּוֹר עִמּוֹ לֹא בְאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר וְלֹא בְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. אִם הָיְתָה חָצֵר שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה אִישׁ מְפַנֶּה. וְשֶׁלָּאִישׁ אִשָּׁה מְפַנָּה. שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִי מְפַנֶּה מִפְּנֵי מִי. אִשָּׁה מִפְּנֵי אִישׁ. וְאִם יְכוֹלִין הֵן זֶה פוֹתֵחַ לְכָאן וְזֶה פוֹתֵחַ לְכָאן. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּשְּׂאוּ. הָא לֹא נִישְׂאוּ לֹא. וּבְכוֹהֶנֶת אֲפִילוּ לֹא נִישְׂאוּ. וְהָאֲרוּסָה שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה כִנְשׂוּאָה הִיא. הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְפַנֶּה. שֶׁאֵין מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָין גָּמוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁹⁷ 2:14, a different formulation is in the Babli (*Ketubot* 27b/28a). If somebody divorces his wife she should not live in the same courtyard or the same place⁹⁸ #618) reads מבוי “dead-end-street” in place of מקום. This is the language of the Babli.. If the courtyard was the wife’s property, the husband has to move out, if the husband’s, the wife has to move out. If it was common property, who has to move because of whom? The woman because of the man, unless they can manage to have separate exits⁹⁹, if they can build a wall dividing the property, each section having its own entrance door from the courtyard.. When has this been said? If they were definitively married, not if they were not definitively married¹⁰⁰. But the wife of a Cohen if she was not definitively married¹⁰¹, as well as the status of a preliminarily married woman in Jehudah¹⁰² 1:5., is that of one definitively married. Nobody has to move if a person gives *ḥalȋṣah* to his sister-in-law even if he had “bespoken¹⁰³ 2:1, Note 6. This is a rabbinic formality; if the couple had relations, they would be biblically married and the marriage could only be terminated by a bill of divorce. The act of *ḥalȋṣah* guarantees that they never were intimate and the precautions enacted for divorced couples do not apply to them.” her since “bespeaking” does not fully acquire.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ A similar text is in Semaḥot
⁹⁸ Or zarua‘ (Yibbum waḥalȋṣah
⁹⁹ In the interpretation of Or zarua‘
¹⁰⁰ Preliminarily married couples are not supposed to have slept together; they are not suspected to do so after divorce.
¹⁰¹ Since she is biblically prohibited to her preliminary ex-husband.
¹⁰² She was unchaperoned together with her preliminary husband and presumed to have slept with him; Mishnah Ketubot
¹⁰³ The imitation of preliminary marriage before levirate marriage; cf. Mishnah Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:10:1)

**משנה:** גֵּט קֵרֵחַ הַכֹּל מַשְׁלִימִים עָלָיו כְּדִבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא קְרוֹבִים הָרְאוּיִן לְהָעִיד בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אֵי זֶהוּ גֵּט קֵרֵחַ. כָּל שֶׁקְּשָׁרָיו מְרוּבִּין מֵעֵידָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Anybody can supplement a bald document¹⁰⁴ following the words of Ben Nanas¹⁰⁵ 3:3–4).. Rebbi Aqiba says, one supplements the signatures only by relatives who would be able to testify under other circumstances¹⁰⁶. What is a bald document? One whose knots are more than its signatures.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁴ I.e., supply the additional signatures needed to make the document valid.
¹⁰⁵ If the first signatures are those of valid witnesses, the remaining slots can be filled by the signatures of people who are inadmissible as witnesses either because they are relatives of one of the parties or because they have been declared untrustworthy by a court decree (Mishnah Sanhedrin
¹⁰⁶ He agrees that relatives can sign but he holds that people barred because of disreputable or criminal behavior cannot.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:10:2)

