# snc

lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k59a_1:" I.e., from the youngest, as Rab would be, v. Sanh. 32a."
,k59a_2:" On account of his humility."
,k59a_3:" Lit., 'Torah and greatness in one place'."
,k59a_4:" After the death of Joshua."
,k59a_5:" After the death of Eleazar."
,k59a_6:" V. Jud. II, 7."
,k59a_7:" According to the Talmudic tradition ('Er. 53a), Saul was well versed in the Torah but he did not expound."
,k59a_8:" Chief Minister to David, II. Sam. XX, 26; cf. M.K. 16b."
,k59a_9:" V. II Sam. XIX, 18."
,k59a_10:" V. Sanh. 26a."
,k59a_11:" By Sennacherib. For fuller notes v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 227."
,k59a_12:" Lit., 'Can gesticulate and be gesticulated to'."
,k59a_13:" Lit., 'can speak with movements (of the mouth) and be spoken to by movements'. This is not as clear as gesticulations with the fingers."
,k59a_14:" From six to nine or ten, v. <i>infra</i> 63b."
,k59a_15:" In spite of the fact that a deaf-mute may betroth by means of lip motions."
,k59a_16:" Lit., 'up to what age (are they in this matter regarded as children).'"
,k59a_17:" Lit., 'for the provision of his livelihood'."
,k59a_18:" II Kings X, 22. As R. Abba b. Jacob has just been mentioned, another saying recorded by him in the name of R. Johanan is adduced."
,k59a_19:" E.V. 'vestry'."
,k59a_20:" I.e., fine linen."
,k59a_21:" In 'Er. 85, the name is given as Bonias b. Bonias."
,k59a_22:" Head-coverings of fine linen. [Aruch reads: subni and homes subni. For <i>subni</i> cf. [G] (sabanum) a 'head-cover'; homes is derived from [G] (half). On this reading the meaning is, he sent him a full size subanum and a half size sabanum. V. Krauss, TA I, p. 521.]"
,k59a_23:" Names of various kinds of fine linen."
,k59a_24:" Cf. Heb. [H] 'to turn', 'to plait', hence 'to weave'."
,k59a_25:" Rashi: 'Acorn'."
,k59a_26:" The word is derived from [H] 'to crush', 'to rub between fingers'. [The reference is to the head-coverings made from fine elastic material worn by the Egyptian and Ethiopian nobility in antiquity. Krauss, op cit. p. 522]."
,k59a_27:" Provided the error is rectified. The rule was that if an article was inadvertently bought or sold for more than a sixth of its value, the transaction could be declared void, v. B.M. 49b."
,k59a_28:" Since the consideration stated in connection with buying and selling does not apply in the case of a gift."
,k59a_29:" I.e., making R. Ashi's son say that the gift was no gift."
,k59a_30:" R. Ashi, whose disciple was R. Mordecai."
,k59a_31:" Leading up to the Academy."
,k59a_32:" Lit., 'on account of ways of peace'."
,k59a_33:" At the public reading in the synagogue etc."
,k59a_34:" Lit., 'mixture', 'combination', a measure introduced to enable tenants in a courtyard to have unrestricted access to the premises of other tenants. This is done by depositing some food in which all have a share in the house of one of the tenants. V. 'Er. VI-VII."
,k59a_35:" Lit., 'an old house'."
,k59a_36:" Between the residents, each of whom might want to have the erub in his own room. "
}

txt:
<p>
I was in that assembly of Rabbi, and my vote was taken first. [How could this be], seeing that we have learnt: 'In [taking decisions on] money matters and cases of cleanness and uncleanness, they commence from the principal [of those present]; in capital cases, they commence from the side'?<a id="k59a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah the son of Raba, or as some say R. Hillel the son of R. Wallas said: The voting at the court of Rabbi was different, as in all cases it commenced from the side.<a id="k59a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah the son of Raba, or as some say R. Hillel the son of R. Wallas also said: Between Moses and Rabbi we do not find one who was supreme both in Torah and in worldly affairs.<a id="k59a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Is that so? Was there not Joshua? &mdash; There was Eleazar [with him]. But there was Eleazar?<a id="k59a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There was Phinehas [with him]. But there was Phinehas?<a id="k59a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There were the Elders<a id="k59a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [with him]. But there was Saul?<a id="k59a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There was Samuel [with him]. But Samuel died [before Saul]? &mdash; We mean, [supreme] all his life. But there was David? &mdash; There was Ira the Jairite<a id="k59a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [with him]. But he died [before David]? &mdash; We mean, [supreme] all his life. But there was Solomon? &mdash; There was Shimei ben Gera<a id="k59a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; with him. But he killed him? &mdash; We mean, all his life. But there was Hezekiah? &mdash; There was Shebnah<a id="k59a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [with him]. But he was killed?<a id="k59a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We mean, all his life. But there was Ezra? &mdash; There was Nehemiah son of Hachaliah with him. R. Aha son of Raba said: I too say that between Rabbi and R. Ashi there was no-one who was supreme both in Torah and in worldly affairs. Is that so? Was there not Huna b. Nathan [with him]? &mdash; We do not count Huna b. Nathan because he used to defer to R. Ashi.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A DEAF-MUTE CAN HOLD CONVERSATION BY MEANS OF GESTURES.<a id="k59a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; BEN BATHYRA SAYS THAT HE MAY ALSO DO SO BY MEANS OF LIP-MOTIONS,<a id="k59a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; WHERE THE TRANSACTION CONCERNS MOVABLES. THE PURCHASE OR SALE EFFECTED BY YOUNG CHILDREN<a id="k59a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; IN MOVABLES IS VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Nahman said: The difference between Ben Bathyra and the Rabbis is only on the question of movables, but where a Get is concerned both agree that gestures [must be used].<a id="k59a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely this is obvious; Ben Bathyra says distinctly 'MOVABLES'? &mdash; You might take this to mean 'where movable also are concerned'; hence we are told [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	THE PURCHASE OR SALE EFFECTED BY YOUNG CHILDREN IN MOVABLES. What is the youngest age [at which they can do so]?<a id="k59a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Judah pointed out to R. Isaac his son: About six or seven. R. Kahana said: About seven or eight. In a Baraitha it was taught: About nine or ten. There is no contradiction: Each [child] varies according to his intelligence. What is the reason [why this is allowed in the case of movables]? &mdash; R. Abba b. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan: In order that they may procure ordinary necessities.<a id="k59a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And he said to him that was over the meltaha. Bring forth vestments for all the worshippers of Baal.<a id="k59a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meltaha?<a id="k59a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Abba b. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan: Something which is drawn out thin by fingering<a id="k59a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [nimlal we-nimtah]. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Johanan: Bonias son of Nonias<a id="k59a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; sent to Rabbi a sibni and a homes<a id="k59a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and salsela and malmela.<a id="k59a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; The sibni and homes [folded tip] into the size of a nut and a half, the salsela<a id="k59a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and malmela into the size of a pistachio-nut<a id="k59a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and a half. What is malmela? Something which fingering draws out thin.<a id="k59a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Up to what point [can advantage be taken of] their mistake? &mdash; R. Jonah said in the name of R. Zera: Up to a sixth, as with a grown-up.<a id="k59a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye inquired: What of the gift of such a one?<a id="k59a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Yemar replied. His gift is no gift. Mar, the son of R. Ashi, however, said that it is a valid gift. The [members of the Academy] communicated this statement to R. Mordecai with the names reversed.<a id="k59a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: Go and tell the son of the Master<a id="k59a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; that this does not correspond with the facts. As the Master was once standing with one foot on the ground and one on the steps<a id="k59a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; we asked him, What of his gift, and he answered us, His gift is a valid gift, no matter whether made when he is ill or when he is well, whether it is a big gift or a small one.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE FOLLOWING RULES WERE LAID DOWN IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE.<a id="k59a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; A PRIEST IS CALLED UP FIRST TO READ THE LAW<a id="k59a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; AND AFTER HIM A LEVITE AND THEN A LAY ISRAELITE, IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. AN 'ERUB<a id="k59a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; IS PLACED IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PLACED,<a id="k59a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE.<a id="k59a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k59b_1:" I.e., nearest the river which feeds the watercourse."
,k59b_2:" And meanwhile he owner of the pit has the right to dam the watercourse."
,k59b_3:" And whatever is taken has to be returned to the one who laid the snare, though according to the Torah the latter has not acquired ownership till it has actually come into his possession."
,k59b_4:" And the culprit becomes disqualified from giving evidence."
,k59b_5:" Although these cannot legally acquire ownership."
,k59b_6:" That has fallen as a result of his gleaning."
,k59b_7:" Although he does not become owner till he has actually handled it."
,k59b_8:" Lev. XIX, 9ff."
,k59b_9:" Deut. XXIV, 19."
,k59b_10:" Lev. XIX, 9ff."
,k59b_11:" Deut. XXXI, 9."
,k59b_12:" Deut. XXI, 5."
,k59b_13:" I Chron. XXIII, 13."
,k59b_14:" Lev. XXI, 8."
,k59b_15:" Where he has to divide an article with a lay Israelite."
,k59b_16:" Prov. III, 17."
,k59b_17:" His teacher, Rabbah b. Nahmani."
,k59b_18:" [When one interrupts his eating, the other must wait till he resumes. This was according to the old custom when all guests ate from the same dish.]"
,k59b_19:" If one of them interrupts his eating."
,k59b_20:" And says the Grace, generally the host."
,k59b_21:" Lit., 'stretches forth his hand'."
,k59b_22:" V. 'Er. 47a."
,k59b_23:" Lit., 'meal'."
,k59b_24:" By a priest to a teacher or a superior, because it might be misunderstood by other people. Hence here the rule of the Torah requires to be reinforced."
,k59b_25:" On which days the Torah is also read, v. B.K. 82a."
,k59b_26:" I.e., first, although only a lay Israelite; v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k59b_27:" Lit., 'the bundle is separated,' i.e., it is not necessary to call up a Levite first; (v. Rashi)."
,k59b_28:" This is explained immediately."
,k59b_29:" And therefore it is only the first on whom suspicion falls."
,k59b_30:" And the second Levite was called up not as Levi but as Yisrael. The order of calling up is, Kohen, Levi, Yisrael."
,k59b_31:" A descendant of the Gibeonites, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 340, n. 12."
,k59b_32:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k59b_33:" If he was disqualified from being called up first qua kohen, he would not be called up earlier than third."
,k59b_34:" Till the reading of the law is finished."
,k59b_35:" And therefore know that the reason why another priest or Levite was called up was not because he was disqualified."
,k59b_36:" Before the reading of the Law is concluded. "
}

txt:
<p>
THE PIT WHICH IS NEAREST THE [HEAD OF THE] WATERCOURSE<a id="k59b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IS FILLED FROM IT FIRST,<a id="k59b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. [THE TAKING OF] BEASTS, BIRDS AND FISHES FROM SNARES [SET BY OTHERS] IS RECKONED AS A KIND OF ROBBERY,<a id="k59b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. R. JOSE SAYS THAT IT IS ACTUAL ROBBERY.<a id="k59b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [TO TAKE AWAY] ANYTHING FOUND BY A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR IS RECKONED AS A KIND OF ROBBERY,<a id="k59b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. R. JOSE SAYS: IT IS ACTUAL ROBBERY. IF A POOR MAN GLEANS ON THE TOP OF AN OLIVE TREE, [TO TAKE THE FRUIT] THAT IS BENEATH HIM<a id="k59b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IS COUNTED AS A KIND OF ROBBERY.<a id="k59b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOSE SAYS IT IS ACTUAL ROBBERY. THE POOR OF THE HEATHEN MAY NOT BE PREVENTED FROM GATHERING GLEANINGS,<a id="k59b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; FORGOTTEN SHEAVES,<a id="k59b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE CORNER OF THE FIELD,<a id="k59b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [A PRIEST IS CALLED UP FIRST TO READ THE LAW]. What is the warrant for this? &mdash; R. Mattenah said: Because Scripture says, And Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests the sons of Levi.<a id="k59b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Now do we not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? What it means therefore is that the priests [are first] and then the sons of Levi. R. Isaac Nappaha said: We derive it from this verse, viz., And the priests the sons of Levi shall draw near.<a id="k59b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Now do we not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? What it signifies therefore is that the priests are first and then the sons of Levi. R. Ashi derived it from this verse, The sons of Amram were Aaron and Moses, and Aaron was separated to sanctify him as most holy.<a id="k59b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abba derived it from the following, And thou shalt sanctify him,<a id="k59b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; This implies, [Give him precedence] in every matter which involves sanctification. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: 'And thou shalt sanctify him', to wit, [give him precedence] in every matter involving sanctification, to open proceedings, to say grace first, and to choose his portion first.<a id="k59b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Is this rule only [a Rabbinical one] in the interests of peace? It derives from the Torah? &mdash; He answered: It does derive from the Torah, but its object is to maintain peace. But the whole of the Law is also for the purpose of promoting peace, as it is written, Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace?<a id="k59b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, said Abaye; we have to understand it in the light of what was said by the Master,<a id="k59b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; as it has been taught: Two persons wait for one another with the dish,<a id="k59b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but if there are three they need not wait.<a id="k59b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; The one who breaks bread<a id="k59b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; helps himself to the dish<a id="k59b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; first, but if he wishes to pay respect to his teacher or to a superior he may do so.<a id="k59b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Commenting on this, the Master said: This applies only to the table,<a id="k59b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to the synagogue, since there such deference<a id="k59b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; might lead to quarrelling. R. Mattenah said: What you have said about the synagogue is true only on Sabbaths and Festivals, when there is a large congregation, but not on Mondays and Thursdays.<a id="k59b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Is that so? Did not R. Huna read as kohen<a id="k59b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; even on Sabbaths and Festivals? &mdash; R. Huna was different, since even R. Ammi and R. Assi who were the most distinguished kohanim of Eretz Israel paid deference to him.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: We assume the rule to be that if there is no kohen there, the arrangement no longer holds.<a id="k59b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye further said: We have it on tradition that if there is no Levite there, a kohen reads in his place. Is that so? Has not R. Johanan said that one kohen should not read after another, because this might cast a suspicion on the first,<a id="k59b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and one Levite should not read after another because this might cast a suspicion on both? &mdash; What we meant was that the same kohen [should read in the place of the Levite].
</p><p>
	Why just in the case of the Levites should there be a reflection on both of them? Because, [you say,] people will say that one [or other] of them is not a Levite? If one kohen reads after another, they will also say that one of them is not a kohen? &mdash; We assume that it is known that the father of the second was a kohen.<a id="k59b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; But in the same way we may say that it is known that the father of the second [Levite] was a Levite?<a id="k59b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They might say that he [the father] married a bastard or a nethinah<a id="k59b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and disqualified his offspring. In the same way they might say that [the father of the second priest] married a divorced woman or a <i>haluzah</i><a id="k59b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and disqualified his offspring? &mdash; In any case [if he were suspect] would he read as Levi?<a id="k59b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; And who would suspect him? Those who remain in the synagogue?<a id="k59b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; They see [that he counts as one of the seven]!<a id="k59b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It must be then, those who go out of synagogue.<a id="k59b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Galileans sent to inquire of R. Helbo: After them [the kohen and levi,]
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k60a_1:" [Plur. of Parnas. In Galilee the office of Parnas was connected with the political organization of the town and its title denoted usually a general leader of the people and sometimes also a member of the council. Elsewhere the function of the Parnas was that of a charity overseer. V. Buchler, Sepphoris, pp. 14ff.]"
,k60a_2:" [The archisynagogos, the supreme authority over the synagogues in the town. V. Sot. (Sonc. ed,) p. 202, n. 5.]"
,k60a_3:" Plur. of Humesh, one of the five books of the Pentateuch. In olden days these too were written on scrolls."
,k60a_4:" The portions from the prophets read after the weekly portion of the Law."
,k60a_5:" On the principle that what may not be used on Sabbath may not be carried."
,k60a_6:" According to the rule laid down <i>infra</i>."
,k60a_7:" As otherwise the Aggada might be forgotten."
,k60a_8:" Ps. CXIX, 126. E.V. 'It is a time to work for the Lord, for they have broken thy commandments.'"
,k60a_9:" Since some congregations cannot obtain a complete copy of the Prophets."
,k60a_10:" I.e., as each section was transmitted to Moses, he wrote it down, and in the end joined all the sections together."
,k60a_11:" I.e., there is no reason, it is a tradition."
,k60a_12:" Queen Helena of Adiabene, v. Yoma 37a, and <i>Nazir</i> 119b."
,k60a_13:" Unfaithful wife. V. Num. V, 11ff. This proves that separate sections may be written."
,k60a_14:" Lit., 'Alphabetically'."
,k60a_15:" The priest who transcribes the section of the Sotah."
,k60a_16:" This should be, If thou hast gone aside&nbsp;&hellip; if thou hast nor gone aside. Ibid. 19, 20."
,k60a_17:" Only the beginnings of the verses were in full and the later words with first letter only."
,k60a_18:" 'In the beginning'. Gen. I, 1."
,k60a_19:" Leviticus."
,k60a_20:" Lev., IX, 1. I.e., the whole of the rules of the sacrifices, and so with any other complete section."
,k60a_21:" Ps. XL, 8. According to the Rabbis, this is a reference to the story of Lot and his daughters, to which David here appeals as a proof against his calumniators that his coming was heralded in the Torah, he being descended from Ruth the Moabite."
,k60a_22:" Deut. XXXI, 26."
,k60a_23:" Zech. V, 2. This is interpreted by the Rabbis to refer to the Torah."
,k60a_24:" And written by Moses on separate rolls, before the writing down of the whole Torah."
,k60a_25:" Lev. XXI, containing the rules of uncleanness for the priests."
,k60a_26:" Num. VIII, 5-26. The Levites were required for the service of song on that day."
,k60a_27:" Who would be required to keep the Passover in the second month, Num. IX, 9-14."
,k60a_28:" Ibid. V, 1-4. This also had to take place before the Tabernacle was set up."
,k60a_29:" Lev. XVI, dealing with the service of the Day of Atonement, which, as stated in the text, was transmitted immediately after the death of the two sons of Aaron. "
}

txt:
<p>
who are to be called up? He did not know what to reply, so he went and asked R. Isaac Nappaha. who said to him: After them are called up the scholars who are appointed Parnasim<a id="k60a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of the community, and after them scholars who are qualified to be appointed Parnaasim of the community, and after them the sons of scholars whose fathers had been appointed Parnasim of the community and after them heads of synagogues<a id="k60a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and members of the general public.
</p><p>
	The Galileans sent to inquire of R. Helbo: Is it permissible to read separate humashin [of each book of the Torah]<a id="k60a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in the synagogue in public? He did not know what to answer, so he inquired in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>. They settled the question in the light of what R. Samuel b. Nahmani had said in the name of R. Johanan, that a scroll of the Law which is short of one flap may not be read from. This, however, is not conclusive: in that case something essential was lacking, in this case nothing essential is lacking. Rabbah and R. Joseph both concurred in ruling that separate humashin should not be read from out of respect for the congregation. Rabbah and R. Joseph also concurred in ruling that a scroll containing only the haftarahs<a id="k60a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; should not be read from on Sabbath. What is the reason? Because it is not proper to write [sections of the prophets separately]. Mar son of R. Ashi said: It is forbidden also to carry them on Sabbath, for the reason that they are not fitting to be read from.<a id="k60a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, is not correct: it is permitted to carry them and it is permitted to read from them. For R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish used to look through a book of Aggada on Sabbath. Now Aggada is not meant to be written down?<a id="k60a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; We say, however, that since this cannot be dispensed with,<a id="k60a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; when it is a time to work for the Lord, they break thy Torah.<a id="k60a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Here too, since it cannot be dispensed with,<a id="k60a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; we say, 'when it is a time to work for the Lord, they break the law.'
</p><p>
	Abaye asked Rabbah: Is it permitted to write out a scroll [containing a passage] for a child to learn from? This is a problem alike for one who holds that the Torah was transmitted [to Moses] scroll by scroll,<a id="k60a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and for one who holds that the Torah was transmitted entire. It is a problem for one who holds that the Torah was transmitted scroll by scroll: since it was transmitted scroll by scroll, may we also write separate scrolls, or do we say that since it has all been joined together it must remain so? It is equally a problem for one who holds that the Torah was transmitted entire: since it was transmitted entire, is it improper to write [separate scrolls], or do we say that since we cannot dispense with this we do write them? &mdash; He replied: We do not write. What is the reason? &mdash; Because we do not write.<a id="k60a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; He then raised an objection: 'She<a id="k60a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; also made a tablet of gold on which was written the section of the Sotah'?<a id="k60a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Simeon b. Lakish had [already] explained in the name of R. Jannai: Only the first letters<a id="k60a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [of each word were written there]. He then raised [the following objection]: 'As he<a id="k60a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; writes he looks at the tablet and writes what is written in the tablet'? &mdash; Read, 'He writes according to what is written in the tablet.' He then raised [the following objection]: 'As he writes he looks at the tablet and writes what is written in the tablet, If one lay, if one did not lie.'<a id="k60a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What is meant is that it was written irregularly.<a id="k60a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; On this point Tannaim differ [as we were taught]: 'A scroll should not be written for a child to learn from; if, however, it is the intention of the writer to complete it, he may do so. R. Judah says: He may write from Bereshith<a id="k60a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to [the story of the generation of the] Flood, or in the Priests' Law<a id="k60a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; up to, And it came to pass on the eighth day.'<a id="k60a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said in the name of R. Bana'ah: The Torah was transmitted in separate scrolls, as it says, Then said I, Lo I am come, in the roll of the book it is written of me.<a id="k60a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The Torah was transmitted entire, as it says, Take this book of the law.<a id="k60a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; What does the other make of this verse 'Take etc.'? &mdash; This refers to the time after it had been joined together. And what does the other [Resh Lakish] make of the verse, 'in a roll of the book written of me'? &mdash; That is [to indicate] that the whole Torah is called a roll, as it is written, And he said unto me, what seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll.<a id="k60a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Or perhaps [it is called roll] for the reason given by R. Levi, since R. Levi said: Eight sections were given forth<a id="k60a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; on the day on which the Tabernacle was set up. They are: the section of the priests,<a id="k60a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; the section of the Levites,<a id="k60a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the section of the unclean,<a id="k60a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; the section of the sending of the unclean [out of the camp],<a id="k60a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the section commencing 'After the death',<a id="k60a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%">