**הלכה:** גֵּט קֵרֵחַ הַכֹּל מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו כול׳. וּמְנַיִין לְגֵט הַמְקוּשָּׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. כְּתִיב וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר וגו׳. וְאֶת זֶה הַמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַגָּלוּי. זֶה הַפָּשׁוּט שֶׁבַּמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְאֶת הַחוּקִּים. חוּקִּים וּמִצְוֹת בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. שֶׁזֶּה בִשְׁנַיִם וְזֶה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה מִתּוֹכוֹ וְזֶה מֵאַחֲרָיו. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. פָּשׁוּט עֵדָיו לְרוֹחְבּוֹ. מְקוּשָּׁר עֵידָיו לְאוֹרְכּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִי. בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לְקֶשֶׁר הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין וּבִלְבַד מִלְּמַעֲלָן. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא זִיֵּיף. סָבַר רַב נַחְמָן לְמֵימַר. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעַדִים חוֹתְמִין בּוֹ מִלְּמַטָּן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְאוּ בוֹ לְמַעֲלָן. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְלוֹנִי מְקַבֵּל עָלַי כָּל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא מָחַק וְחָזַר וְזִיֵיף. סָבַר רַב הוּנָא. מְקוּבָּל עָלַי מְקוּבָּל עָלַי שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ. חָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא כָתַב דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים וְחָזַר וּמָחַק וְזִיֵיף. סָבַר רַב הוּנָא. מַחַק פָּסוּל אֲפִילוּ קִיֵים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. ¹⁰⁷ 10:1. From where that a document can be knotted¹⁰⁸ 10 that the use of “knotted” documents was a Palestinian peculiarity (such documents have been found in the Judean desert.)? Rebbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,¹⁰⁹. 32:11: “I took the document of acquisition, the sealed one, the orders and rules, and the public one.” The verse clearly states that a sealed document is the main object, accompanied by a public document.” etc. “And [the sealed]”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted¹¹⁰. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two {witnesses], the other with three¹¹¹; one in it, the other on its back¹¹² 10:1), the document was written with wide spaces between the lines, was signed by witnesses between the lines, and then was folded and sewn so that the document text was hidden but the signatures appeared on the outside. It seems impossible to accept this explanation for the Yerushalmi text. (Cf. H. Albeck’s commentary to *Baba batra* 10:1).}. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel¹¹³, on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise¹¹⁴. Rebbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top¹¹⁵. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies¹¹⁶? Rav Naḥman¹¹⁷: Rav Ḥuna. This seems to be the correct attribution, confirmed in the sequel. wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid¹¹⁸. But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Does Rav Huna not consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified¹¹⁹ 161b, R. Joḥanan accepts an erasure in a sealed document if it carries a note: “This is a correction”..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ A closely related text, but from another editorial tradition, is in Baba batra
¹⁰⁸ The basic use for “knotted” documents was for real estate transactions, probably to hide the financial data from public knowledge. Such a document was certainly impossible in Egypt, where all real estate transactions had to be filed with the State registrar. Its validity in rabbinic tradition is given a biblical basis. It seems from the discussion in Babli Baba batra
¹⁰⁹ Jer
¹¹⁰ The text of the document, whose formulation is identical whether sealed or public.
¹¹¹ A public document needs two witnesses, a sealed (knotted) one at least three.
¹¹² A public document is signed by the witnesses on the recto of the sheet, starting exactly one line after the end of the text. A sealed document is signed on the verso, between the folds. {According to Rashbam (Commentary to Baba batra
¹¹³ They simply sign on the lines after the body of the document, parallel to the lines used by the scribe.
¹¹⁴ In this opinion, the witnesses sign in the back at a right angle to the scribe’s text, starting in the back of the last line of the document. Only the text covered by witnesses’ signatures in the back is certified.
¹¹⁵ He disagrees with the preceding description and requires that the witnesses sign in the back parallel to the text written by the scribe, as described in Note 94.
¹¹⁶ How can the witnesses be sure that the writer of the document will not falsify the document after they affixed their signatures? For a public document there is no problem since anything following the signatures has to be disregarded. For a sealed document with signatures at a right angle there is no problem since any text not covered by the signatures at the back has to be disregarded. But if the signatures are affixed while the document is being written, where are the guarantees?
¹¹⁷ In Baba batra
¹¹⁸ A sealed document containing two different clauses of acceptation is considered fraudulent and not enforceable in court.
¹¹⁹ An erasure in a sealed document is unacceptable even if confirmed as such by signatures. In the Babli, Baba batra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:10:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית בָּהּ תֵּצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. כַּמָּה קוּפִּין דְּעוֹבְדָא הֲוָה עֲלִיל קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְקוֹמֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. פּוּק וְשַׁלֵּם כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is no “she shall be divorced”. Rebbi Immi said, several boxes of cases came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and they said, go and complete following Rebbi Aqiba¹²⁰.

footnotes:
¹²⁰ They disagree with the last statement in Mishnah 11 and permit the belated signing by relatives who otherwise are in good standing.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:10:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָתְנִיתָא בִּמְחוּסָּר עֵד אֶחָד וּבִלְבַד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּלְמַעֲלָן. שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לְמַעֲלָן פָּסוּל. וְאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּלְמַטָּה כָשֵׁר. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. עָד כְּדוֹן בִּרְצוּפִין. הָיוּ מְסוּרָגִין. כַּיי דָּמַר. נַעֲשִׂין כְּהַרְחֵק עֵדוּת. שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ אֶלָּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט. וָכָא כָּאן. הָיוּ תִשְׁעָה. מַתִּיר שְׁנַיִם וּמְחַתֵּם שְׁנַיִם. אוֹ אֵין שְׁנֵי הָעֵדִים בְּגֵט הַמְקוּשָּׁר כְּלוּם. הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהוּא מַתִּיר אֶחָד וּמְחַתֵּם אֶחָד. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר. הַתָּרָתוֹ מַתִּרָתוֹ. וּכְרִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּרִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. הַתּוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ קוֹשֵׁר וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹתֵם. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁקּוֹשֵׁר כוּלְּהֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָתְמוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אֲבָל אִם קוֹשֵׁר שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוּנִים וְחוֹתֵם אֲפִילוּ מְקַשֵּׁר וּמְחַתֵּם כַּמָּה כָּשֵׁר. הִילְכְתָא. גֵּט הַמְקוּשָּׁר בְּקֶשֶׁר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְחַתֵּם. הָיָה מְקַשֵּׁר רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וּמְחַתְּמָן. פְּשִׁיטָא רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁינִי לֹא נִמְצְאוּ חֲתוּמִין בְּגֵּט הִמְקוּשָּׁר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah applies if one witness is missing, but only if there are three or more¹²¹. Two or three¹²² at the beginning is invalid, one below the three is valid. Rebbi Mana asked: That is, if they are continuous. If they are with interruptions¹²³? As one says, they are considered like testimony at a distance, they only serve to certify the testimony. And so it is here¹²⁴. If there were nine, can he untie two and have two sign? Or are two witnesses on a knotted document nothing¹²⁵ 10:3).? If there were five, it is obvious that he unties one and has it signed¹²⁶. It turns out that his untying permits it following Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel, for Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, the essential part is what validates¹²⁷, even if he ties and signs after that. That is, if he ties all knots and after that the first three [witnesses] did sign. But if he tied the first three¹²⁸ and had them signed, even if he makes many ties and lets many¹²⁹ sign it is valid. Practice is that a knotted document is first knotted and then signed. If he made the first knots and had them signed right away, it is obvious that the first two did not sign the knotted document¹³⁰.

footnotes:
¹²¹ This disagreement between ben Nanas and R. Aqiba about the required qualifications of the witnesses refers to the case that only one additional signature is required in addition to the three statutory ones.
¹²² Any number of irregular witnesses at the beginning is invalid for everybody.
¹²³ If the three statutory witnesses did not sign together but each one signed for a separate knot, with space in between.
¹²⁴ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 117.
¹²⁵ The text is difficult to understand since a document with 9 knots needs an additional 6 signatures. One must assume that some additional signatures already are on the document and the question is directed against R. Joḥanan: Why should it not be possible to let two unqualified witnesses sign since the validation of a knotted document needs three witnesses in any case (Mishnah Baba batra
¹²⁶ In fact, there must be two knots untied and confirmed on the verso by two different signatures; only one of them was accepted by R. Joḥanan.
¹²⁷ Cf. Chapter 3, Note 68. If the text which contains the identities of the parties and their obligations is certified by signatures on the verso for knotted contracts or at the end for open contracts, the contracts are valid. If prepared forms are not certified for sealed contracts it does not impinge on the validity of the contract for R. Ḥananiah ben Gamliel.
¹²⁸ Which contain the essential data and are certified by three witnesses as required for sealed contracts according to all sources.
¹²⁹ Unqualified relatives.
¹³⁰ Since a “knotted” sealed document is validated only by three witnesses, the first two do not combine for validation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:10:5)

מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ מִבִּפְנִים. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת פָּשׁוּט. אִם בִּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתו פָּשׁוּט. אֶלָּא כֵּן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ מִבִּפְנִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. בְּדָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. הֵשִׁיב רִבִּי עַל דְּבְרֵי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. גּוּפוֹ שֶׁלָּגֵט. אִם בְּשֶׁקּוֹשָׁרוֹ וַחוֹתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. אֶלָּא כֵּן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁקִּישָׁרוֹ מִבִּפְנִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. בְּרַם רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. אֵין יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתו פָּשׁוּט. הֵשִׁיב רִבִּי עַל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. גּוּפוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו אִם פָּשׁוּט הוּא וְאִם אֵינוֹ פָשׁוּט. אֵי זֶהוּ גוּפוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. כַּיי דָּמַר רַב הוּנָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעַדִים חוֹתְמִין בּוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְאוּ בוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. אֲנֵי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְלוֹנִי מְקוּבָּל עָלַי כָּל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ לְמַעֲלָן. וְהָא תַנֵּי. טוֹפֶס שְׁטָרוֹת כֵּן הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. טוֹפֶס שְׁטָרוֹת מְקוּשָּׁרִין כָּךְ הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר הוּא פָשׁוּט הוּא מְקוּשָּׁר. מְקוּשָּׁר הוּא מְעַכֵּב פָּשׁוּט אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר. בְּמוֹסִיף עַל הַהֲלָכָה. פָּשׁוּט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּמִנְהַג בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עוּשִׂין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מְקוּשָּׁר מֵאֲחוֹרִיו מִנְהָג מִתּוֹכוֹ וּמֵאֲחוֹרִיו. עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִתּוֹכו וּמֵאֲחוֹרִיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Where do we hold¹³¹ 10:1 where R. Ḥananiah ben Gamliel states that a knotted document can be converted into a simple one if its witnesses sign on the document side.? If he knotted and signed it inside, everybody agrees that it can be made simple¹³². If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple¹³³. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside¹³⁴ 10:1 implies that “knotted from the inside” means “had it signed on the inside and then sewed it and had it signed again on the outside”, where R. Ḥanania ben Gamliel holds that it can be used either way; but the opposing faction holds that once three validating signatures were on the back, the document can only be unsealed in court to be enforced.; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple. ¹³⁵{Rebbi objected to the statement of Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: “The body of the document.” If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple, but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple.) Rebbi objected to the statement of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The body¹³⁶ 164a/b, Rebbi is stating that the methods of computation of regnal years in open and sealed documents are different. Since sealed documents were not used in Babylonia, this argument seems irrelevant. of the document shows whether it is simple or not simple. What is the body of the document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.¹³⁷” But did we not state: “That is the formula of a document”?¹³⁸ Rebbi Mana said, that is the formula of a knotted document. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say it is the same for knotted and simple, for a knotted document it is a necessity, for a simple one it is not a necessity¹³⁹. Rebbi Aḥa said, if one adds to practice¹⁴⁰. A simple document [is witnessed] by two persons. If common usage is to have three, one makes it with three. A knotted document is signed on its back. If common usage is to sign it inside and out, one signs it inside and out.

footnotes:
¹³¹ This paragraph is out of context here; it refers to Mishnah Baba batra
¹³² If the document was signed before it was sewn, it is a regular open document. The rules of sealed documents do not apply.
¹³³ If the signatures are on the back of the document, the text itself is left without witnesses; as an open document is would be worthless.
¹³⁴ As the text stands, it is unintelligible. Mishnah Baba batra
¹³⁵ The text in braces is a first, incomplete version of the following, which the scribe forgot to delete.
¹³⁶ In the Babli, Baba batra
¹³⁷ Since on a sealed document the witnesses start signing once there is space for three signatures, it follows that at the top of the document one has the identification of the person to whom the document refers together with any obligation incurred by that person. In an open document, the main point has to be repeated at the end of the text to make clear what the witnesses certify. In a sealed document, the place of the signatures on the verso of the main part is the certification.
¹³⁸ Rav Huna’s text is required for all documents, whether open or sealed.
¹³⁹ It is possible to write both sealed and open documents following the same formula. However, a sealed document whose three certifying signatures are not in the back of the text containing the name of the debtor and the exact nature of his obligation is invalid; an open document is valid if only it contains all the necessary information and two signatures. If a sealed document also contains two signatures inside, there is no reason not to follow R. Ḥananiah ben Gamliel.
¹⁴⁰ A sealed document minimally valid cannot be turned into an open document. However, at places where the common practice requires more than the minimum, there may be reason to permit turning the sealed into an open document.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 8:10:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Gittin/r/8:10:6)

תַּנִּיתָהּ הָכָא וְתַנִּינָתָהּ תַּמָּן כָּשֵׁר. הֲוֵי צְרִיכָה מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן. אִילּוּ תַנִּינָתָהּ הָכָא וְלֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ תַּמָּן הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין. הָכָא עַל שֶׁהוּא חוֹמֶר בָּעֲרָיוֹת פָּסוּל. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר בָּעֲרָיוֹת כָּשֵׁר. הֲוֵוי צְרִיכָה מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן. אוֹ אִילּוּ מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן וְלֹא מַתְנִינָן הָכָא הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא גוֹבֶה בוֹ פָּסוּל. וְהָכָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה בוֹ כָּשֵׁר. הֲוֵוי צְרִיכָה מִיתְנַיָיא הָכָא וְצוֹרְכָה מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The condition of validity is stated here and was stated there¹⁴¹ 8:12 and in *Baba batra* 10:1 one finds rules about sealed documents. These rules do not overlap. The rules about the bald document are not found in *Baba batra*, the requirement of three witnesses is not in *Giṭṭin*. One would have expected an argument why the rules of one tractate, dealing with divorce documents, also apply to the other, dealing with deeds of real estate and mortgages. For some reason, this seemed obvious to the editors of the Yerushalmi.. It was necessary to state it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that here it is invalid because of the restrictions connected with adultery but there, since no restrictions connected with adultery are involved, it would be valid. Or if it had been stated there but not here, we would have said that there it is invalid since one comes to collect money based on that document but here, where one does not collect money, it would be valid. Therefore, it was necessary both to state it here and to state it there.

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ Both in Giṭṭin