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k60b_1:" Ibid. X, 8-11."
,k60b_2:" Num. VIII, 1-4."
,k60b_3:" Ibid. XIX. These last three injunctions came into force as soon as the Tabernacle was set up."
,k60b_4:" Either explicitly or implicitly."
,k60b_5:" I.e., as a pure tradition, without any basis in the written law."
,k60b_6:" Hos. VIII, 12."
,k60b_7:" Ex. XXXIV, 27. E.V. 'for by the tenor of these words.'"
,k60b_8:" As if they had not been written down."
,k60b_9:" The so-called meturgeman. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k60b_10:" Ex. XXXIV, 27."
,k60b_11:" Ibid."
,k60b_12:" Ibid."
,k60b_13:" I.e., <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">the Oral Law.</font>"
,k60b_14:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Ex. XXXIV, 27.</font>"
,k60b_15:" I.e., what reason have we for thinking that this promotes peace and good fellowship?"
,k60b_16:" Which was used for announcing the advent of the Sabbath. According to another explanation it was a receptacle in which were placed the contributions sent on behalf of the students of the Yeshibah."
,k60b_17:" Lest, if people come into the room where they have been used to see the 'erub and miss it, they will think that the residents of the court have neglected to make an 'erub."
,k60b_18:" All having an equal right to draw at any time."
,k60b_19:" Till they have drawn off the water they require."
,k60b_20:" Which seems to support the opinion of Samuel."
,k60b_21:" So that he could fill it without damming."
,k60b_22:" Lit., 'Whoever is stronger (whether by argument or force) prevails.' V. B.B. 34b."
,k60b_23:" Lit., 'let the Master allow' me to sit for awhile.'"
,k60b_24:" Rab and Samuel."
,k60b_25:" [Near Pumbeditha. v. Aruch, s.v. [H], in name of Hai Gaon.]"
,k60b_26:" Owing to its longer course, the current of the river was now slower, and the waters above the trench were not carried off and overflowed the adjoining fields."
,k60b_27:" If there was not much water, the level of the river would fall and it would not flow into the trenches."
,k60b_28:" Lit., 'depart from there.' "
}

txt:
<p>
the section dealing with the drinking of wine [by priests],<a id="k60b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the section of the lights<a id="k60b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [of the candlestick], and the section of the red heifer.<a id="k60b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar said: The greater portion of the Torah is contained in the written Law<a id="k60b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and only the smaller portion was transmitted orally,<a id="k60b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; as it says, Though I wrote for him the major portion of [the precepts of] my law, they were counted a strange thing.<a id="k60b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan. on the other hand, said that the greater part was transmitted orally and only the smaller part is contained in the written law, as it says, For by the mouth of these words.<a id="k60b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But what does he make of the words, 'Though I write for him the major portion of my law'? &mdash; This is a rhetorical question: Should I have written for him the major portion of my law? [Even now] is it not accounted a strange thing for him? And what does the other make of the words, '<I>For by the</I> 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E204"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/204.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 204<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">





<I>mouth of these words</i>'? &mdash; That implies that they are difficult to master.<a id="k60b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Judah b. Nahmani the public orator<a id="k60b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Simeon b. Lakish discoursed as follows: It is written, <I>Write thou these words</I>,<a id="k60b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, <I>For according to the mouth of these words</I>.<a id="k60b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'What are we to make of this? &mdash; It means: The words which are written thou art not at liberty to say by heart, and the words transmitted orally thou art not at liberty to recite from writing. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: [It is written] <I>These</I>:<a id="k60b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; these thou mayest write, but thou mayest not write <I>halachoth</I>.<a id="k60b_13"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">13</font></sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that which was transmitted orally</font>, as it says, <I>For by the mouth of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel</I>.<a id="k60b_14"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">14</font></sup></a>
</p><p>
	AN 'ERUB SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PLACED, IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. 'What is the precise reason?<a id="k60b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say it is out of respect for the owner of the room? Then what of the <I>shofar</I><a id="k60b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; which at first was in the house of Rab Judah and later in that of Rabbah and then in the house of R. Joseph and then in the house of Abaye and finally in the house of Raba? &mdash; The real reason is, so as not to excite suspicion.<a id="k60b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE PIT WHICH IS NEAREST THE HEAD OF THE WATERCOURSE. It has been stated: ['Where fields] adjoin a river, Rab says that the owners lower down have the right to draw off water first, while Samuel says that the owners higher up have the right to draw off water first. So long as the water is allowed to flow, both agree that no problem arises.<a id="k60b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Where they differ is on the question of damming for the purpose of watering. Samuel says that those above can draw off water first, for they can say 'We are nearer to the source', while Rab holds that those below can draw off first, for they can say 'The river should be allowed to take its natural course'.<a id="k60b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'We have learnt: THE PIT WHICH IS NEAREST TO THE HEAD OF THE WATERCOURSE MAY BE FILLED FROM IT FIRST, IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE!<a id="k60b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel explained this on behalf of Rab to refer to a watercourse which passes close to a man's pit.<a id="k60b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, what is the point of the remark? &mdash; You might think that the others can say to him, 'Close up the mouth of your pit so as to take in water only in due proportion'; we are therefore told [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	R. Huna b. Tahalifa said: Seeing that the law has not been determined one way or the other, each must fend for himself.<a id="k60b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shimi b. Ashi presented himself before Abaye with a request that he should give him lessons.<a id="k60b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: I use my time for my own studies. Then, he said, would your honour teach me at night. He said: I have to do some irrigation. Said the other: I will irrigate for your honour by day, and do you teach me by night. Very well, he said. So he went to the people higher up and said to them: The people lower down have the right to draw water first. Then he went to those lower down and said, The people higher up have the right to draw water first. Meanwhile he had dammed the watercourse and irrigated Abaye's fields. 'When he presented himself before Abaye, the latter said to him: You have acted on my behalf according to two contradictory authorities;<a id="k60b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and Abaye would not taste of the produce of that year.
</p><p>
	Certain peasants in Be Harmah<a id="k60b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; went and dug a trench from the upper waters of the canal Shanwatha and brought it round [their fields] to the lower waters. Those higher up came and complained to Abaye, saying, They are spoiling our river.<a id="k60b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to them: Deepen the bed a little [before it reaches them]. They said to him: If we do this, our trenches will be dry.<a id="k60b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; He then said to the first set: Leave the river alone.<a id="k60b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[THE TAKING OF] BEASTS, BIRDS AND FISHES. If loose or close nets are used,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k61a_1:" As these, having a hollow, certainly confer ownership on the one who set them, and to take the contents would be robbery."
,k61a_2:" Made of little joists."
,k61a_3:" And not according to the Torah."
,k61a_4:" But the robber is not disqualified from giving evidence, whereas according to the Rabbis the article cannot even be recovered by process of law."
,k61a_5:" Because by handling it he had acquired possession."
,k61a_6:" [Between Neahardea and Sura (Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 300).]"
,k61a_7:" So Rashi. Tosaf., however, translates, 'was throwing down twigs (which he cut of) from a tree, and dates fell off,' which certainly renders the incident more intelligible."
,k61a_8:" And have learnt from his teaching."
,k61a_9:" Prov. X, 25. E.V., 'the righteous is an everlasting foundation.'"
,k61a_10:" I.e., if there is no-one else to bury them, but not in the same cemetery."
,k61a_11:" I.e., of keeping produce which has been gathered after the inauguration of the Sabbatical year."
,k61a_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k61a_13:" In the case of the Sabbatical year, by breaking the precept of eating produce of the year; in the case of the 'am ha-arez, the (Rabbinical) precept of preserving the loaf from uncleanness."
,k61a_14:" That assistance may be given other than at the time of the actual breaking of the precept."
,k61a_15:" To what extent is discussed in the Gemara."
,k61a_16:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 279, n. 1."
,k61a_17:" Not to grind with one who does not observe the Sabbatical year."
,k61a_18:" That grinding may be done with the wife of an 'am ha-arez."
,k61a_19:" And with the ordinary 'am ha-arez this would be forbidden."
,k61a_20:" Whereas the first clause deals with a woman who is suspected in regard to the Sabbatical year."
,k61a_21:" Being only Rabbinic we need not be so particular."
,k61a_22:" Even though he is careful about tithes."
,k61a_23:" Apparently because the water renders the flour capable of becoming unclean."
,k61a_24:" That she shall not sift etc."
,k61a_25:" I.e., that the reason is not anything to do with uncleanness, and must therefore be because of tithe."
,k61a_26:" Lit., 'loaf': 'the first of the dough' which had to be offered as a heave-offering. Num. XV, 19. As this was a precept of the Torah, greater care had to be exercised not to assist in its transgression."
,k61a_27:" Of the statement that it is permitted to help an 'am ha-arez to grind. "
}

txt:
<p>
there is no difference of opinion between the Rabbis and R. Jose.<a id="k61a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Where they differ is when fishhooks and traps<a id="k61a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [are used].
</p><p>
	[TO TAKE AWAY] ANYTHING FOUND BY A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR&nbsp;&hellip; R. JOSE SAYS THAT THIS IS ACTUAL ROBBERY. R. Hisda says: [R. Jose means], actual robbery according to the Rabbis.<a id="k61a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'What [then] is the practical effect of R. Jose's ruling? &mdash; That the article can be recovered by process of law.<a id="k61a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A POOR MAN IS GLEANING THE TOP OF AN OLIVE TREE, TO TAKE THE FRUIT BENEATH HIM. A Tanna taught: If the poor man had gathered the fruit and placed it on the ground with his hands, to take it is actual robbery.<a id="k61a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Kahana was once going to Huzal<a id="k61a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; when he saw a man throwing sticks [at a tree] and bringing dates down,<a id="k61a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; so he went and picked up some and ate them. Said the other to him: See, Sir, that I have thrown them down with my own hands. He said to him: You are from the same place as R. Josiah.<a id="k61a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and he applied to him the verse, The righteous man is the foundation of the world.<a id="k61a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE POOR OF THE HEATHEN ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM GATHERING GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES AND THE CORNER OF THE FIELD, TO AVOID ILL FEELING. Our Rabbis have taught: 'We support the poor of the heathen along with the poor of Israel, and visit the sick of the heathen along with the sick of Israel, and bury the poor of the heathen along with the dead of Israel,<a id="k61a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; in the interests of peace'.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WOMAN MAY LEND TO ANOTHER WHO IS SUSPECTED OF NOT OBSERVING THE SABBATICAL YEAR<a id="k61a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; A FAN OR A SIEVE OR A HANDMILL OR A STOVE, BUT SHE SHOULD NOT SIFT OR GRIND WITH HER. THE WIFE OF A HABER<a id="k61a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY LEND TO THE WIFE OF AN 'AM HA-AREZ<a id="k61a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; A FAN OR A SIEVE AND MAY WINNOW AND GRIND AND SIFT WITH HER, BUT ONCE SHE HAS POURED WATER OVER THE FLOUR SHE SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANYTHING WITH HER, BECAUSE IT IS NOT RIGHT TO ASSIST THOSE WHO COMMIT A TRANSGRESSION.<a id="k61a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; ALL THESE RULES<a id="k61a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; WERE LAID DOWN ONLY IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. HEATHENS MAY BE ASSISTED<a id="k61a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE SABBATICAL YEAR BUT NOT ISRAELITES, AND GREETING MAY BE GIVEN TO THEM, IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE.<a id="k61a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why is the rule in the first case<a id="k61a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; different from that in the second?<a id="k61a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye said: Most 'amme ha-arez separate their tithes.<a id="k61a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: [We are speaking] here of the 'am ha-arez [specified] by R. Meir<a id="k61a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and the cleanness and uncleanness recognised [only] by the Rabbis,<a id="k61a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; as it has been taught: Who is an 'am ha-arez? One who does not insist on eating ordinary food in a ritually clean condition.<a id="k61a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; So R. Meir. The Sages, however, say it is one who does not tithe his produce. But since it says in the later clause of the Mishnah, ONCE SHE HAS POURED WATER OVER THE FLOUR SHE SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANYTHING WITH HER,<a id="k61a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; does not this show that the earlier clause<a id="k61a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is not speaking of cleanness and uncleanness?<a id="k61a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both the earlier and the later clause speak of cleanness and uncleanness, the former, however, of the uncleanness of ordinary food and the latter of that of the <i>hallah</i>.<a id="k61a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The following was adduced in contradiction:<a id="k61a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k61b_1:" We do not fear lest they exchange it for some produce of their own or defile it by touching it."
,k61b_2:" Being used to eating <i>terumah</i>."
,k61b_3:" Which does not become unclean by touching, v. Hul. 24b."
,k61b_4:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> This is known as hesset, a defilement communicated by moving an object without actually touching it."
,k61b_5:" By means of a liquid, v. Lev. XI, 38."
,k61b_6:" And it is this which may be entrusted to a priest who is suspected of eating <i>terumah</i> in uncleanness."
,k61b_7:" V. <i>Demai</i> III, 4."
,k61b_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k61b_9:" I.e., not to have been exchanged or mixed."
,k61b_10:" I.e., it may have been touched by the miller, whereas in the first Baraitha it is permitted."
,k61b_11:" I.e., grain on which water has not yet fallen."
,k61b_12:" I.e., not on the point of uncleanness but of tithe etc."
,k61b_13:" To prepare a dish for him."
,k61b_14:" So that she should not through him eat something untithed."
,k61b_15:" <i>Demai</i> III, 6."
,k61b_16:" [This is no Mishnah, and preference is to be given to [H] in MS.M.]"
,k61b_17:" Al. 'Is the student to eat hot and I cold?' V. Tosaf."
,k61b_18:" Because she is not likely to put anything in her mouth."
,k61b_19:" Because being clean she might inadvertently put untithed food in her mouth. "
}

txt:
<p>
'It is allowed to grind corn and to deposit it with those who eat produce of the Sabbatical year and those who eat their produce in uncleanness,<a id="k61b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but not for those who eat the produce of the Sabbatical year and for those who eat their produce in uncleanness'? &mdash; Abaye replied: 'We are dealing there with a priest who is suspected of eating <i>terumah</i> in uncleanness, the uncleanness there being of a kind recognised by the Torah. If that is so, how could the food be entrusted to him? 'Would not that contradict the following: 'Terumah may be entrusted to an Israelite 'am ha-arez but not to a priest 'am ha-arez, because he might take liberties with it?'<a id="k61b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Elai said: 'We are speaking here of [produce in] an earthenware vessel with a close fitting cover.<a id="k61b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But is there not a danger that his wife might move it while <i>niddah</i>?<a id="k61b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: [Even so] there is no contradiction: in the one case we speak of produce which has become capable of receiving uncleanness,<a id="k61b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other of produce which is not so capable.<a id="k61b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A further contradiction was raised:<a id="k61b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a man takes wheat to a miller who is a Cuthean<a id="k61b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; or a heathen, it is presumed to remain in its original condition<a id="k61b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; as regards tithe or Sabbatical produce, but not as regards uncleanness'?<a id="k61b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'What refutation is there here? Have you not just explained that the reference is to produce which has not been rendered capable of receiving uncleanness?<a id="k61b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'What then was the point of the question? &mdash; Because the questioner wanted to adduce another contradiction<a id="k61b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [as follows]; [You have just said], It is presumed to have remained in its original condition as regards tithe and Sabbatical year, that is to say, we have no fear of its having been changed. This seems to contradict the following: If a man [a haber] gives produce to his mother-in-law [the wife of an 'am ha-arez],<a id="k61b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he tithes what he gives to her<a id="k61b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of changing anything that becomes spoilt?<a id="k61b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There the reason is as was stated: 'R. Judah said; She is anxious for the well-being of her daughter and she is ashamed for her son-in-law.' But in general are we not afraid [of food being changed]? Have we not learnt:<a id="k61b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a student gives produce to the mistress of his boarding house, he tithes what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is likely to change it'? &mdash; There she finds an excuse for herself, saying. Let the student eat hot and I will eat cold.<a id="k61b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; And still we ask, in general are we not afraid? Has it not been taught: 'The wife of a haber can grind along with the wife of an 'am ha-arez, when she is ritually unclean,<a id="k61b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but not when she is ritually clean.<a id="k61b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Eleazar says; Even when she is ritually unclean she should not grind with her, because the other
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k63a_1:" Because if he had taken the agent's word that she told him to bring it, she would not be divorced even when it came into her hand."
,k63a_2:" And so makes him an agent for conveying it."
,k63a_3:" And so when the husband says, 'here you are as she said,' he cannot become his agent [or conveying either. For fuller notes v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 440ff"
,k63a_4:" And when he says 'receive' he implies also 'convey'."
,k63a_5:" And similarly, once the Get has reached her, he makes the wife's agent retrospectively his agent for conveying."
,k63a_6:" Thinking that the wife has appointed him her agent for receiving when she has not."
,k63a_7:" V. <i>infra</i> 65a."
,k63a_8:" And the girl being a minor has no power to make him an agent for receiving."
,k63a_9:" I.e., he makes him his agent nor conveying retrospectively."
,k63a_10:" This refutes R. Nahman."
,k63a_11:" V. Tosef. Git. IV."
,k63a_12:" [I.e., we suppose that if the agent says he was appointed to receive, the husband says to him 'receive', and if he says he was appointed to bring, the husband says to him 'convey'. The fact that in the former case when the Get reaches her hand she is divorced show's that though the woman had appointed him to bring it to her, when the husband says receive' this is equivalent to 'convey'; all the more so then is the divorce valid if he says, 'here it is as she said'. This refutes R. Nahman.]"
,k63a_13:" And we suppose the husband to be relying on the wife's word, who made him in the first case an agent for receiving and in the second an agent for bringing, and for this reason the woman becomes divorced at least when the Get reaches her hand."
,k63a_14:" Because the wife made him agent for receiving."
,k63a_15:" [That he was made by the woman an agent for bringing and when the husband says 'receive' he means 'receive and convey', as inferred <i>supra</i> in the hypothetical case posited by R. Ashi.]"
,k63a_16:" The case posited by R. Ashi."
,k63a_17:" [Which on the statement of the agent makes him an agent for conveying, and should we decide, in that case, that the woman is divorced on receiving the Get, this will prove that he relies on the agent's word.]"
,k63a_18:" [The husband merely says 'take possession on her behalf' or receive on her behalf', which can only be taken in conjunction with the statement of the agent who said that he was appointed agent for bringing. Had, however, the husband said 'here you are as she said', the divorce, it might indeed be said, would become immediately effective, the husband relying on her word.]"
,k63a_19:" 'Convey' being equivalent to 'take possession of', so that as soon as it comes into the agent's hand it is effective."
,k63a_20:" 'Convey' not being regarded as equivalent to 'take possession of'."
,k63a_21:" V. Tosef. Git. IV."
,k63a_22:" In the first part of his statement. "
}

txt:
<p>
I grant you that if the statement had been in the reverse form, thus, '[If the wife said]. Receive my Get on my behalf, and [he said], Your wife told me to bring it, and the husband says. Here you are as she said,' and if R. Nahman had said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in the name Rab, 'Once the Get comes into his hand, she is divorced,' then I could infer that he relies upon her word;<a id="k63a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; or again, if he had said, '[Once the Get reaches] her hand [she is divorced]', I could have inferred that the husband relies upon the agent's word.<a id="k63a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; As it is, however, the reason why [the Get is not valid] is because the agent completely nullified his agency by saying 'I am willing to be an agent for receiving and not for conveying'.<a id="k63a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna b. Hiyya said [in refutation of R. Nahman]: Come and hear: IF A MAN SAYS, RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE, OR, CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. The reason [why the Get is not effective] is that he desires to do so; if he does not [and lets the Get reach her], the Get is valid. Now why should this be, seeing that the husband is not competent to appoint an agent for receiving the Get? The reason must be because we say that once he has made up his mind to divorce her, he says to himself, Let her be divorced in any way possible.<a id="k63a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; So here also, since he made up his mind to divorce her, he says to himself, Let her be divorced in any way possible?<a id="k63a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Are the two cases comparable? In that case [of the Mishnah], a man knows that he cannot appoint an agent for receiving the Get and decides to give it to the agent for the purpose of conveying; but here he gives it under a misapprehension.<a id="k63a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: Come and hear: If a girl under age said, Receive my Get on my behalf, it is not effective until it reaches her hand.<a id="k63a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Now at any rate [according to this] when it reaches her hand she is divorced, and yet why should this be, seeing that the husband did not make him an agent for conveying?<a id="k63a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; We say however, that since the husband made up his mind to divorce her, he says to himself, Let her be divorced in any way possible;<a id="k63a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; so here, since he made up his mind to divorce her, he says, Let her be divorced in any way possible?<a id="k63a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But are these two cases comparable? There, a man knows that a minor cannot appoint an agent, and therefore he decides to give it to the agent for the purpose of being conveyed on his own behalf; but here he gives it under a misapprehension.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: [If a woman says to an agent], Bring me my Get, and [the agent says to the husband], Your wife told me to receive her Get for her, or if the wife says, Receive my Get for me, and he says, Your wife told me to bring her Get, and the husband says to him, Convey and give it to her, take possession on her behalf and receive on her behalf, if he desires to retract he may do so, but once the Get reaches her hand she is divorced.<a id="k63a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Now does not here the husband's saying 'receive' correspond to the agent's saying 'receive', and the husband's saying 'convey' to the agent's saying 'convey'?<a id="k63a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; 'receive' corresponds to 'bring' and convey' to 'receive'.<a id="k63a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If 'receive corresponds to 'bring', then [if the husband relies on the wife's word] the Get should be effective as soon as it comes into the agent's hand;<a id="k63a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [and since this is not so] it shows that he relies on his word?<a id="k63a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; How can you say so? In that case<a id="k63a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he says to him, 'Here you are, as she said;<a id="k63a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; in this case does he say, 'Here you are as she said?<a id="k63a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If a woman says to an agent], Receive my Get for me, and [he says to the husband], Your wife told me to receive her Get for her, and the husband says, Convey it and give it to her, take possession of it on her behalf, or receive it on her behalf, if he desires to retract he is not at liberty to do so.<a id="k63a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nathan says: If he says, Convey and give it to her, he can retract,<a id="k63a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he says, Take possession of it and receive it for her, he cannot retract. Rabbi says, [If he uses] any of these formulas he cannot retract, but if he says, I am not agreeable that you should receive for her, but convey it and give it to her, then if he desires to retract he may do so.<a id="k63a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not Rabbi merely repeat the first Tanna?<a id="k63a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you like I can say that [he did so because] he desired to add the clause about not being agreeable, or if you like I can say that the repetition is meant to inform us that the first Tanna is Rabbi.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: According to R. Nathan, is 'here you are' equivalent to 'take possession' or not? Come and hear: IF A MAN SAYS, RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE OR CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE A GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k63b_1:" [H]."
,k63b_2:" Who would accordingly hold that 'here you are' is equivalent to 'take possession'."
,k63b_3:" [H]."
,k63b_4:" Lit., 'here you are'."
,k63b_5:" And a plus forte raison according to Rabbi."
,k63b_6:" I.e., if the husband dies childless before she receives the Get."
,k63b_7:" But must not marry the husband's brother, because it is doubtful whether she was not divorced before the husband's death, (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k63b_8:" If it is equivalent to 'take possession', the man is still agent for the wife, and the Get is valid as soon as it comes into his hands."
,k63b_9:" Because the creditor did not tell him to send it."
,k63b_10:" Which would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession'; v. <i>supra</i> 14a."
,k63b_11:" I.e., the one more favourable to the recipient."
,k63b_12:" The possibility of a man marrying the divorced wife of his brother."
,k63b_13:" After the Get had been placed in it. A Get must either be given into a woman's hand or placed in property belonging to her, (v. <i>infra</i> 77a). If the husband threw the Get into a courtyard not belonging to the wife and it subsequently came into her possession while the Get was still there, the Get is not valid. There is a certain analogy between this and the wife appointing an agent to receive from the husband's agent, so that if the latter were permitted, people might think that the former was also permitted. v. <i>supra</i> p. 95, n. 9,"
,k63b_14:" There is now no analogy with the courtyard. but the reason of contempt still applies."
,k63b_15:" Lit., 'let it be in your hand', i.e., she appointed him her agent for receiving it."
,k63b_16:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 95, n. 3, And consequently the second agency nullifies the first."
,k63b_17:" In Palestine."
,k63b_18:" Lit., 'the agency has not returned to the husband'."
,k63b_19:" Viz., of a man marrying his brother's divorcee."
,k63b_20:" And not marry the husband's brother."
,k63b_21:" Who were commissioned to write and deliver it."
,k63b_22:" After delivering it to her, and have no power to make out a new, and proper Get."
,k63b_23:" So that it should not be lost."
,k63b_24:" And if the bearer loses it they must not write another,"
,k63b_25:" Lit., 'let it be for me in thy hand.'"
,k63b_26:" The point of this is discussed in the Gemara. "
}

txt:
<p>
Does not this mean, if he said, 'here you are',<a id="k63b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the opinion recorded being that of R. Nathan?<a id="k63b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; It means, if he said 'convey',<a id="k63b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the opinion recorded being that of Rabbi.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT FOR HER, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. Now the reason why he may retract is because he said, I am not agreeable etc., and if he did not say so he may not retract. Does not this mean, after he says, 'Here you are, the opinion recorded being that of R. Nathan? &mdash; No; it means [even] after he says, 'Convey', the opinion recorded being that of Rabbi.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: '[If a man says], Convey this Get to my wife, if he desires to retract he may do so, but if he says, Here is<a id="k63b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; this Get for my wife, if he desires to retract he may not do so.' What authority do you find for the view that if the husband says 'convey' he is at liberty to retract? R. Nathan; and he lays down that if the husband says 'here you are' he is not at liberty to retract. This proves conclusively that 'here you are' is [according to R. Nathan]<a id="k63b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; equivalent to 'take possession'.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: [If the wife says], Receive my Get for me, and [the agent says to the husband], Your wife told me to receive her Get for her, and the husband says, Convey and give it to her, R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna, who had it from Rab, that he becomes both her agent and his agent, and [in case of need]<a id="k63b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; she must perform <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k63b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; This would seem to show that Rab was in doubt whether 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession' or not.<a id="k63b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet how can this be, seeing that it has been stated: [If a man says], Take this <i>maneh</i> to so-and-so to whom I owe it, Rab says that he is responsible for it [till it is delivered]<a id="k63b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and he cannot retract?<a id="k63b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [There is still a doubt, but] in that case the doubt concerns the ownership of money, and Rab takes the more lenient view,<a id="k63b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in this case it concerns a religious offence<a id="k63b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and he takes the more stringent view.
</p><p>
	Rab said: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband. R. Haninah, however, said that a woman may appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband. What is Rab's reason? &mdash; If you like I can say, to avoid showing contempt for the husband, and if you like I can say, because of [the resemblance of the agent to] a courtyard which comes [in to her possession] subsequently.<a id="k63b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; What difference does it make in practice which reason we adopt? &mdash; The difference arises in the case where she had appointed her agent first.<a id="k63b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man sent a Get to his wife, and the bearer found her kneading [flour]. He said to her, Here is your Get. She replied You take it.<a id="k63b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman thereupon said: If [I knew that] R. Haninah is right. I would count this a valid Get. Said Raba to him: And even if R. Haninah is right, would you count this valid? There has been no time for the agent to return to the husband [and report]?<a id="k63b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; They sent to consult R. Ammi,<a id="k63b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and he replied: The husband's commission has not been performed.<a id="k63b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abba, however, said: We must consider the matter. They again sent to consult R. Hiyya b. Abba.<a id="k63b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: How many more times will they send? Just as they are unable to decide, so we are unable to decide. The danger of forbidden relationship,<a id="k63b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; is involved, and wherever a sex prohibition is involved, the woman must perform <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k63b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; In a case which actually happened, R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha declared both a new Get and <i>halizah</i> to be required. [Why] both? &mdash; A Get [if she desired to marry while the husband] was alive, and <i>halizah</i> [if she wanted to marry] after his death.
</p><p>
	There was a certain woman named Nafa'atha, and the witnesses to the Get<a id="k63b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; wrote it Tafa'atha. R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha thereupon said in the name of Rab: The witnesses have discharged their commission.<a id="k63b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah strongly demurred to this, saying. Did the husband say to them, Write out a piece of clay and give it to her? No, said Rabbah. [This is not so,] but in truth, if the witnesses had written a proper Get and it had been lost [before being given to her], then we should say that they had discharged their commission. R. Nahman strongly demurred to this, saying: Did he say, Write it and put it in your bag?<a id="k63b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; The fact is, said R. Nahman, that the Get can be written and given a hundred times [till it comes right].
</p><p>
	Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a man said [to the witnesses], Write [the Get] and give it to a bearer, how do we decide? Have they been discharged,<a id="k63b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; or did he merely want to save them trouble? Rabina asked R. Ashi: Suppose he adds the words, 'And let him take it,' what do we say? &mdash; These questions can stand over.
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: EVEN IF THE WIFE SAYS [MERELY] 'TAKE FOR ME' [AND HE DOES SO], HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'Take for me, carry for me,' 'keep for me'<a id="k63b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; are all equivalent to receive.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WOMAN WHO SAYS [TO AN AGENT] 'RECEIVE MY GET FOR ME' REQUIRES TWO SETS OF WITNESSES, TWO [WITNESSES] TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE SHE TOLD HIM, AND TWO TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE HE RECEIVED [THE GET] AND TORE IT.<a id="k63b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS IMMATERIAL IF THE FIRST SET ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE LAST
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k64a_1:" We presume that they are all in the same town."
,k64a_2:" Kid. 65b; B.M. 3b."
,k64a_3:" And by trusting the depository, we maintain that the claimant waived his claim to the money, since if he likes he can make a present of the money to whomsoever be wishes, but he cannot make a present of his wife to another man."
,k64a_4:" Which usually means bills of divorce,"
,k64a_5:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. Get,"
,k64a_6:" Another word for documents', Since these must refer to money, it would seem that the gittin mentioned above do not refer to money."
,k64a_7:" They are separate Baraithas and the two words are used by two different authorities, but in the same sense."
,k64a_8:" I.e., the agent."
,k64a_9:" Having torn the Get (v. <i>infra</i>) he is no longer in a position to deliver it to her and therefore his word is not to be taken."
,k64a_10:" Seeing that he himself produces the Get in our presence."
,k64a_11:" Lit., 'the decree', forbidding the Jews to practise their religion. [V. Keth. IX. Jew's were deprived of the right to draft their own legal documents after the War 70, and also during the Hadrianic persecutions. V. Blau, L. Ehescheidung, II pp. 58ff.]"
,k64a_12:" And the rule is that we believe a plea where a stronger one could equally well have been adduced without fear of contradiction."
,k64a_13:" He appointed an agent to hand it over to her."
,k64a_14:" Lit., 'unspecified'."
,k64a_15:" Lest she should be of a prohibited degree of consanguinity with the woman whom the agent betrothed, v. Nazir 12a. "
}

txt:
<p>
OR IF THERE WAS ONE MAN IN THE FIRST SET AND ONE IN THE SECOND AND THE SAME MAN JOINED WITH BOTH OF THEM.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It has been stated: If the husband says, [I gave you the Get] in deposit, and the depository says, [You gave it to me] to divorce [your wife with], which is to be believed? &mdash; R. Huna said: The husband's word is to be taken. R. Hisda said: The depository's word is to be taken. R. Huna said the husband's word is to be taken, because if he had meant to give it to him for divorcing the wife, he would have given it to the wife herself.<a id="k64a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said the depository's word is to be taken, because we see that the husband trusted him.
</p><p>
	R. Abba raised an objection against R. Huna from the following: 'The admission of the litigant is equivalent to the testimony of a hundred witnesses, and the depository is more credible than either litigant. If, for instance, one says one thing and one another, the depository's word is to be taken'?<a id="k64a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Money is different, because the claim to it can be waived.<a id="k64a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is taught [in the passage cited], 'And so with gittin'?<a id="k64a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This refers to money gittin.<a id="k64a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is taught [in the passage cited]: 'And so with shetaroth'?<a id="k64a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Were they both taught together?<a id="k64a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learnt: A WOMAN WHO SAYS [TO AN AGENT] 'RECEIVE MY GET FOR ME' REQUIRES TWO SETS OF WITNESSES, TWO TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE SHE TOLD HIM, AND TWO TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE HE RECEIVED AND TORE IT. Why so? Cannot we take the word of the depository?<a id="k64a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Does he produce the Get that we should take his word?<a id="k64a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; This explains why witnesses are required for the telling. Why are they required for the receiving?<a id="k64a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah replied: Who is the authority for this? R. Eleazar, who held that the witnesses to the delivery [of the Get] make it effective. Why must he tear it? &mdash; R. Judah answered in the name of Rab: This was taught in the time of the persecution.<a id="k64a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: R. Huna admits that if the wife says, The depository told me that he gave it to him to divorce with, her word is to be taken. [How can this be?] Is there any statement which we would not accept from the depository himself and yet we would accept from her on his behalf? &mdash; What it should be is: If she said, in my presence he gave it to him to divorce me with, her word is taken, because if she liked she could have said that he gave it to her direct.<a id="k64a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If the husband says [that he gave it to the depository] to divorce with, and the depository says [it was given] to divorce with, and the wife says, He gave it to me but it has been lost, R. Johanan says: This is a statement bearing on forbidden relationships, and a statement bearing on a forbidden relationship must be substantiated by not less than two witnesses. But why so? Why not believe the depository? &mdash; Is he able to produce the Get that we should believe him? Then let us believe the husband, in accordance with what R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Johanan: If a husband says, I have divorced my wife, his word can be taken? &mdash; Does he here say, I have divorced her?<a id="k64a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let us say that the presumption is that the agent carries out his commission, since R. Isaac has said: If a man says to his agent, Go and betroth for me any woman you please,<a id="k64a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and the agent dies, the man is forbidden to marry any woman in the world,<a id="k64a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; because the presumption is that the agent carries out his commission?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k64b_1:" As here."
,k64b_2:" A Na'arah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> From twelve years and a day to twelve and a half years plus one day."
,k64b_3:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. Erusin."
,k64b_4:" [I.e., either she or her father, so Rashi, Being a na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), she is no longer a minor and therefore is competent to receive her Get. Her father, however, still retains the right since she is still under his authority. As to a minor, i.e., who has not reached 12 years and one day, opinions differ: Rashi does not declare her competent to receive her Get, where she has a father, whereas Tosaf, (s.v. [H]) holds that there is no difference in this respect between a na'arah and a minor, na'arah being specified in the Mishnah to emphasise the extreme view of R. Judah.]"
,k64b_5:" She being still strictly speaking a minor. For the reason v, <i>infra</i>. [Here too opinions differ, Rashi: not even if her father receives the Get on her behalf, whereas Rabbenu <i>Tam</i> allows her divorce to be effected through her father, v. Tosaf.]"
,k64b_6:" Less than twelve years and one day."
,k64b_7:" If the Get should be lost."
,k64b_8:" So that the donor cannot take it back."
,k64b_9:" And the donor can take it back."
,k64b_10:" [I.e., from Baradan, on the Eastern bank of the Tigris, two hours distance from N. of Bagdad (Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. p. 269)]."
,k64b_11:" In the courts abutting on an alley-way."
,k64b_12:" So as to be allowed to carry articles into it and through its whole extent on Sabbath, v. 'Er. 73b."
,k64b_13:" I.e., reached the age of puberty."
,k64b_14:" Since it is his duty to emancipate her."
,k64b_15:" Which seems to refute the dictum of Samuel."
,k64b_16:" And therefore it does not matter if she did not strictly obtain possession. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; That is so where [it has the effect of making the law] more stringent, but not where [it makes it] more lenient.<a id="k64b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let us believe the woman herself, in accordance with R. Hamnuna; for R. Hamnuna said: If a woman says to her husband, You have divorced me, her word is taken, since the presumption is that a woman would not have the impudence to say this in the face of her husband [if it were not true]? &mdash; That is so where she has no confirmation; but where she has some confirmation,<a id="k64b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; she certainly would not shrink from doing so.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A YOUNG GIRL<a id="k64b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IS BETROTHED,<a id="k64b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; BOTH SHE AND HER FATHER MAY RECEIVE HER GET.<a id="k64b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAID THAT TWO [DIFFERENT] HANDS CANNOT TAKE POSSESSION TOGETHER: HER FATHER ALONE MAY RECEIVE HER GET. ONE WHO IS NOT ABLE TO KEEP HER GET IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING DIVORCED.<a id="k64b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	GEMARA, What is the difference in principle [between the Rabbis and R. Judah]? &mdash; The Rabbis held that the All-Merciful conferred upon her an extra hand, whereas R. Judah held that where her father can act, her own hand counts as nothing.
</p><p>
	ONE WHO IS NOT ABLE TO KEEP HER GET, etc. Our Rabbis taught: A child<a id="k64b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; who knows how to keep her Get can be divorced, but if she does not know how to keep her Get she cannot be divorced. Whom do we mean by a child who knows how to keep her Get? One who keeps her Get and something else. What is the meaning of this? &mdash; R. Johanan said: It means, one who keeps something else in place of her Get.<a id="k64b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna b. Manoah strongly demurred to this, saying, Such a one is a mere idiot? No, said R. Huna b. Manoah, quoting R. Aha the son of R. Ika: It means one who can distinguish between her Get and another object.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of R. Assi: [A child which if offered] a stone throws it away [but if offered] a nut takes it becomes possessor of anything given to itself<a id="k64b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but not [of anything given to it to give] to another.<a id="k64b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [If when given] an article [to play with] it will return it after a time [when asked], it can become possessor either for itself or for others. When I stated this in the presence of Samuel, he said to me, Both cases are just the same. What is the meaning of 'both cases are just the same'? &mdash; R. Hisda replied: In either case the child becomes possessor for itself but not for others. R. Hinnena Waradan<a id="k64b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; raised an objection: How can [all the residents]<a id="k64b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; become partners in an alley-way?<a id="k64b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; One of them places a jar of wine there, saying, This is for all the residents of the alley-way, and he may confer possession upon them through his grown-up son or daughter or through his Hebrew manservant or maidservant. Now how are we to understand this maidservant? If she has grown two hairs,<a id="k64b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; what is she doing with him?<a id="k64b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; We must suppose therefore that she has not yet grown two hairs, and yet we are told that she can take possession on behalf of others?<a id="k64b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The case of partnership in an alley-way is different, because [the prohibition of taking things out there] is only Rabbinical.<a id="k64b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: Waradan was reduced to silence. What could he have answered? &mdash; [He could have said that] the Rabbis gave to their regulations
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k65a_1:" Like that of carrying from one domain into another in an alley-way."
,k65a_2:" The rule was that if a man redeemed his second tithe (which otherwise had to he taken to Jerusalem), he had to add a fifth to its value, but not if he redeemed someone else's."
,k65a_3:" So as to give it back to him. Our texts add here in brackets the words, 'And he eats it without adding a fifth.' V. M.Sh. IV, 4."
,k65a_4:" And yet she can take possession of the tithe on his behalf, which seems to refute Samuel."
,k65a_5:" Since the destruction of the Temple."
,k65a_6:" So that the earth in it is not attached to the soil."
,k65a_7:" Even in the epoch of the Jubilee."
,k65a_8:" In case of a boy, under thirteen years and one day."
,k65a_9:" <i>Mi'un</i>, the refusal of a woman to continue the work contracted by her, a fatherless girl, during her minority. Such a refusal annuls the marriage, but if she is betrothed at a younger age, the betrothal automatically lapses on her becoming of age."
,k65a_10:" Young children from six to eight or nine, according to their intelligence. V. <i>supra</i> 59a."
,k65a_11:" I.e., if she is an orphan she can receive the divorce herself."
,k65a_12:" In the case of a boy, at twelve years and one day, and eleven years and one day with a girl. If they make a vow at this age, they are examined to see whether they understand the nature of their vow."
,k65a_13:" If the brother of her betrothed dies without children."
,k65a_14:" A ketannah. Less than twelve years and a day old."
,k65a_15:" And the Get is effective as soon as it comes into his hand."
,k65a_16:" For the reason, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k65a_17:" <i>Var. lec</i>. R. Eliezer."
,k65a_18:" That if the husband told him to give the Get in one place and he gave it in another, it is invalid."
,k65a_19:" Because he does not want himself to be talked about in another place."
,k65a_20:" And similarly if the husband says, She is in such-and-such a place."
,k65a_21:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> If she is the wife of a priest."
,k65a_22:" Because the Get becomes effective as soon as it reaches his hand, and he may meet the husband soon after he leaves her."
,k65a_23:" <i>Var. lec</i>. R. Eliezer."
,k65a_24:" In the preceding Mishnah."
,k65a_25:" According to the Rabbis."
,k65a_26:" A suburb of Sura."
,k65a_27:" In the neighbourhood of Sura, v. <i>supra</i> p. 17, n. 3. "
}

txt:
<p>
the force of rules of the Torah. What could the other say to this? &mdash; That the Rabbis gave to their regulations the force of rules of the Torah in matters which have some basis in the Torah, but not in a matter which has no basis in the Torah.<a id="k65a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. 'Awia raised an objection: What device may be adopted [to avoid paying an extra fifth]<a id="k65a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for second tithe? A man can say to his grown-up son and daughter, or to his Hebrew manservant or maidservant, Take this money and redeem with it this second tithe.<a id="k65a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Now how are we to understand this maidservant? If she has grown two hairs, how comes she to be with him? We must say, therefore, that she has not grown two hairs?<a id="k65a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are speaking here of tithe in the present epoch,<a id="k65a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; which is Rabbinical. But is the rule regarding a Hebrew maidservant in force in the present epoch? Has it not been taught: 'The laws relating to a Hebrew servant are in force only when the Jubilee is observed'? &mdash; We must therefore say that [it refers to tithe from] a pot which has no hole at the bottom,<a id="k65a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [the rule regarding] which is Rabbinical.<a id="k65a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: There are three grades in a child.<a id="k65a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [If on being given] a stone he throws it away but [on being given] a nut he takes it, he can take possession for himself but not for others. A girl of corresponding age can be betrothed so effectively as not to be released [on becoming of age] without definitely repudiating the betrothal.<a id="k65a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Pe'utoth<a id="k65a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; can buy and sell movables with legal effect, and a girl of the corresponding age can be divorced from a betrothal contracted by her father.<a id="k65a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; When they reach the age at which vows are tested,<a id="k65a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; their vows and their sanctifications are effective, and a girl of corresponding age performs <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k65a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The [landed] property of his [deceased] father, however, he cannot sell till he is twenty.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A YOUNG GIRL<a id="k65a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; SAYS [TO AN AGENT], RECEIVE MY GET FOR ME, IT IS NO GET TILL IT REACHES HER HAND. CONSEQUENTLY IF [THE HUSBAND] WISHES TO RETRACT HE IS [TILL THEN] AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT, SINCE A MINOR CANNOT APPOINT AN AGENT. IF HER FATHER SAID TO HIM, GO AND RECEIVE MY DAUGHTER'S DIVORCE FOR HER, THE HUSBAND [AFTER GIVING IT TO HIM] IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT.<a id="k65a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A MAN SAYS, GIVE THIS GET TO MY WIFE IN SUCH-AND-SUCH A PLACE AND HE GIVES IT TO HER IN AN OTHER PLACE, [THE GET IS] INVALID.<a id="k65a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE SAYS,] SHE IS IN SUCH-AND-SUCH A PLACE, AND HE GIVES IT TO HER IN ANOTHER PLACE, [IT IS] VALID. IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE MY GET IN SUCH-AND-SUCH A PLACE AND HE RECEIVES IT FOR HER IN ANOTHER PLACE, [IT IS] INVALID. R. ELEAZAR,<a id="k65a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. [IF HE SAYS,] BRING ME MY GET FROM SUCH-AND-SUCH A PLACE AND HE BRINGS IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, [IT IS] VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why does R. Eleazar make a distinction between the first ruling,<a id="k65a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; which he does not dispute and the second ruling, which he does dispute? &mdash; The husband who divorces of his own free will, [when he specifies the place] is particular;<a id="k65a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; the wife, who is divorced willy-nilly, [when she specifies the place] is merely giving a direction.<a id="k65a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF A WOMAN SAYS TO AN AGENT], BRING ME MY GET, SHE MAY EAT <I>TERUMAH</I><a id="k65a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; TILL THE GET REACHES HER HAND. [IF, HOWEVER, SHE SAYS,] RECEIVE FOR ME MY GET, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO EAT <I>TERUMAH</I> IMMEDIATELY.<a id="k65a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF SHE SAYS,] RECEIVE FOR ME MY GET IN SUCH-AND-SUCH A PLACE, SHE CAN EAT <I>TERUMAH</I> TILL THE GET REACHES THAT PLACE. R. ELEAZAR<a id="k65a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; SAYS THAT SHE IS FORBIDDEN IMMEDIATELY.
</p><p>
	GEMARA [Although he receives the Get in another place] nevertheless [you say here] that it is a Get, whereas previously<a id="k65a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; it was stated that it would not be a Get?<a id="k65a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This ruling applies to a case where, for instance, she said, Receive my Get for me in Matha Mehasia,<a id="k65a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but sometimes you may find him in Babylon.<a id="k65a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; What she means therefore is, Take it from him wherever you find him,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k65b_1:" I.e., place some food two thousand cubits from the town boundary. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k65b_2:" So here, in saying 'dates' he merely meant some kind of fruit."
,k65b_3:" As in that case the Rabbis would admit that he is not particular."
,k65b_4:" Who allowed him specifically to use one kind and not the other."
,k65b_5:" Meaning presumably that he told him to place it in the tower at the end of two thousand cubits from the town boundary."
,k65b_6:" I.e., even if it is his neighbour's, can we suppose that he will be particular?"
,k65b_7:" The reference is not to the place where the 'erub is to be placed but from where to take the fruit for the 'erub. And if the fruit was his neighbour's, he might be particular."
,k65b_8:" Lit., 'drive her out'."
,k65b_9:" Because the word 'Get' has in popular usage become synonymous with a bill of divorce. Similarly the word 'driving out' (gerushin) is commonly used for divorce, while the name 'letter' is applied to the Get in the document itself."
,k65b_10:" [G]."
,k65b_11:" Because all these expressions can apply to other things equally with divorce."
,k65b_12:" This is the biblical expression, Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k65b_13:" Shabkuha. This expression is also found in the Get."
,k65b_14:" Patteruha is the imperative pa'el of the Aramaic word petar, one of the meanings of which is 'to divorce'. Pitruah is the imperative kal of the Hebrew word patar which means 'to declare quit' from a liability (Rashi) v. next note."
,k65b_15:" And he would take patteruha to be the imperative pi'el of the Hebrew word patar, with the same meaning as the kal (Rashi)."
,k65b_16:" The doubt arises because we find in the Scripture the expression 'and she go forth from his house'."
,k65b_17:" The Hebrew equivalent of the Aramaic word Shabkuha (let her go) which above was declared to be legitimate."
,k65b_18:" Which might either mean 'make her permitted to all other men,' and so would be legitimate, or 'release her from a vow.'"
,k65b_19:" Lit., 'who goes forth in chains ([G])'."
,k65b_20:" Without adding, 'and give it to her'."
,k65b_21:" Because we suppose he was too agitated to express himself clearly."
,k65b_22:" [Also known as Harpania, a rich agricultural town in the Mesene district, S. of Babylon. (Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 197).] "
}

txt:
<p>
but it will not be a Get till you come to Matha Mehasia.
</p><p>
	R. ELEAZAR SAYS THAT SHE IS FORBIDDEN IMMEDIATELY. This is self-evident, [is it not,] since she is only giving him a direction [to find the husband]? &mdash; The statement was required for the case where she said to him, 'Go to the east because he is in the east', and he went to the west. You might argue in that case that [as] he is certainly not in the west [she should be permitted to eat the <i>terumah</i>]. We are therefore told that while going in that direction he may still come across him, and he may give him the Get.
</p><p>
	If a man said to his agent, Make me an 'erub<a id="k65b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; with dates and [the other] made an 'erub with figs, or [if he told him to make] with figs and he made with dates, one [Baraitha] taught that the 'erub is effective, while another taught that it is not effective. Rabbah said: This need cause no difficulty: the one [Baraitha] follows the Rabbis and the other follows R. Eleazar. The one follows the Rabbis, who said [in the case of the Get] that [the wife] is particular. The other follows R. Eleazar, who said that she merely gives him a direction.<a id="k65b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph, however, said: Both [Baraithas] follow the Rabbis; the one [who says that the 'erub is effective] means, when the fruit is his own,<a id="k65b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the other, when it is someone else's.<a id="k65b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: But what will you make of the following that has been taught: 'If a man says to his agent, Make me an 'erub in a tower,<a id="k65b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and he made one in the dovecote, or if he told him to make in the dovecote and he made it in the tower,' in regard to which it was taught by one [Baraitha] that his 'erub is effective and by another that it is not? In that case what difference does it make whether it is his own or his neighbour's?<a id="k65b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There too there is [a difference between] the fruit of the tower and the fruit of the dovecote.<a id="k65b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SAYS, 'WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, DIVORCE HER,'<a id="k65b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'WRITE A LETTER AND GIVE HER,' THEN THOSE SO INSTRUCTED SHOULD WRITE AND GIVE HER.<a id="k65b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE SAID, 'RELEASE HER', 'PROVIDE FOR HER', 'DO THE CUSTOMARY<a id="k65b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; THING FOR HER', 'DO THE PROPER THING FOR HER', HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT.<a id="k65b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: [If he said], 'Send her away,'<a id="k65b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Let her go,'<a id="k65b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Drive her out,' then they should write and give her. If he said, 'Release her,' 'provide for her,' 'Do the customary thing for her,' 'Do the proper thing for her,' his words are of no effect. It has been taught: R. Nathan said: If he said, 'Patteruha,' his words take effect; if he said 'Pitruha', his words are of no effect.<a id="k65b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: R. Nathan being a Babylonian distinguishes between pitruha and patteruha, but our Tanna being from Eretz Yisrael does not distinguish.<a id="k65b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: If he said, 'Put her out,'what is the law?<a id="k65b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If he said 'Izbuha',<a id="k65b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the law? If he said, 'Hattiruha,'<a id="k65b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the law? If he said, 'Let her be,' what is the law? If he said, 'Confer a benefit on her,' what is the law? If he said, 'Do to her according to the law,' what is the law? &mdash; One of these questions may at any rate be answered, since it has been taught: If a man says, 'Do to her according to the law,' 'Do to her the proper customary thing,' 'Do to her the proper thing,' his words are of no effect.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ORIGINALLY THEY LAID DOWN THAT IF A MAN WAS BEING LED OUT TO EXECUTION<a id="k65b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SAID, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE,<a id="k65b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY MAY WRITE AND GIVE [IT TO HER].<a id="k65b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; LATER THEY ADDED, ALSO IF HE WERE LEAVING FOR A SEA VOYAGE OR FOR A CARAVAN JOURNEY. R. SIMEON SHEZURI SAID, ALSO IF HE WERE DANGEROUSLY ILL.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Geniba was being led out to execution. On his way out he said, Give four hundred <i>zuz</i> to Rabbi Abina of the wine [which I have] of Neharpania.<a id="k65b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Zera:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k66a_1:" Who would confirm his title."
,k66a_2:" Given on a sick bed."
,k66a_3:" I.e., there was no <i>kinyan</i>. v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k66a_4:" The wife becomes automatically released on the death of her husband, so that no Get can be effective after death. The Get is in fact meant to take effect before death, to release the wife from the obligation of <i>halizah</i>."
,k66a_5:" Where the husband made such a stipulation."
,k66a_6:" Because by giving only part, he shows that he has in mind the possibility of recovery, and therefore the gift is on the same footing as one given by a healthy person, v. B.B. 151b."
,k66a_7:" Since R. Huna would, it is held, confirm the title to the gift."
,k66a_8:" Lit., 'ordering by reason of death'."
,k66a_9:" To the value of four hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k66a_10:" I.e., sell four hundred <i>zuz</i> worth and give him the money."
,k66a_11:" I.e., money from wine, which has no meaning."
,k66a_12:" So that he should have a lien on the whole of the wine in case any of it went sour or the money obtained from the sale of it was lost, the words 'of wine' including both the wine and its money value."
,k66a_13:" Giving his name and the name of his town."
,k66a_14:" Who wants her to obtain a Get so that she may marry again and become forbidden to her present husband."
,k66a_15:" As in the case of one who is in imminent danger of death."
,k66a_16:" I.e., whether he is the man who he says he is."
,k66a_17:" Without adding, Give it to her."
,k66a_18:" Because, having had the intention to commit suicide, he was on the same footing as one in imminent danger of death."
,k66a_19:" Since the rule is given without qualification."
,k66a_20:" Lit., 'At the end'."
,k66a_21:" The husband had gone away, and the question was whether when the man said 'two of you', his words could apply equally to the son alone as well as to the father alone in conjunction with the third man, or to the father only, the son being ineligible when the father was present."
,k66a_22:" And the son can form the second man to write the Get."
,k66a_23:" But did not say write'. "
}

txt:
<p>
Let R. Abina put his pack on his shoulder and go off to R. Huna his teacher,<a id="k66a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; since R. Huna had laid down that a man's Get<a id="k66a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is on the same footing as his gift; just as if he recovers he can withdraw his gift, so if he recovers he can withdraw his Get. Similarly [we may argue], just as in the case of his Get, even though he did not express himself clearly, if he says 'write' even though he does not say also 'give' [it is sufficient], so with his gift, since he has said 'give', even though no token was given,<a id="k66a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is sufficient]. R. Abba strongly demurred to this [dictum of R. Huna], saying, [Shall I argue on this principle that] just as a gift may take effect after death, so a Get may take effect after death?<a id="k66a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Is there any comparison? A gift can take effect after death, but is there such a thing as a Get after death?<a id="k66a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; No; R. Abba's real difficulty was this. [Geniba's gift] was a gift made by one about to die of part of his property, and a gift made by one about to die of part of his property needs to be confirmed by a token gift.<a id="k66a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; This would seem to show that according to R. Huna<a id="k66a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it does not need to be confirmed by a token gift, and yet we know for a fact that it does require a token gift? &mdash; There is a special reason here, because he was giving his last dispositions.<a id="k66a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; This again would show that in R. Abba's opinion even where one gives his last dispositions, there must be a token gift, and we know for a fact that this is not the case? &mdash; No; the real difficulty of R. Abba is this. He did not say, [Give] wine,<a id="k66a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; nor did he say, [Give] the money value of wine.<a id="k66a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What he said was 'of the wine'.<a id="k66a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What does the other [R. Zera] [make of this]? &mdash; [He says that] he used the expression 'of the wine' to make his title more secure.<a id="k66a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; They sent from there [Palestine] to say, 'Of the wine' makes his title more secure.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN HAD BEEN THROWN INTO A PIT AND CRIED OUT<a id="k66a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT WHOEVER HEARD HIS VOICE SHOULD WRITE A GET FOR HIS WIFE, THE GET SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND PRESENTED TO HER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. But is there not a possibility that it may be a demon? &mdash; Rab Judah said: We assume that he can be seen to have the appearance of a man. But the demons also can look like men? &mdash; We assume that they see his shadow. But they also have a shadow? &mdash; We assume they see a shadow of a shadow. But perhaps they also have a shadow of a shadow? &mdash; R. Hanina said: Jonathan my son has taught me that they have a shadow, but not a shadow of a shadow. But perhaps it is her rival?<a id="k66a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A Tannah of the school of R. Ishmael taught: In time of danger<a id="k66a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; we can write and [give a Get], even if we do not know him.<a id="k66a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN IN HEALTH SAYS, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE,<a id="k66a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS INTENTION IS MERELY TO PLAY WITH HER. IT ONCE HAPPENED WITH A MAN IN GOOD HEALTH WHO SAID, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, AND THEN WENT UP ON TO A ROOF AND FELL DOWN FROM IT AND DIED, AND RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID THAT IF HE HAD THROWN HIMSELF DOWN THIS WAS A GET,<a id="k66a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF THE WIND HAD BLOWN HIM OVER IT WAS NO GET.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The instance adduced disproves the rule, [does it not]?<a id="k66a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a lacuna, and the Mishnah should run thus: 'If his subsequent conduct reveals his intention [to kill himself], the Get is valid. IT ONCE HAPPENED WITH A MAN IN GOOD HEALTH WHO SAID, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, AND THEN WENT UP TO A ROOF AND FELL DOWN FROM IT AND DIED, AND RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IF HE HAD THROWN HIMSELF DOWN THIS WAS A GET, B UT IF THE WIND HAD BLOWN HIM OVER IT WAS NO GET.
</p><p>
	A certain man went into the synagogue and found a teacher of children and his son sitting there and a third man sitting by them. He said to them: I want two of you to write a Get for my wife. Before the Get was given<a id="k66a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the teacher died. [The question arose], Do people usually make a son their agent in the place of his father or not?<a id="k66a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman said: People do not make a son the agent in the place of his father, while R. Papi said that people do make a son their agent in the place of his father.<a id="k66a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: The law is that people do make a son the agent in place of the father.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SAID TO TWO PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE,<a id="k66a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k66b_1:" Without saying 'write'."
,k66b_2:" And sign."
,k66b_3:" And they have authority to do this."
,k66b_4:" In Benjamin near Lydda. I Chron. VIII, 12."
,k66b_5:" <i>Var. lec</i>. Which R. Hanina sent from prison."
,k66b_6:" The Synhedrion."
,k66b_7:" How to write."
,k66b_8:" [Probably after the death of Rab (247 C.E.) or simply 'from the school'.]"
,k66b_9:" Are the words THEY SHOULD WRITE in the Mishnah to be taken literally or do they denote merely the signatures."
,k66b_10:" If she has married again on the strength of the Get."
,k66b_11:" Lit., 'words'."
,k66b_12:" And they were not given the actual Get to deliver."
,k66b_13:" And therefore if these tell a scribe to write the Get it is invalid, v. <i>supra</i> 29a."
,k66b_14:" If he meant them to write only the signatures the Get is valid, and therefore he was in doubt."
,k66b_15:" <i>Infra</i> 71b."
,k66b_16:" [Our Mishnah text actually reads: WRITE AND GIVE, but this Gemarah reading is supported by the J. Mishnah.]"
,k66b_17:" He signs the Get as witness, in conjunction with another witness."
,k66b_18:" Consequently we may safely assume that the scribe was commissioned to sign by the husband himself, and there is no fear that the agent told him to do so on his own authority, so as not to offend the scribe. "
}

txt:
<p>
OR TO THREE PERSONS, WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD WRITE AND GIVE IT. IF HE SAID TO THREE PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE,<a id="k66b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY MAY TELL OTHERS TO WRITE<a id="k66b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BECAUSE HE HAS MADE THEM A <I>BETH DIN</I>.<a id="k66b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR, AND THIS IS THE <I>HALACHAH</I> WHICH R. HANINA A MAN OF ONO<a id="k66b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; BROUGHT [FROM R. AKIBA IN] PRISON:<a id="k66b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I HAVE IT FROM MY TEACHERS THAT IF A MAN SAYS TO THREE PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, THEY MAY TELL OTHERS TO WRITE IT, BECAUSE HE HAS CONSTITUTED THEM A <I>BETH DIN</I>. R. JOSE SAID: WE SAID TO THE MESSENGER, WE ALSO HAVE IT ON TRADITION FROM OUR TEACHERS THAT EVEN IF HE SAID TO THE GREAT <I>BETH DIN</I> IN JERUSALEM,<a id="k66b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, 'THEY SHOULD LEARN<a id="k66b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WRITE AND GIVE IT. IF A MAN SAYS TO TEN PERSONS, WRITE A GET AND DELIVER IT TO MY WIFE, ONE WRITES, AND TWO SIGN AS WITNESSES. [IF HE SAID,] ALL OF YOU WRITE, ONE WRITES AND ALL SIGN. CONSEQUENTLY IF ONE OF THEM DIES, THE GET IS INVALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: An inquiry was sent from the school of Rab<a id="k66b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to Samuel: Would our teacher inform us: If a man said to two persons, Write and deliver a Get to my wife, and they told a scribe and he wrote it and they themselves signed it, what is the law?<a id="k66b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He sent back word: She must leave [her second husband],<a id="k66b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but the matter requires further study. What did he mean by saying that the matter requires further study? Shall we say it is because only a verbal instruction<a id="k66b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; was given to them,<a id="k66b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel is in doubt whether a verbal instruction can be passed on to another agent or not? Has not Samuel said in the name of Rabbi that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent?<a id="k66b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; what Samuel wanted to know was this. [When the husband said to the men], 'write', did he mean their signatures or the Get?<a id="k66b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Cannot this be determined from the Mishnah: IF A MAN SAID TO TWO PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, OR IF HE SAID TO THREE, WRITE A GET AND GIVE [IT] TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD WRITE AND DELIVER [IT]? &mdash; Here too he was in doubt whether 'WRITE' meant their signatures or the actual Get. Surely it is obvious that it must be the Get, from what we read in the later clause: R. JOSE SAID, WE SAID TO THE MESSENGER, WE TOO HAVE IT ON TRADITION FROM OUR TEACHERS THAT EVEN IF HE SAID TO THE GREAT <I>BETH DIN</I> IN JERUSALEM, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD LEARN AND WRITE AND GIVE TO HER.<a id="k66b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you say that the writing of the Get is meant, this creates no difficulty, but if you say it is the writing of the signatures, surely there is no <i>Beth din</i>, the members of which do not know how to sign their names? &mdash; Yes; this might happen in a new <i>Beth din</i>.
</p><p>
	Now if we adopt the opinion that 'write' means 'write your signatures,' but as to the actual Get, it is in order even if written by others [how can this be seeing that] Samuel said in the name of Rabbi that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent? &mdash; We might reply that if we adopt the opinion that 'write' means the signatures, then as far as the writing of the Get is concerned it is as though the husband had given instructions that they should tell [the scribe], and R. Jose admits that [the Get written by the scribe is valid] where he said, Tell [the scribe to write it].
</p><p>
	But does R. Jose admit that it is valid where he says to them, Tell [the scribe]? Have we not learnt: 'If the scribe wrote and there was one witness [besides], the Get is valid,'<a id="k66b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Jeremiah said in regard to this, Our Version is, If the scribe signs,<a id="k66b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Hisda said, Whom does the Mishnah follow? R. Jose, who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent.<a id="k66b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you assume that R. Jose admits [that the Get is valid] where he says, Tell [the scribe], then a calamity may result, since sometimes he will say to two persons,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k68a_1:" A mere pretext in order to search him."
,k68a_2:" I.e., the skin."
,k68a_3:" Of the flesh."
,k68a_4:" As a signal."
,k68a_5:" For an omen; cf. <i>supra</i> 56a."
,k68a_6:" II Sam. II, 21."
,k68a_7:" Lit., 'of not being good'."
,k68a_8:" E.V. 'men-singers and women-singers'."
,k68a_9:" Eccl. II. 8."
,k68a_10:" Al. 'the real mother of the demons I do not know'."
,k68a_11:" I Kings VI, 7."
,k68a_12:" A fabulous worm which could cut through the sharpest stone. [So Maimonides, Aboth, v. 6. and Rashi, Pes. 54a, though none of the old Talmudic sources states explicitly whether the Shamir was a living creature or a mineral. The Testament of Solomon, however, seems to regard it as a stone. V. Ginzberg Legends, V, p. 55, n. 105, and VI, p. 299, n. 82, also Aboth, (Sonc. ed.) p. 63, n. 6.]"
,k68a_13:" From Ashmedai's pit by means of a tunnel connecting the two."
,k68a_14:" So that it should flow into Ashmedai's pit."
,k68a_15:" Prov. XX, 1."
,k68a_16:" Hos, IV, 11. "
}

txt:
<p>
A silver cup has been stolen from us.<a id="k68a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; In the course of their search for it they found the meat wrapped in his scarf, whereupon they said to the Exilarch, See, sir, that he does not want to eat, but only to vex us. He said, I did eat, but I found in it the taste of a boil. They said to him, No animal with a boil has been prepared for us to-day. He said to them, Examine the place [where my portion came from].<a id="k68a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; since R. Hisda has said that a white spot on black skin or a black spot on white skin is a mark of disease.<a id="k68a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; They examined and found that it was so. When he was about to depart they dug a pit and threw a mat over it, and said to him, Come, sir, and recline. R. Hisda snorted behind him.<a id="k68a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and he said to a boy. Tell me the last verse you have learnt.<a id="k68a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; The boy said. Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left.<a id="k68a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to his attendant, What can you see? He replied. A mat thrown across [the path]. He said, Turn aside from it. When he got out, R. Hisda said to him, How did you know, sir? He replied. For one thing because you, sir, snorted [behind me], and again from the verse which the boy quoted, and also because the servants are suspect of playing tricks.<a id="k68a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	I gat me sharim and sharoth,<a id="k68a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and the delights of the sons of men, Shidah and shidoth.<a id="k68a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Sharim and Sharoth', means diverse kinds of music; 'the delights of the sons of men' are ornamental pools and baths. 'Shidah and shidoth': Here [in Babylon] they translate as male and female demons. In the West [Palestine] they say [it means] carriages.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: There were three hundred kinds of demons in Shihin, but what a shidah is I do not know.<a id="k68a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: Here they translate 'male and female demons'. For what did Solomon want them? &mdash; As indicated in the verse, And the house when it was in building was made of stone made ready at the quarry, [there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building];<a id="k68a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to the Rabbis, How shall I manage [without iron tools]? &mdash; They replied, There is the shamir<a id="k68a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; which Moses brought for the stones of the ephod. He asked them, Where is it to be found? &mdash; They replied, Bring a male and a female demon and tie them together; perhaps they know and will tell you. So he brought a male and a female demon and tied them together. They said to him, We do not know, but perhaps Ashmedai the prince of the demons knows. He said to them, Where is he? &mdash; They answered, He is in such-and-such a mountain. He has dug a pit there, which he fills with water and covers with a stone, which he then seals with his seal. Every day he goes up to heaven and studies in the Academy of the sky and then he comes down to earth and studies in the Academy of the earth, and then he goes and examines his seal and opens [the pit] and drinks and then closes it and seals it again and goes away. Solomon thereupon sent thither Benaiahu son of Jehoiada, giving him a chain on which was graven the [Divine] Name and a ring on which was graven the Name and fleeces of wool and bottles of wine. Benaiahu went and dug a pit lower down the hill and let the water flow into it<a id="k68a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and stopped [the hollow] With the fleeces of wool, and he then dug a pit higher up and poured the wine into it<a id="k68a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and then filled up the pits. He then went and sat on a tree. When Ashmedai came he examined the seal, then opened the pit and found it full of wine. He said, it is written, Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whosoever erreth thereby is not wise,<a id="k68a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also written, Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the understanding.<a id="k68a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; I will not drink it. Growing thirsty, however, he could not resist, and he drank till he became drunk, and fell asleep. Benaiahu then came down and threw the chain over him and fastened it. When he awoke he began to struggle, whereupon he [Benaiahu] said, The Name of thy Master is upon thee, the Name of thy Master is upon thee. As he was bringing him along, he came to a palm tree and rubbed against it and down it came. He came to a house and knocked it down. He came to the hut of a certain widow. She came out
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k68b_1:" Prov. XXV, 15."
,k68b_2:" Lit., 'Cock of the prairie'."
,k68b_3:" Lit., 'One that saws the rock': the rendering in Targum <i>Onkelos</i> of the Hebrew [H] generally rendered by hoopoe; Lev. XI, 19."
,k68b_4:" That there may remain no share for him to enjoy in the hereafter."
,k68b_5:" Before he can give her <i>halizah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) and enable her to marry again."
,k68b_6:" Num. XXIV, 8. E.V., 'the strength of a wild ox'."
,k68b_7:" So Targum <i>Onkelos</i>."
,k68b_8:" That you should be a standard of comparison for Israel."
,k68b_9:" Al. 'it' (the ring)."
,k68b_10:" Eccl. I, 3. [No satisfactory explanation has yet been given of the name of Ashmedai. Ginzberg (JE. II s.v. Asmodeus) gives it an Aramaic derivation. Kaminka JQR. (NS) XIII. p. 224 connects it with Smerdis, the magician, a hero in a Persian legend preserved by Herodotus, which has many points of similarity with the Ashmedai story.]"
,k68b_11:" Ibid. II, 10."
,k68b_12:" Al. 'his platter', v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 110 and notes."
,k68b_13:" Ibid. I, 12."
,k68b_14:" I.e., if Solomon were mad, he would show it by other things as well."
,k68b_15:" Because a demon's legs are like those of a cock, v. Ber. 6a."
,k68b_16:" Cant. III, 7, 8."
,k68b_17:" That is to say, that though he was restored to his kingdom, he did not rule over the unseen world as formerly, v. Sanh. <i>loc. cit</i>."
,k68b_18:" A kind of cedar."
,k68b_19:" A certain herb, cynodon."
,k68b_20:" I.e., a white silver coin. "
}

txt:
<p>
and besought him, and he bent down so as not to touch it, thereby breaking a bone. He said, That bears out the verse, A soft tongue breaketh the bone<a id="k68b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He saw a blind man straying from his way and he put him on the right path. He saw a drunken man losing his way and he put him on his path. He saw a wedding procession making its way merrily and he wept. He heard a man say to a shoemaker, Make me a pair of shoes that will last seven years, and he laughed. He saw a diviner practising divinations and he laughed. When they reached Jerusalem he was not taken to see Solomon for three days. On the first day he asked, Why does the king not want to see me? They replied, Because he has overdrunk himself. So he took a brick and placed it on top of another. When they reported this to Solomon he said to them, What he meant to tell you was, Give him more to drink. On the next day he said to them, Why does the king not want to see me? They replied, Because he has over-eaten himself. He thereupon took one brick from off the other and placed it on the ground. When they reported this to Solomon, he said, He meant to tell you to keep food away from me. After three days he went in to see him. He took a reed and measured four cubits and threw it in front of him, saying, See now, when you die you will have no more than four cubits in this world. Now, however, you have subdued the whole world, yet you are not satisfied till you subdue me too. He replied: I want nothing of you. What I want is to build the Temple and I require the shamir. He said: It is not in my hands, it is in the hands of the Prince of the Sea who gives it only to the woodpecker,<a id="k68b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; to whom he trusts it on oath. What does the bird do with it? &mdash; He takes it to a mountain where there is no cultivation and puts it on the edge of the rock which thereupon splits, and he then takes seeds from trees and brings them and throws them into the opening and things grow there. (This is what the <i>Targum </i>means by nagar tura).<a id="k68b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; So they found out a woodpecker's nest with young in it, and covered it over with white glass. When the bird came it wanted to get in but could not, so it went and brought the shamir and placed it on the glass. Benaiahu thereupon gave a shout, and it dropped [the shamir] and he took it, and the bird went and committed suicide on account of its oath.
</p><p>
	Benaiahu said to Ashmedai, Why when you saw that blind man going out of his way did you put him right? He replied: It has been proclaimed of him in heaven that he is a wholly righteous man, and that whoever does him a kindness will be worthy of the future world. And why when you saw the drunken man going out of his way did you put him right? He replied, They have proclaimed concerning him in heaven that he is wholly wicked, and I conferred a boon on him in order that he may consume [here] his share [in the future].<a id="k68b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Why when you saw the wedding procession did you weep? He said: The husband will die within thirty days, and she will have to wait for the brother-in-law who is still a child of thirteen years.<a id="k68b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Why, when you heard a man say to the shoemaker, Make me shoes to last seven years, did you laugh? He replied: That man has not seven days to live, and he wants shoes for seven years! Why when you saw that diviner divining did you laugh? He said: He was sitting on a royal treasure: he should have divined what was beneath him.
</p><p>
	Solomon kept him with him until he had built the Temple. One day when he was alone with him, he said, it is written, He hath as it were to'afoth and re'em,<a id="k68b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and we explain that to'afoth means the ministering angels and re'em means the demons.<a id="k68b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; What is your superiority over us?<a id="k68b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to him, Take the chain off me and give me your ring, and I will show you. So he took the chain off him and gave him the ring. He then swallowed him,<a id="k68b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and placing one wing on the earth and one on the sky he hurled him four hundred parasangs. In reference to that incident Solomon said, What profit is there to a man in all his labour wherein he laboureth under the sun.<a id="k68b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And this was my portion from all my labour.<a id="k68b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What is referred to by 'this'? &mdash; Rab and Samuel gave different answers, one saying that it meant his staff and the other that it meant his apron.<a id="k68b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; He used to go round begging, saying wherever he went, I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.<a id="k68b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; When he came to the Sanhedrin, the Rabbis said: Let us see, a madman does not stick to one thing only.<a id="k68b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of this? They asked Benaiahu, Does the king send for you? He replied, No. They sent to the queens saying, Does the king visit you? They sent back word, Yes, he does. They then sent to them to say, Examine his leg.<a id="k68b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; They sent back to say, He comes in stockings, and he visits them in the time of their separation and he also calls for Bathsheba his mother. They then sent for Solomon and gave him the chain and the ring on which the Name was engraved. When he went in, Ashmedai on catching sight of him flew away, but he remained in fear of him, therefore is it written, Behold it is the litter of Solomon, threescore mighty met, are about it of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword and are expert in war, every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night.<a id="k68b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab and Samuel differed [about Solomon]. One said that Solomon was first a king and then a commoner,<a id="k68b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other that he was first a king and then a commoner and then a king again.
</p><p>
	For blood rushing to the head the remedy is to take shurbina<a id="k68b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and willow and moist myrtle and olive leaves and poplar and rosemary and yabla<a id="k68b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and boil them all together. The sufferer should then place three hundred cups on one side of his head and three hundred on the other. Otherwise he should take white roses with all the leaves on one side and boil them and pour sixty cups over each side of his head. For migraine one should take a woodcock and cut its throat with a white <i>zuz</i><a id="k68b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; over the side of his head on which he has pain, taking care that the blood does not blind him, and he should hang the bird on his doorpost so that he should rub against it when he goes in and out.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k69a_1:" [Shabrire, a shaf'el form of [H] 'clear', a euphemism for 'blindness'. In this infliction, ascribed to the demons, a distinction was made between day-shabrire and night-shabrire which is said to correspond with hemeralopia and nyctalopia. V. Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin, p. 312, and A.Z., (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 4.]"
,k69a_2:" Lit., 'The taste of the bucket in water of silver, the taste of the bucket in water of blemish'."
,k69a_3:" Hul. 42a."
,k69a_4:" This would show that if the blood comes from the lungs it is more fatal than from the liver."
,k69a_5:" And the blood is really from the liver."
,k69a_6:" [Var. lec. 'spices']."
,k69a_7:" In the winter when the brew is made strong."
,k69a_8:" So Rashi. Jast.: 'jaws'."
,k69a_9:" A kind of herb."
,k69a_10:" [So Rashi. Preuss (op. cit. p. 198) Pleurisy.]"
,k69a_11:" About a <I>revi'ith</I> (1/4 <i>log</i>)."
,k69a_12:" I.e., not dark. "
}

txt:
<p>
For a cataract he should take a scorpion with stripes of seven colours and dry it out of the sun and mix it with stibium in the proportion of one to two and drop three paint-brushfuls into each eye &mdash; not more, lest he should put out his eye. For night blindness<a id="k69a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he should take a string made of white hair and with it tie one of his own legs to the leg of a dog, and children should rattle potsherds behind him saying 'Old dog, stupid cock'. He should also take seven pieces of raw meat from seven houses and put them on the doorpost and [let the dog] eat them on the ashpit of the town. After that he should untie the string and they should say, 'Blindness of A, son of the woman B, leave A, son of the woman B,' and they should blow into the dog's eye. For day blindness he should take seven milts from the insides of animals and roast them in the shard of a blood-letter, and while he sits inside the house another man should sit outside and the blind man should say to him, 'Give me to eat, and the other, the seeing man, should answer, 'Take and eat,' and after he has eaten he should break the shard, as otherwise the blindness may come back. To stop bleeding at the nose he should bring a kohen whose name is Levi and write Levi backwards, or else bring any man and write, I Papi Shila bar Sumki, backwards, or else write thus: Ta'am deli beme kesaf, ta'am deli be-me pegam.<a id="k69a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Or else he can take root of clover and the rope of an old bed and papyrus and saffron and the red part of a palm branch and burn them all together and then take a fleece of wool and weave two threads and steep them in vinegar and roll them in the ashes and put them in his nostrils. Or he can look for a watercourse running from east to west and stand astride over it and pick up some clay with his right hand from under his left leg and with his left hand from under his right leg and twine two threads of wool and rub them in the clay and put them in his nostrils. Or else he can sit under a gutter pipe while they bring water and pour over him saying, 'As these waters stop, so may the blood of A, son of the woman B, stop'. To stop blood coming from the mouth he should [first] be tested with a wheat straw. If the blood sticks, It comes from the lungs and can be cured, but if not it comes from the liver and cannot be cured. Said R. Ammi to R. Ashi: But we have learnt the opposite:<a id="k69a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; '[The animal is <i>trefa</i>] if the liver has been removed and nothing of it is left, or if the lung is pierced or defective'?<a id="k69a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: Since it comes away from his mouth, we assume that the liver has been entirely dissolved [in the lung].<a id="k69a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master just said: If it comes from the lung, there is a remedy for it. What is the remedy? Let him take seven handfuls of hashed beets and seven handfuls of mashed leeks and seven handfuls of jujube berry and three handfuls of lentils and a handful of camon and a handful of flax<a id="k69a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and a quantity equal to all these of the ileum of a first-born animal and let him cook the mixture and eat it, washing it down with strong beer made in [the month of] Tebeth.<a id="k69a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; For toothache Rabbah b. R. Huna says that he should take the top of a garlic with one stalk only and grind it with oil and salt and 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E206"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/206.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 206<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




put it on his thumb nail on the side where the tooth aches and put a rim of dough round it, taking care that it does not touch his flesh, as it may cause leprosy. For swollen glands,<a id="k69a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said that pellitory leaves are as good as mamru<a id="k69a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the root of pellitory better than mamru, and he should put them in his mouth. This is to prevent it from spreading. To soften it he should take bran that came to the top of the sieve and lentils with the earth still on them and clover and hemlock flower and the bud of cuscuta, and he should put about the size of a nut in his mouth. To make it burst, someone should blow into his throat seeds of unripe dates, through a wheat straw. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">To make the flesh close he should bring dust from the shadow of a privy and knead it with honey and eat.</font> This is effective. For catarrh<a id="k69a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he should take about the size of a pistachio of gum-ammoniac and about the size of a nut of sweet galbanum and a spoonful of white honey and a Mahuzan <I>natla</I><a id="k69a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; of clear<a id="k69a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; wine and boil them up together; when the gum-ammoniac boils, it is all boiled enough. If he cannot manage this, let him take a <I>revi'ith</I> of milk of a white goat
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k69b_1:" Perhaps a kind of fever."
,k69b_2:" Probably a kind of meteoric stone."
,k69b_3:" For fear a snake may have injected venom into it."
,k69b_4:" A Persian sauce of milk."
,k69b_5:" [Identical with Nars on the canal of the same name, on the East bank of the Euphrates. Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. p. 307.]"
,k69b_6:" About a <I>revi'ith</I>."
,k69b_7:" For remembering when to use the dry and when the moist."
,k69b_8:" Mentioning his own name and the name of his mother."
,k69b_9:" Used for cooling the metal."
,k69b_10:" I.e., he should drink plenty of wine."
,k69b_11:" The wine he has would protect him from such a disease."
,k69b_12:" Used for cooling the metal."
,k69b_13:" A kind of scent often carried by women in a little case attached to their necklaces."
,k69b_14:" Applying it to the affected part."
,k69b_15:" [Apparently lumbago. v. Preuss, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 355.]"
,k69b_16:" [A round number, I. e., many times, v. Preuss, <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 5.]"
,k69b_17:" I.e., eruptions."
,k69b_18:" [A species of cedar, probably Spanish juniper.]"
,k69b_19:" [As is usual after a hot bath, v. Shab. 41a.] "
}

txt:
<p>
and let it drip on three stalks of carob and stir it with a piece of stem of marjoram; when the stem of marjoram is boiled it is all boiled enough. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">He can also take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam,</font> but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">loosens the limbs</font>. For <I>gira</I><a id="k69b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he should take an arrow of Lilith<a id="k69b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and place it point upwards and pour water on it and drink it. Alternatively he can take water of which a dog has drunk at night, but he must take care that it has not been exposed.<a id="k69b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; For [drinking] water which has been exposed let him take an <I>anpak</I> of undiluted wine. For an abscess, an <I>anpak</I> of wine with purple-coloured aloes. For palpitations of the heart he should take three barley-cakes and streak them with liamak<a id="k69b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; which has been made less than forty days before, and eat it and wash it down with wine well diluted. Said R. Aha from Difti to Rabina: This will make his heart palpitate all the more! &mdash; He replied: I was speaking of heaviness of heart. For palpitations of the heart he should take three cakes of wheat and streak them with honey and eat them and wash them down with strong wine. For pressure of the heart he should take the size of three eggs of mint and an egg of camon and an egg of sesame and eat them. For pain in the stomach he should take three hundred long pepper grains and every day drink a hundred of them in wine. Rabin of Naresh<a id="k69b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; used for the daughter of R. Ashi a hundred and fifty of our grains; it cured her. For intestinal worms, an <I>anpak</I><a id="k69b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; of wine with bay leaves. For white intestinal worms he should take eruca seed and tie it in a piece of cloth and soak it in water and drink it, taking care not to swallow the pips, since they may pierce his bowels. For looseness of the bowels, moist polio in water. For constipation, dry polio in water. The mnemonic<a id="k69b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is, 'dry twigs stop the stream'. For swelling of the spleen, let him take seven leeches and dry them in the shade and every day drink two or three in wine. Alternatively he may take the spleen of a she-goat which has not yet had young, and stick it inside the oven and stand by it and say, 'As this spleen dries, so let the spleen of So-and-so son of So-and-so' dry up'. Or again he may dry it between the rows of bricks in a house and repeat these words. Or again he may look out for the corpse of a man who has died on Sabbath and take his hand and put it on the spleen and say, 'As this hand is withered so let the spleen of So-and-so son of So-and-so wither.'<a id="k69b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Or again, he can take a fish and fry it in a smithy and eat it in the water of the smithy<a id="k69b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and wash it down with the water of the smithy. A certain goat which drank from the water of a smithy was found on being killed to have no spleen. Another remedy is to open a barrel of wine expressly for him.<a id="k69b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: If he has a barrel of wine, he will not come to consult your honour.<a id="k69b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; No; [what you 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E207"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/207.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 207<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




should say is that] he should take regularly a bite early in the morning, as this is good for the whole body. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">For anal worms he should take</font> acacia and aloe juice and white-lead and silver dross<a id="k69b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and an amulet-full of phyllon<a id="k69b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">and the excrement of doves and tie it all up in linen rags in the summer or in cotton rags in the winter</font>.<a id="k69b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, let him drink strong wine well diluted. For hip disease<a id="k69b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; let him take a pot of fish brine and rub it sixty times<a id="k69b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; round one hip and sixty times round the other. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">For stone in the bladder</font> let him take three drops of tar and three drops of leek juice and three drops of clear wine and <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">pour it on the membrum of a man or on the corresponding place in a woman</font> &mdash; Alternatively he can <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">take the ear of a bottle and hang it on the membrum of a man or on the breasts of a woman.</font> Or again <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">he can take a purple thread which has been spun by a woman of ill repute or the daughter of a woman of ill repute and hang it on the membrum of a man or the breasts of a woman. Or again he can take a louse from a man and a woman and hang it on the membrum of a man and the corresponding place in a woman;</font> and <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">when he makes water he should do so on dry thorns near the socket of the door, and he should preserve the stone that issues, as it is good for all fevers.</font> For external fever<a id="k69b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he should take three sacks of date stones and three sacks of <I>adra</I><a id="k69b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; leaves and boil each separately while sitting between them and put them in two basins and bring a table and set them on it and bend first over one and then over the other until he becomes thoroughly warmed, and then he should bathe himself in them, and in drinking thereof<a id="k69b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; afterwards he should drink only of the water of the adra leaves but not of the <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">date stones</font>, as they <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">cause barrenness</font>. For internal fever he should take seven handfuls of beet from seven beds and boil them with their earth and eat them and drink adra leaves in beer
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k70a_1:" A kind of skin disease."
,k70a_2:" Which were noted for their size."
,k70a_3:" I.e., leprosy."
,k70a_4:" The tip of which was usually poisoned."
,k70a_5:" [Shamgaz is probably the name of a place. Others simply: Strong vinegar.]"
,k70a_6:" I.e., the three summer months. v. p. 128, n. 7."
,k70a_7:" A chili or fever. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k70a_8:" I.e., make one fastidious."
,k70a_9:" Lit., 'a fire of bones'."
,k70a_10:" [Abaye is but giving an Aramaic version of R. Eleazar's definition in Hebrew.]"
,k70a_11:" A kind of sauce made with flour and honey."
,k70a_12:" As much as to say, Otherwise when you fall into a passion you will burst."
,k70a_13:" Lit., 'dippings': bread or other food dipped in wine or vinegar as a relish."
,k70a_14:" An inferior kind of wine."
,k70a_15:" A kind of skin disease."
,k70a_16:" Reading [H], s.v. Aruch, curr. edd. read [H] (delaria) v. <i>infra</i>."
,k70a_17:" The answer to this question seems to have dropped out of the text."
,k70a_18:" Cantharus tinctorius."
,k70a_19:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">A euphemism for marital intercourse.</font>"
,k70a_20:" A small measure."
,k70a_21:" Ps. XXXVIII, 11."
,k70a_22:" Ibid. CII, 24."
,k70a_23:" Ibid. XXXI, 11. "
}

txt:
<p>
or grapes from a vine trailed on a palm tree in water. For lichen,<a id="k70a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he should take seven Arzanian wheat stalks<a id="k70a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and roast them over a new hoe and smear himself with the juice that exudes from them. R. Shimi b. Ashi used this remedy for a heathen for something else,<a id="k70a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and it cured him.
</p><p>
	Samuel said: If a man has been wounded by a Persian lance<a id="k70a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; there is no hope for him. All the same, however, he should be given fat roast meat and strong wine, as this may keep him alive long enough to enable him to give his last instructions. R. Idi b. Abin said: If a man has swallowed a wasp there is no hope for him. It is as well, however, to give him a revi'ith of Shamgaz vinegar<a id="k70a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; to drink, as this may keep him alive long enough to enable him to give his last instructions.
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man eats beef with turnips and sleeps in the moon on the nights of the fourteenth and fifteenth of the month in the cycle of Tammuz,<a id="k70a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable to ahilu.<a id="k70a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; To this a gloss was added: If one gorges himself with anything, he is liable to ahilu. R. Papa said: This applies even to dates. Is not this obvious? &mdash; [Not so: for] you might argue thus: Seeing that a Master has said, Dates fill and warm and promote digestion and strengthen and do not spoil the taste,<a id="k70a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; I might think [that dates are] not [included]; hence we are told [that they are]. What is ahilu? &mdash; R. Eleazar said: A burning in the bones.<a id="k70a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; (What is meant by a burning of bones? &mdash; Abaye replied: A burning in the bones.)<a id="k70a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the remedy for it? &mdash; Abaye said: I have been told by my mother that all medicines are to be taken either three days or seven or twelve, but with this he must go on till he is cured. All other medicines must be taken on an empty stomach; this one, however, [is different]. After he has eaten and drunk and relieved himself and washed his hands, they must bring him a handful of shatitha<a id="k70a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; with lentils, and a handful of old wine, and mix them together, and he must 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E208"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/208.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 208<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




then eat it and wrap himself in his cloak and sleep, and he must not be disturbed till he wakes of himself. When he wakes he must remove his cloak, otherwise the illness will return.
</p><p>
	Elijah once said to R. Nathan: Eat a third and drink a third and leave a third for when you get angry, and then you will have had your fill.<a id="k70a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya taught: If a man wants to avoid stomach trouble, he should take <I>tibbul</I><a id="k70a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; regularly summer and winter. In a meal which you enjoy indulge not too freely, and do not wait too long to consult nature.
</p><p>
	Mar 'Ukba said: If a man drinks white <I>tilia</I>,<a id="k70a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; he will be subject to debility. R. Hisda said: There are sixty kinds of wine; the best of all is red fragrant wine, the worst is white <I>tilia</I>. Rab Judah said: If a man sits by the fire on the mornings of Nisan and rubs himself with oil and then goes out and sits in the sun, he will be liable to debility.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a man lets blood and then has marital intercourse his children [born therefrom] will be weaklings. If both man and wife let blood before intercourse their children will be liable to <I>ra'athan</I>.<a id="k70a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: This is the case only if they did not take anything to eat [in between], but if they took something to eat, there is no harm. Rabbah b. Bar Huna said: If a man immediately on returning from a journey has marital intercourse, his children will be weaklings. The Rabbis taught: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">On coming from a privy a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a <I>mil</I>, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time;</font> if he does, his children will be epileptic. The Rabbis taught: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">If a man has sexual intercourse standing, he will be liable to convulsions; if sitting, to spasms;<a id="k70a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; if she is above and he below, he will be subject to <I>delaria</I> [diarrhoea].</font> What is <I>delaria</I>!<a id="k70a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua b. Levi says: The cure for diarrhoea is <I>dardara</I>. What is 



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E209"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/209.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 209<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




<I>dardara</I>? &mdash; Abaye said: The 'crocus of thorns'.<a id="k70a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa used to crunch it in his teeth and swallow it: R. Papi used to crunch it and spit it out.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">One who is not conversant with the way of the world</font><a id="k70a_19"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">19</font></sup></a>&nbsp; should take three <I>kefizi</I><a id="k70a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of safflower and grind it and boil it in wine and drink it. R. Johanan said: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">This is just what restored me to my youthful vigour.</font>
</p><p>
	Three things weaken a man's strength, namely, anxiety, travelling and sin. Anxiety, as it is written, <I>My heart fluttereth, my strength faileth me</I>.<a id="k70a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Travelling, as it is written, <I>He weakened my strength in the way</I>.<a id="k70a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Sin, as it is written, <I>My strength faileth because of mine iniquity</I>.<a id="k70a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Three things enfeeble a man's body, namely, to eat standing,</font> to drink standing, and to <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">have marital intercourse standing.</font>
</p><p>
	Five are nearer to death than to life, namely, one who eats and rises immediately, or who drinks and rises immediately, or who lets blood and rises immediately, or <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">who rises immediately</font> on waking or <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">after marital intercourse.</font>
</p><p>
	If one does the following six things [together], <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">he will die immediately</font>: if he comes weary from a journey, lets blood and has a bath and drinks himself drunk and lies down to sleep on the floor and <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">has marital intercourse</font>. R. Johanan said: That is, if he does them in this order; Abaye said: If he does them in this order he will die; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">if not in this order he will fall ill.</font> Is that so? Did not [a certain] Me'orath do three of these things to her slave and he died? &mdash; He was a weakling.
</p><p>
	There are eight things which in large quantities are harmful but in small quantities are beneficial, namely, travelling, the 'way of the world', wealth, work, wine, sleep, hot baths, and blood-letting.
</p><p>
	Eight things cause a diminution of seed, namely, salt, hunger, scalls, weeping, sleeping on the ground, lotus, cucumbers out of season, and bloodletting below, which is as bad as any two. A Tanna taught: As it is as bad as any two below, so it is as good as any two above. R. Papa said:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k70b_1:" E.g., the legs and thighs."
,k70b_2:" After the last words are uttered."
,k70b_3:" As <i>supra</i> p. 415."
,k70b_4:" The windpipe and the oesophagus."
,k70b_5:" I.e., he nodded assent when they asked him."
,k70b_6:" Apparently the questioner puts such a man on the same footing as one suffering from kordiakos. But in this case it is not easy to see why the question was not raised against the Mishnah itself and not against R. Johanan (v. Tosaf.)."
,k70b_7:" Lit., 'had begun with him'."
,k70b_8:" So that his wife can marry again."
,k70b_9:" So that his Get is valid."
,k70b_10:" And therefore we do not hold the man who cut his throat guilty even of accidental homicide."
,k70b_11:" In which case his death could not have been due to the wind, and therefore if we adopt the first reason the other man would be guilty of homicide."
,k70b_12:" Lit., 'a bending of no, no\"! or \"yes, yes\"! I.e., sideways or forwards, so that he was not giving any answer to the question."
,k70b_13:" And even if he asked for a summer coat in winter or vice-versa, his answer might still be rational. "
}

txt:
<p>
: 'Below' means below the middle,<a id="k70b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'above' means above the middle. In regard to cucumbers out of season a gloss was added: As they are bad out of season, so they are good in season. R. Papa said: 'In season' means Tammuz; 'out of season' means Tebeth; round about Nisan and Tishri they are neither good nor bad.
</p><p>
	IF HE SAYS, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, AND IS THEN SEIZED WITH A KORDIAKOS AND THEN SAYS, DO NOT WRITE, HIS LAST WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The Get may be written immediately;<a id="k70b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, said that it is not to be written till he comes to himself again. What is the reason of Resh Lakish? &mdash; Because it is stated, HIS LAST WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. To this R. Johanan replies that the words HIS LAST WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT' mean that when he recovers the scribe need not consult him again, but all the same the Get is not written until he comes round. In what do they differ in principle? &mdash; Resh Lakish puts the man on a par with one who is asleep and R. Johanan with a madman. Why should not R. Johanan put him on the same footing as a sleeper? &mdash; A sleeper needs no treatment, this man does. Why does not Resh Lakish put him on the same footing as a madman? &mdash; For a madman we have no cure, for this man we have, namely red flesh broiled on the coals and wine much diluted.<a id="k70b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But can R. Johanan have said this, seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Samuel, If a man had two passages<a id="k70b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or the greater part of two passages cut and he indicated by a gesture<a id="k70b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; that they should write a Get for his wife, the Get should be written and given,<a id="k70b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and it has also been taught, 'If people saw him hacked or nailed to a cross and he indicated by a gesture, Write a Get for my wife, they should write and deliver it'? &mdash; Are the two cases comparable? In that case his mind was clear, and only physical weakness had set in,<a id="k70b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but here his mind is clouded. 
</p><p>
	But did Samuel really say this? Did not Rab Judah say in the name of Samuel: If he had two passages or the greater part of two passages cut and ran away, those who saw him can testify that he is dead.<a id="k70b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if we presume that he is alive [after the passages have been cut],<a id="k70b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; why can they testify that he is dead? &mdash; We say that he is alive, but he is bound to die. But if that is the case, [the man who cut his throat] [accidentally] should be exiled [to a city of refuge] on account of him; why then has it been taught, 'If one cut [accidentally] two passages or the greater part of two passages of [the throat of] another, he is not exiled'? &mdash; It has been explained in regard to this that R. Oshaia said: We consider it possible that the wind troubled him or that he hastened his own death.<a id="k70b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What difference does it make which reason we adopt? &mdash; There is a difference where he killed him in a marble room and he struggled,<a id="k70b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or where he killed him outside and he did not struggle.
</p><p>
	IF HE IS STRUCK DUMB AND THEY SAY TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE etc. But is there not a possibility that he was seized [just then] with an involuntary nodding of the head in a negative or a positive sense?<a id="k70b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Joseph b. Manyumi said, in the name of R. Nahman: [We suppose that] we question him at intervals. But perhaps the involuntary nodding seized him at the same intervals? &mdash; We suppose that we ask him two [questions requiring a] negative [answer] and one [requiring an] affirmative [answer], or two [requiring an] affirmative and one a negative [answer]. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: They talk to him about the requirements of the summer season in the rainy season and of the rainy season in the summer season. What is referred to here? Shall we say winter coat and summer coat? Perhaps just then he was seized with a shiver or a perspiration?<a id="k70b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k71a_1:" I.e., whether he wants freshly plucked fruit when they are out of season."
,k71a_2:" I.e., if he was whole at the time of marriage and so made a proper betrothal. If he was deaf and dumb before marriage, he betroths by gesture and can also divorce by gesture, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k71a_3:" And writing is surely as effective as nodding."
,k71a_4:" In Biblical phraseology. Whereas in Rabbinical language heresh generally denotes a deaf-mute, and it is to a deaf-mute that R. Kahana refers."
,k71a_5:" Ps. XXXVIII, 14."
,k71a_6:" Lit., 'as men say'."
,k71a_7:" I.e., 'his speech has been taken away from him'."
,k71a_8:" Lev. V, 1, of one who is called on to testify and withholds his evidence."
,k71a_9:" Deut. XIX, 15, 'At the mouth of two witnesses&nbsp;&hellip; shall a matter be established'."
,k71a_10:" The reference is to one who is struck dumb."
,k71a_11:" I.e., whether she may contract a certain marriage or not on his evidence regarding the death of her husband."
,k71a_12:" Which presumably means, giving evidence about other people's bequests."
,k71a_13:" I.e., his signifying that his eldest son should not have a double portion (Rashi), or that one of his sons was the eldest (Tosaf)."
,k71a_14:" This refutes R. Kahana."
,k71a_15:" That the directions of a deaf-mute are not to be followed in regard to a Get."
,k71a_16:" In agreement with R. Kahana."
,k71a_17:" A deaf and dumb man cannot give <i>halizah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), because he cannot say 'I do not desire to marry her'. He must therefore contract the levirate marriage, and as the betrothal of the first husband was effected by word of mouth, he cannot undo it by a gesture or by writing."
,k71a_18:" By the first husband."
,k71a_19:" And as the betrothal of the first husband was effected by word of mouth, he cannot undo it by a gesture or by writing."
,k71a_20:" Lest she should set a precedent for the sister-in-law. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; The proper way is to ask him about fruit.<a id="k71a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana said in the name of Rab: If a deaf-mute can signify his meaning by writing, a Get may be written and given to his wife.<a id="k71a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Joseph: What does this tell us [that we do not know already]? We have learnt: IF A MAN IS STRUCK DUMB AND WHEN THEY SAY TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE, HE NODS HIS HEAD, HE IS TESTED WITH THREE QUESTIONS. IF HE SIGNIFIES 'NO' AND 'YES' PROPERLY EACH TIME, THEN THE GET SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND GIVEN FOR HIM?<a id="k71a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Zera replied to him: You have quoted a statement about an illem [mute]. An illem is different, as it has been taught: One who can speak but not hear is called heresh,<a id="k71a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and one who can hear but not speak is called illem, and both are considered to be in possession of their faculties for all purposes. What is your warrant for saying that one who can speak but not hear is called heresh, and one who can hear but not speak is called illem? &mdash; Because it is written, But I am as a deaf man [heresh] I hear not, and I am as a dumb man [illem] that openeth not his mouth.<a id="k71a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Or if you like I can say that we know it from the colloquial description<a id="k71a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; of a dumb man as Ishtekil Miluleh.<a id="k71a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera said: If I do find any difficulty [in R. Kahana's remark] it is this, that it has been taught: 'If he do not utter it.<a id="k71a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; This excludes a mute who cannot utter'. Now why should this be, seeing that [according to R. Kahana] he can signify by writing? &mdash; Abaye replied to him: You are speaking of testimony, and testimony comes under a different rule, because the All-Merciful has said that it must be from their mouths,<a id="k71a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and not from their writing.
</p><p>
	[The following] was raised in objection [to Abaye's statement]: In the same way as he<a id="k71a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is tested in connection with a Get, so he is tested in connection with business transactions, with testimony, and with bequests. Now 'testimony' is mentioned here? &mdash; R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Shesheth: This applies only to testimony regarding the status of a woman,<a id="k71a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; with which the Rabbis were not so strict. But it also says 'bequests'?<a id="k71a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Abbahu said: It refers to the inheritance of his eldest son.<a id="k71a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But it also says 'in connection with business transactions', and this presumably means anyone's? &mdash; No, it refers only to his own.
</p><p>
	[The following] was then raised in objection: The directions of a deaf-mute given by gestures, by lip-movements, and by writing are to be followed only in regard to the transfer of movables, but not to a Get?<a id="k71a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is in truth a difference of opinion on this point between Tannaim, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: This<a id="k71a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is the case only with one who was a deaf-mute from the outset, but one who was originally whole and became a deaf-mute after marriage can write a Get for himself which others can sign.<a id="k71a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But cannot one who was originally a deaf-mute give a Get? As he married her by gesture, cannot he also divorce her by gesture? &mdash; If [we were speaking] of his wife, this would indeed be the case, but [in fact] we are dealing with his sister-in-law.<a id="k71a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; His sister-in-law from whom? Are we to say, one who fell to his lot from his [de ceased] brother who was also a deaf-mute? [In that case], just as she was married by gesture,<a id="k71a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; so she can be put away by gesture! No; it is one who fell to his lot from a brother in possession of his faculties.<a id="k71a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively I may say that she did fall to his lot from a brother who was a deaf-mute, and we forbid the [wife of a] deaf-mute to be divorced by gesture so as not to set a precedent for [the wife of] one who was sound. If that is the case, should we not forbid him to divorce his wife also?<a id="k71a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A sister-in-law can be confused with a sister-in-law, but not with a wife. But do we indeed forbid [a deaf-mute] because [of a sound one]?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k71b_1:" The widow of any of the brothers who died without issue."
,k71b_2:" That is to say, although the marriage was contracted at least on one side by gesture only, it is sufficiently valid to release the wife's sister from the obligation of giving <i>halizah</i> to or to bar her from marrying the husband, v. Yeb. I, 1."
,k71b_3:" Not being able to give <i>halizah</i> because either he or she cannot recite the requisite formula."
,k71b_4:" I.e., after having Performed the levir marriage."
,k71b_5:" V. Yeb. 110b. Which shows that we do not forbid a deaf-mute to divorce the wife of his deceased brother who was also a deaf-mute."
,k71b_6:" The representatives of the anonymous view mentioned in the Baraitha cited <i>supra</i> p. 338."
,k71b_7:" The view of the Rabbis which R. Simeon opposes."
,k71b_8:" Yeb. 110b."
,k71b_9:" But not, 'even though he can write', so that this Mishnah would not differ from R. Simeon."
,k71b_10:" The insertion of the word 'never' in the second clause is not intended to exclude the deaf-mute's divorce by writing, but is meant to indicate that the rule regarding the husband has the sanction of the Torah, whereas the one regarding the wife mentioned in the first clause has the sanction only of the Rabbis."
,k71b_11:" V. Rashi a.l."
,k71b_12:" That is to say, if there were three of them, in which case the word 'give' constitutes them a <i>Beth din</i> to write and deliver the Get."
,k71b_13:" I.e., that the agent is at liberty to instruct someone else to carry out the instructions which were given to him, v. <i>supra</i> 29b."
,k71b_14:" I.e., in such a case the Get is invalid unless he tells the scribe etc."
,k71b_15:" Instead of 'write'. And there is no need to mention the case of his telling the scribe personally."
,k71b_16:" And if he told only two, even if he used the word 'give', they would not be at liberty to tell a scribe."
,k71b_17:" I.e., tell the scribe to write etc. "
}

txt:
<p>
Have we not learnt, 'If two brothers, deaf-mutes, were married to two sisters who were not deaf-mutes or to two sisters who were deaf-mutes or to two sisters one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other not, and similarly if two sisters who were deaf-mutes were married to two brothers who were not deaf-mutes or to two brothers who were deaf-mutes or to two brothers one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other not, these sisters<a id="k71b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; are free from the obligation of <i>halizah</i> or levirate marriage.<a id="k71b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If however, the women were not related to one another, they must contract the marriage,<a id="k71b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and if [the second husband] desires to put her away<a id="k71b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he may do so'?<a id="k71b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The truth is that the first answer is the best.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's colleagues<a id="k71b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; differed from him. Abaye said: We have also learnt to the same effect:<a id="k71b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If the wife became insane, he cannot put her away. If he became deaf and dumb or insane, he can never put her away.<a id="k71b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by never'? Surely it means, even if he can signify his intention in writing? &mdash; R. Papa said: But for the statement of R. Johanan, I would have said that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel intended only to explain the statement of the previous Tanna, and that 'never' means, 'even though we see that he is intelligent'.<a id="k71b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Or, I might have said, the word 'never' indicates the lesson taught by R. Isaac. For R. Isaac said: According to the rule of the [written] Torah, an insane wife can be divorced, being on the same footing as a sound woman who is divorced without her own consent. Why then did the Rabbis lay down that she should not be divorced? In order that she should not be used for immoral purposes.<a id="k71b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THEY SAID TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE, AND HE SAID TO THEM, WRITE, AND IF THEY THEN TOLD A SCRIBE AND HE WROTE AND WITNESSES AND THEY SIGNED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN AND SIGNED IT AND GIVEN IT TO HIM AND HE IN TURN HAS GIVEN IT TO HER, THE GET IS VOID UNLESS HE HIMSELF HAS SAID TO THE SCRIBE 'WRITE' AND TO THE WITNESSES, 'SIGN'.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The reason [why it is invalid] is because he did not say 'give' [instead of 'write'].<a id="k71b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; We presume, therefore, that if he said 'give' they [may tell others to write and] give.<a id="k71b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Whose view is this? R. Meir's, who said that verbal instructions can be entrusted to an agent.<a id="k71b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Read now the later clause: UNLESS HE HAS SAID TO THE SCRIBE, 'WRITE' AND TO THE WITNESSES 'SIGN'. This brings us round to the view of R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be entrusted to an agent. Are we to say then that the first clause follows R. Meir and the second R. Jose? &mdash; Yes; the first follows R. Meir and the second R. Jose. Abaye, however, said: The whole follows R. Meir, and we are dealing here [in the last clause] with the case where he did not say 'give'.<a id="k71b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case, it should say, 'he must say, Give'?<a id="k71b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact the case here is one in which he did not tell three persons.<a id="k71b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case, it should say, 'He must tell three'? &mdash; Hence the whole follows R. Jose, and the case here is one in which he did not say, 'Tell'.<a id="k71b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case, it should say, 'He must say, Tell'? And besides, does R. Jose admit that the Get is valid where he says 'tell'? Have We not learnt: 'If a scribe wrote and a witness signed, it is valid', and R. Jeremiah explained that what is meant is that the scribe [also] signed, and R. Hisda said, Whom does this Mishnah follow?
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k72a_1:" I.e., where the scribe signed on the instructions not of the husband but of his agent."
,k72a_2:" V. <i>supra</i> 67a and notes."
,k72a_3:" That a deaf-mute may give instructions in writing."
,k72a_4:" [The bracketed words are supplied from the printed texts of the Mishnayoth. Rashi, however, omits these words and takes the phrase 'THIS IS YOUR GET FROM THIS ILLNESS' to mean that the Get is to take effect after this illness.]"
,k72a_5:" Because there is no such thing as a Get after death."
,k72a_6:" The Get in this case comes retrospectively into force at the moment of his death."
,k72a_7:" For fear it was no Get."
,k72a_8:" As levir, for fear it was a Get."
,k72a_9:" Where he says, 'FROM TODAY AND AFTER MY DEATH'."
,k72a_10:" Where it is laid down that his words are of no effect."
,k72a_11:" Lit., 'is the proof thereof'. The document referred to is one in which a man assigns all his property to his sons in his lifetime, intending to keep the usufruct for himself. According to the Rabbis, if he desires to transfer to them the body of the property at once, he must insert the words 'from to-day and after my death': according to R. Jose this is not necessary, the date of the document being sufficient to give this indication. V. B.B. 136a."
,k72a_12:" Since the date makes it a valid Get immediately."
,k72a_13:" And therefore he treated the document as a 'Get and no Get'."
,k72a_14:" In the matter of transference of property. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Jose, who said that instructions are not transmitted to a messenger? Now if you should assume that R. Jose admits that the Get is valid where he said 'tell,'<a id="k72a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; then serious results may sometimes ensue, for it may happen that he says to two persons, 'Tell the scribe to write and So-and-so and So-and-so to sign', and they, in order not to offend the scribe, let him sign, and this is not what the husband said?<a id="k72a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The best view therefore is that the first clause follows R. Meir and the later one R. Jose.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: The whole follows R. Jose, and [the last clause] forms a climax: Not only where he omitted to say 'give' [is the Get invalid] but even where he said 'give', and not only where he did not tell three persons but even where he told three persons, and not only where he did not say 'tell' but even where he said 'tell' [the Get is invalid till he says to the scribe etc.].
</p><p>
	It has been taught in accord with R. Ashi: 'In the case where the scribe wrote and the witnesses signed for her name, though they had written and signed it and given it to him and he had given it to her, the Get is void unless they had heard him saying with his own voice to the scribe, Write, and to the witnesses, Sign'. The word 'hear' excludes the opinion [mentioned above], that R. Jose admits that the Get is valid where the husband said 'tell'. 'His voice' excludes the statement made by R. Kahana in the name of Rab.<a id="k72a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF A MAN SAYS] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE, THIS IS YOUR GET [IF I DIE]<a id="k72a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM THIS ILLNESS, THIS IS YOUR GET AFTER [MY] DEATH, HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT.<a id="k72a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE SAYS], FROM TODAY IF I DIE, FROM NOW IF I DIE, THE GET IS VALID.<a id="k72a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE SAYS], FROM TODAY AND AFTER [MY] DEATH, IT IS BOTH A GET AND NO GET, AND IF HE DIES [WITHOUT ISSUE] SHE MUST GIVE <I>HALIZAH</I><a id="k72a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT SHE CANNOT MARRY THE HUSBAND'S BROTHER.<a id="k72a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE SAID], THIS IS YOUR GET FROM TODAY IF I DIE FROM THIS ILLNESS, AND HE THEN GOT UP AND WENT ABOUT AND FELL SICK AND DIED, WE MUST ESTIMATE [THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH]; IF HE DIED FROM THE FIRST ILLNESS, THE GET IS VALID, BUT OTHERWISE NOT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [IF HE SAID, THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE etc.] This would indicate that the formula 'IF I DIE' is equivalent to 'AFTER [MY] DEATH'; yet in the next clause we are told that [the Get is valid if he says] 'FROM TODAY IF I DIE, FROM NOW IF I DIE', which would indicate that it is not equivalent to 'AFTER DEATH'! &mdash; Abaye explained that the expression 'IF I DIE' can have two implications, viz., either 'as from now' or 'as from the time of my death'. If he [further] said to her 'from to-day', it is equivalent to saying to her 'as from now'; if he did not say to her 'from to-day', it is equivalent to saying to her 'from the time of my death'.
</p><p>
	IF HE SAID, THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE, HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. R. Huna said: The wife none the less must give <i>halizah</i>. But it is taught 'HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT'? &mdash; His words are of no effect to the extent that she remains prohibited to all other men and also to the brother-in-law. But since in the later case<a id="k72a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; it says specifically that SHE GIVES <I>HALIZAH</I>, we understand that in the earlier case<a id="k72a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [where it does not say so] she may also marry the brother-in-law? &mdash; The Mishnah follows the view of the Rabbis and R. Huna that of R. Jose, who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.<a id="k72a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If we follow the View of R. Jose, she should not require to give <i>halizah</i> either?<a id="k72a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; perhaps you will aver that R. Huna was uncertain whether the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose or not.<a id="k72a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But can you indeed say so? For once when Rabbah b. Abbuha was ill, R. Huna and R. Nahman went to visit him, and R. Huna said to R. Nahman, Ask Rabbah b. Abbuha whether the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose or not,<a id="k72a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Nahman answered, I do not know R. Jose's reason, and how can I ask him the <i>halachah</i>, whereupon R. Huna said, You ask him the <i>halachah</i> and I will tell you the reason. He therefore asked him, and he replied: Thus said Rab: the <i>halachah</i> is according to R. Jose. When he came out he [R. Huna] said to him, The reason of R. Jose is this; he held that the date of the document is sufficient indication. [This then cannot be R. Huna's reason]! &mdash; We must suppose therefore that he was uncertain
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k72b_1:" I.e., where the words 'THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE' if used at all were not inserted in the document, but spoken by word of mouth."
,k72b_2:" Which is equivalent to saying 'if I die'."
,k72b_3:" V. <i>infra</i> 76b."
,k72b_4:" R. Judah Nesi'a, (the Prince), the grandson of Rabbi, permitted the oil of heathens to be used. A.Z. 37a."
,k72b_5:" Which shows that according to R. Jose the formula 'if I die' spoken by word of mouth makes the Get valid, and R. Huna could not have been uncertain on this point."
,k72b_6:" Even when the declaration was made by word of mouth."
,k72b_7:" Where he said, 'from to-day and after death'."
,k72b_8:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k72b_9:" To exclude where he said merely 'after death', which, according to R. Jose is sufficient."
,k72b_10:" V. <i>infra</i> 76b. But not where he said 'from to-day and after death', since the words 'after death' may be interpreted as retracting the words 'from to-day'. Although in the matter of transference of property R. Jose will hold the gift valid, because the declaration there can be explained as intended to reserve the usufruct for the donor during his lifetime."
,k72b_11:" The reference is to a sick person on the point of death."
,k72b_12:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 66a and notes."
,k72b_13:" And the Get is ipso facto annulled."
,k72b_14:" [Since in the Mishnah it was specifically made conditional on his dying, (v. Tosaf.). Trani is of the opinion that in every case the Get is rendered void, any deposition made by a dying man being understood to be conditional. The same holds good of a gift.] "
}

txt:
<p>
whether R. Jose meant his ruling to apply to a verbal declaration<a id="k72b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; or not. But was he uncertain? Have we not learnt, 'If a man said, This is your Get if I do not return within twelve months from now,<a id="k72b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and he died within the twelve months, the Get is not valid',<a id="k72b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and in this connection it was taught: 'Our Rabbis allowed her to marry', and we stated [in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>], Who are 'our Rabbis'? and Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, The <i>Beth din</i> which permitted oil,<a id="k72b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and they took the same view as R. Jose?<a id="k72b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We must therefore say that R. Huna's uncertainty was as to whether the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose where the declaration was made by word of mouth or not. But can he have been in doubt about this, seeing that Raba has said, If a man says, 'This is thy Get if I die', or 'supposing I die', the Get is valid, but if he said, 'When I die,' or 'After [my] death,' the Get is not valid. Now, how are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that he [also] said 'from to-day', and [that Raba adopted the view of] the Rabbis? Surely there is no need to tell us this, seeing that we have learnt, IF HE SAID, FROM TO-DAY IF I DIE, THE GET IS VALID. We must therefore suppose that he does not say to her 'from to-day', and that Raba adopted the view of R. Jose; which shows that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Jose,<a id="k72b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [does it not]? &mdash; Raba was quite sure on the point, R. Huna was uncertain. Alternatively I may suppose [Raba to have meant that] the man does say 'from to-day', and that he was giving the view of the Rabbis, and that his purpose was to explain in regard to these various expressions that 'supposing I die' is equivalent to 'if I die', and 'when I die' to 'after [my] death'.
</p><p>
	Some connect [R. Huna's remark] with the latter clause [of the Mishnah], thus: IF A MAN SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET AFTER [MY] DEATH, HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT: R. Huna said, If we accept the view of R. Jose, she must give <i>halizah</i>. Surely this is obvious: since in the later case<a id="k72b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the ruling of the Rabbis [requires her to] give <i>halizah</i>, in the earlier case also the ruling of R. Jose [must require her to] give <i>halizah</i>? &mdash; You might think that in this case R. Jose concurs with Rabbi who said that it is an unexceptionable Get<a id="k72b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and that she would not require to give <i>halizah</i> either, R. Huna therefore tells us that neither did Rabbi concur with R. Jose nor R. Jose with Rabbi. Rabbi did not concur with R. Jose because he stated expressly 'a Get like this is valid', to exclude one allowed by R. Jose.<a id="k72b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose did not concur with Rabbi, because he stated expressly, 'a Get like this is valid', to exclude one allowed by Rabbi. In what connection did Rabbi use these words? &mdash; As it has been taught: [If a man says,] From to-day and after my death, this is a Get and no Get. So the Rabbis; but Rabbi says, A Get like this is valid.<a id="k72b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; In what connection did R. Jose use these words? &mdash; As we have learnt: [If a man says,] Write and give a Get to my wife if I do not come within twelve months from now, if then they wrote it within the twelve months and gave it after the twelve, it is no Get. R. Jose, however, said: A Get like this is valid.<a id="k72b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET FROM TO-DAY IF I DIE AND HE GETS UP AND GOES ABOUT etc. R. Huna said: His<a id="k72b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Get is on the same footing as his gift; just as if he gets up he can withdraw his gift, so if he gets up he can withdraw his Get. And just as his Get, even though he does not express his intention precisely, is valid once he says 'write', even though he does not add 'give', so his gift is valid as soon as he says 'give' even though no token gift is made.<a id="k72b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; We have learnt: IF HE SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET FROM TO DAY IF I DIE FROM THIS ILLNESS, AND HE THEN GOT UP AND WENT ABOUT AND FELL SICK AND DIED, WE MUST ESTIMATE THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH: IF HE DIED FROM THE FIRST ILLNESS, THE GET IS VALID, BUT OTHERWISE NOT. Now if you say that if he gets up he can retract, why do I require an estimate? We see that he has got up?<a id="k72b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Mar the son of R. Joseph said in the name of Raba: We suppose he has passed from one illness into another.<a id="k72b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But it says that 'HE GETS UP'? &mdash; He gets up from one illness and falls into another. But it says 'HE GOES ABOUT'? &mdash; It means that he goes with a crutch;
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k73a_1:" And even if he passes from one illness to another, we presume that he died from the first illness."
,k73a_2:" That a sick man on getting up can withdraw his Get, even if he had not used the formula 'if I die'. But v. Tosaf. 72b s.v. [H]."
,k73a_3:" When they see a Get which would become void if he recovered taking effect after his death if he does not recover."
,k73a_4:" Because the condition that he should die is not fulfilled."
,k73a_5:" By means of this Get."
,k73a_6:" V. <i>supra</i>, 33a."
,k73a_7:" [The answer to the questions left unanswered here is supplied by the Jerusalem Talmud. In the first case he did not die from that illness. Whereas in the second, where the emphasis was on his 'getting up', the Get is valid since he did not after all 'get up'. Our Talmud however, did not evidently accept this distinction, seeing that in both cases the words 'from this illness' form part of the condition, and thus rejects the Baraitha. Tosaf.]"
,k73a_8:" Palestine."
,k73a_9:" Because this is an exceptional accident which he cannot have had in his mind when he said 'if I die'."
,k73a_10:" Lit., 'the matter was circulated'."
,k73a_11:" Which would tell you that he did not have such an exceptional accident in his mind."
,k73a_12:" [Alfasi reads Nehar Malka Saba, the Grand Canal connecting the Euphrates with the Tigris, (Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. p. 171). V. also B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 609, n. 5.]"
,k73a_13:" To Naresh (v. <i>supra</i> p. 330, n. 1.) the home of R. Papa. The boats had for this purpose to sail up the Euphrates and thence pass into the canal Nars (loc. cit. p. 171)."
,k73a_14:" I.e., greybeards (Rashi). Cf. Keth. 85a. [Obermeyer <i>loc. cit</i>. Pelican, a bird which owing to its large pouch on its lower jaw for the storage of fish is a symbol among orientals for greediness.]"
,k73a_15:" And therefore they are not responsible."
,k73a_16:" A woman to whom her husband has given a Get with the words 'from now if I die'."
,k73a_17:" Because if she is still his wife and he has intercourse with her she will require a second Get, and if she is not his wife he commits an offence by consorting privately with an unmarried woman."
,k73a_18:" Lit., 'her heart in her is proud towards her handmaid', i.e., she feels no shame in her presence."
,k73a_19:" Between the delivery of the Get and his death. "
}

txt:
<p>
and this is to show us that it is when he goes on a crutch that an estimate must be made, but that in the other case we do not even require to estimate.<a id="k73a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Are we to understand from this that the gift of a sick person who passes from one illness to another [and dies] is valid? &mdash; Yes, since R. Eleazar has said in the name of Rab, The gift of a sick person who passes from one illness into another is valid.
</p><p>
	Rabbah and Raba did not concur in this opinion of R. Huna,<a id="k73a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; as they were afraid it might lead people to think that a Get could be given after death.<a id="k73a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it possible that where a Get is invalid according to the Torah<a id="k73a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; we should, for fear [of misleading people], declare it effective for making a married woman marriageable? &mdash; Yes; whoever betroths a woman does so on the conditions laid down by the Rabbis, and the Rabbis have nullified the betrothal of such a one.<a id="k73a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabina to R. Ashi: This can well be where he betrothed by means of a money gift, but if he betrothed by means of intercourse what can we say? &mdash; He replied: The Rabbis declared his intercourse to be fornication.<a id="k73a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If he says, This is thy Get from to-day if I die from this illness, and the house fell on him or a serpent bit him, it is no Get. If he said, If I do not get up from this illness, and the house fell on him or a serpent bit him, it is a Get. Why is the rule different in the first case and in the second?<a id="k73a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They sent from there<a id="k73a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to say [in answer to an inquiry], If a lion consumed him, we cannot consider [it a Get].<a id="k73a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man sold a field to his neighbour, guaranteeing him against any accident that might happen to it. Eventually they [the Government] turned a river through it. He consulted Rabina, who said to him, You must go and clear it for him, since you have guaranteed him against any accident which may happen to it. Thereupon R. Aha b. Tahalifa remarked to Rabina: It is an exceptional kind of accident. Various opinions were taken<a id="k73a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and the matter was at last laid before Raba, who said, it is an exceptional kind of accident. Rabina raised [the following] objection against Raba: '[Where he said] If I do not get up from this illness, and the house fell on him or a serpent bit him, this is a Get'? &mdash; Raba replied: Why do you not quote the earlier clause, where it says, 'It is no Get'? &mdash; Said R. Aha from Difti to Rabina: Because the first clause conflicts with the second, may we not raise an objection from the latter? &mdash; He replied: That is so; since the first clause conflicts with the second, the latter was not discussed in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>, and it is not authentic. [You must therefore] follow your own reason.<a id="k73a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua bought some sesame on the bank of Nehar Malka,<a id="k73a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and they hired some boatmen to bring it across<a id="k73a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; with a guarantee against any accident that might happen to it. After a time the Nehar Malka canal was stopped up. They said to them: Hire asses and deliver the stuff to us, since you have guaranteed us against any accident. They appealed to Raba, who said to them: White ducks<a id="k73a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; who want to strip men of their clothes, it is an exceptional kind of accident.<a id="k73a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SHE<a id="k73a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; SHOULD NOT CONSORT WITH HIM<a id="k73a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; SAVE IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES, THOUGH A SLAVE OR A BONDWOMAN IS SUFFICIENT &mdash; NOT, HOWEVER, HER OWN BONDWOMAN, SINCE SHE CAN TAKE LIBERTIES WITH HER OWN HANDMAID.<a id="k73a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; WHAT IS HER STATUS DURING THOSE DAYS?<a id="k73a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAYS THAT
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k73b_1:" I.e., sexual intercourse."
,k73b_2:" I.e., how explain the apparent contradiction between the various clauses."
,k73b_3:" Intercourse being one of three methods of betrothal, v. Kid. 2a, she will now require another Get."
,k73b_4:" Between Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, <i>infra</i> 81a. If a man has divorced his wife and she stays in the same inn with him, Beth Hillel require him to give her a second Get, but Beth Shammai do not."
,k73b_5:" Because both the first Tanna and R. Jose agree that where she was not seen to have intercourse a second Get is not required."
,k73b_6:" In the Baraitha quoted, and how could so essential a point have been omitted?"
,k73b_7:" The word 'suspect' is used loosely here, and is equivalent to 'put it down to'."
,k73b_8:" For according to the first Tanna a second Get is not required even where they saw her. This therefore must also be the view of Beth Hillel, as the first Tanna is not likely to follow Beth Shammai in preference to Beth Hillel with whom the <i>halachah</i> generally rests."
,k73b_9:" In the observation of R. Jose. Since the assumption that this is a case of fornication saves her from the necessity of another Get, R. Jose should have merely said, 'They suspect him of having betrothed her'."
,k73b_10:" But only consort with him."
,k73b_11:" Since the first Tanna does not require a second Get even where she was seen, and R. Jose requires it even where she was not seen."
,k73b_12:" In connection with the statement of R. Jose."
,k73b_13:" If he does not die, she remains a married woman, with certain consequences which are discussed presently."
,k73b_14:" I.e., if it was not a Get at some time during his life, how can it become one upon his death?"
,k73b_15:" Which denoted the period immediately preceding his death. R. Judah being of the opinion that the Get comes into force only at the moment before his death, whereas according to R. Jose the Get is in doubtful operation all the time as every moment from the time of delivery may be deemed as the possible moment before his death. Tosaf. suggests a slight change in reading, according to which the rendering would be: '(When he says, \"from to-day if I die\", this is equivalent to saying) from the time that I am in the next world'.' According to Rabbah the dispute of R. Judah and R. Jose is not concerned with the opening case when he said 'from now if I die', where all would agree that the Get becomes retrospectively valid at the time of his death."
,k73b_16:" The giving of the Get and his death. "
}

txt:
<p>
SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN EVERY RESPECT; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS BOTH DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: If people have observed that she consorted with him in the dark or slept with him under the foot of the bed, they do not suspect them of having engaged in something else',<a id="k73b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but they do suspect them of loose conduct, and they do not suspect that he has betrothed her. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says, They also suspect him of having betrothed her. What is the meaning of this?<a id="k73b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, The meaning is this: If they saw him have intercourse with her, they suspect he has done so as a method of betrothing her.<a id="k73b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If he [afterwards] gave her money, they suspect that it was on account of fornication, as we say that he gave it her for her hire; but we do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says that in this case also we have to suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference<a id="k73b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'. On which view can this be justified? &mdash; On both views.<a id="k73b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye strongly demurred to the explanation [given by R. Nahman]. Is the giving of money, [he said,] mentioned?<a id="k73b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, said Abaye; the meaning is this. If they saw her have intercourse they suspect<a id="k73b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; her of fornication but do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, We also suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'? On which view can this be justified? On the view of R. Jose.<a id="k73b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba strongly demurred to this, [saying,] If so, what is the point of 'also'?<a id="k73b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, said Raba; the meaning is this. R. Jose, son of R. Judah, says that even if they did not see her have Intercourse,<a id="k73b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; we still suspect he may have betrothed her. On which of these views can we justify the statement of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get?' On whose view is this justified? &mdash; On neither.<a id="k73b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WHAT IS HER STATUS DURING THOSE DAYS? R. JUDAH SAYS THAT SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN ALL RESPECTS; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED. A Tanna taught:<a id="k73b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Provided he dies.<a id="k73b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And when he dies will it be a Get?<a id="k73b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it not an established maxim that there is no Get after death? &mdash; Rabbah replied: We presume that what he said to her was, [This will be a Get] from the time that I am still in the world.<a id="k73b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: In the days between,<a id="k73b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; her husband is entitled to her finds and the product of her labour, he can annul her vows, he inherits her,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k74a_1:" Even if he is a priest."
,k74a_2:" If he had intercourse with her and died subsequently, since the Get takes effect just immediately before his death."
,k74a_3:" If the husband dies, she was divorced at the time, and there is no penalty for the intercourse; if the husband recovers, the man has to bring a sin-offering."
,k74a_4:" If the husband dies, R. Jose is doubtful whether retrospectively the Get had or had not taken effect when the intercourse took place, and consequently whether the man is or is not liable to a guilt-offering."
,k74a_5:" I.e. where he is in doubt as to whether the sin has been committed or not. V. Lev. V, 17ff."
,k74a_6:" If the husband dies."
,k74a_7:" Because the Get takes effect retrospectively whenever the money is paid."
,k74a_8:" The Get comes into force only from the moment of payment, but since at that time the Get is no longer in existence it has no effect."
,k74a_9:" Kid. 60a."
,k74a_10:" When his betrothal takes retrospective effect, so that that of the second is null and void."
,k74a_11:" And therefore he meant it to take effect at once."
,k74a_12:" Which he wishes to delay as long as possible."
,k74a_13:" And therefore he does not mean to make the operation of the Get conditional on the receipt of the money, but intends it to take effect at once."
,k74a_14:" Because she may after all not give, so that the Get will never take effect retrospectively."
,k74a_15:" Tosef. Git. V."
,k74a_16:" And makes the Get take effect retrospectively as soon as the condition is fulfilled. "
}

txt:
<p>
, and he defiles himself for her [corpse];<a id="k74a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in a word, she is his wife in all respects, save that she does not require from him a second Get.<a id="k74a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the view of R. Judah. R. Meir says that if she has intercourse [with another man], judgment on it must be suspended.<a id="k74a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose says that its character is doubtful,<a id="k74a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; while the Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced, provided only that he dies. How would the difference between R. Meir and R. Jose work out in practice? &mdash; R. Johanan says: In respect of a guilt-offering brought out of doubt;<a id="k74a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; according to R. Meir the man does not bring a guilt-offering out of doubt,<a id="k74a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; according to R. Jose he does. 'The Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced': the Sages say the same thing as R. Jose, do they not? &mdash; A practical difference arises in the application of the rule laid down by R. Zera; for R. Zera said in the name of Rabba b. Jeremiah who had it from Samuel: Wherever the Sages have said that a woman 'is divorced and not divorced', the husband is under obligation to maintain her.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF A MAN SAYS], THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I>, SHE IS DIVORCED THEREBY AND SHE HAS TO GIVE [HIM THE MONEY]. [IF HE SAYS], ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE [IT] ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW, IF SHE GIVES HIM WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SHE IS DIVORCED, BUT IF NOT SHE IS NOT DIVORCED. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON THAT A MAN SAID TO HIS WIFE, THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME [BACK] MY ROBE, AND HIS ROBE WAS LOST, AND THE SAGES SAID THAT SHE SHOULD GIVE HIM ITS VALUE IN MONEY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What precisely is meant by the words 'AND SHE HAS TO GIVE HIM'? &mdash; R. Huna says it means, 'and she shall [thereafter] give him'; Rab Judah says it means, 'when she gives him'. What difference does it make in practice which view we adopt? &mdash; It makes a difference if the Get is torn or lost [before the money is given]. According to R. Huna who said it means that she is [thereafter] to give, she does not require from him a second Get,<a id="k74a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when she gives', she requires from him a second Get.<a id="k74a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; In connection with betrothals also we have an analogous statement, as we have learnt: 'If a man says to a woman, Behold thou art betrothed to me on condition that I give thee two hundred <i>zuz</i>, she is betrothed to him and he is to give her the money,<a id="k74a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'and in the discussion thereon it was said, What is meant by 'he is to give', and R. Huna said, It means, he shall [thereafter] give, while Rab Judah said, It means, When he gives. What practical difference does it make which view we adopt? &mdash; A difference arises if she puts forth her hand and receives betrothal money from another. According to R. Huna who said that it means, 'he shall [thereafter] give', the giving is a mere condition, and he has only to fulfil his condition,<a id="k74a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when he gives', the betrothal takes effect only when he gives, but at the time it is no betrothal. And both cases required to be stated. For if the rule had been stated only in regard to betrothal, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said that it means 'and he is to give', because his intention is to bring her nearer [to himself],<a id="k74a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of divorce where his intention is to put her away [from himself]<a id="k74a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; I might have thought that he accepts the view of Rab Judah. If again it had been stated in regard only to divorce, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said it means 'he shall [thereafter] give' because he would not be shy to ask her,<a id="k74a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of betrothal where she might be diffident to ask him, I might have thought that he would accept the view of Rab Judah. Again, if the rule had been stated in connection only with betrothal, I might have thought that Rab Judah said that in that case It means 'when she gives' because she is diffident to ask him, but in the case of divorce where he would not be shy to ask her I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. And if the rule had been stated only in connection with divorce, I might have thought that in that case Rab Judah says it means 'when she gives', because his intention is to put her away [from him], but in the case of betrothal where his intention is to bring her nearer [to him] I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. Therefore [both statements] were necessary.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, even though the Get is torn or lost she is divorced, though she cannot marry any other man until she gives him the money.<a id="k74a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Further it has been taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i> and he dies, if she has already given [before he dies] she is not in any way tied to the brother-in-law, but if she has not yet given she is tied to the brother-in-law. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel Says, She can give the money to his father or his brother or to one of the relatives.<a id="k74a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now the two authorities here differ only to this extent, that one holds that '[give] me' means 'to me but not to my heirs', and the other holds that it means 'to me or even to my heirs', but both hold that it is a mere condition. This would seem to be a refutation of Rab Judah! &mdash; Rab Judah, however, may answer: Who is the authority for this view? It is Rabbi, since R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi, The formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now';<a id="k74a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Rabbis join issue with him, and I follow the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	R. Zera said: When we were in Babylon, we used to state that [the ruling] which R. Huna said in the name of Rabbi, that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now', is disputed by the Rabbis. When I went up [to Eretz Yisrael], I found R. Assi sitting and saying in the name of R. Johanan, All agree that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now'; a difference of opinion arose only with regard to the formula 'from to-day and after [my] death',
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k74b_1:" V. <i>supra</i> 72b. And since they differ on 'from today etc.' we presume that they agree on 'on condition'. V. Tosaf. s.v."
,k74b_2:" In permitting her to marry again."
,k74b_3:" In forbidding her to marry."
,k74b_4:" To fulfil the condition the sooner."
,k74b_5:" Lit., 'what did he teach that he states an incident'. Seeing that there has been no mention of money so far."
,k74b_6:" Lit., 'they are forgiven thee'."
,k74b_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k74b_8:" V. Ned. 24a. Which shows that to waive the claim is equivalent to receiving the money."
,k74b_9:" And decided in favour of the owner, assigning the metayer only a fourth."
,k74b_10:" And decided in favour of the metayer, since after all the field had been properly watered."
,k74b_11:" That the condition must be fulfilled to the letter."
,k74b_12:" V. B.B. 114b."
,k74b_13:" V. <i>infra</i> p. 75a."
,k74b_14:" The rain being to irrigation as money to the robe."
,k74b_15:" As a man who divorces his wife may be presumed to dislike her, we suppose that the reason why he made it a condition that she should give him money was in order to annoy her and not because he wanted to make some Profit."
,k74b_16:" V. Lev. XXV, 29, 30."
,k74b_17:" V. 'Ar. 31b. "
}

txt:
<p>
, as it has been taught: '[If he says] From to-day and after [my] death, it is a Get and no Get. This is the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi says, One like this is a Get'.<a id="k74b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if Rab Judah is right in saying that they differ [as to the effect of] 'on condition', instead of joining issue [in the Baraitha] on the question of 'from now and after my death', let them join issue on 'on condition'? &mdash; This is to show you how far Rabbi is prepared to go.<a id="k74b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But let them differ about 'on condition' to show how far the Rabbis are prepared to go?<a id="k74b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Tanna [of the Baraitha] preferred to make the stronger instance one of permission.
</p><p>
	ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW. Surely this is obvious? &mdash; You might think that he is really not particular and that he only wants to urge her on.<a id="k74b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; We are told therefore that this is not so.
</p><p>
	RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON etc. Of what statement is this given as an illustration?<a id="k74b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a lacuna, and we should read thus: If he said to her, On condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, we rule that he meant his particular robe and nothing else. Rabban Gamaliel says that she can give him the money value; and [in confirmation] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel further said that a case happened in Sidon where a man said to his wife, This is your Get on condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, and the Sages said that she should give him the money value of it.
</p><p>
	R. Assi inquired of R. Johanan: [If a man said,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and he then changed his mind and said, You can keep the money,<a id="k74b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the law? This is equally a problem whether we adopt the view of the Rabbis or whether we adopt that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. From the standpoint of the Rabbis it is a problem, because [we may hold that] the Rabbis only ruled as they did in the other case [of the robe] because he did not forgo his claim, but here we see that he tells her that she can keep the money. Or we may also hold that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled as he did only because she made it good for him with a money payment, but where she pays him nothing at all he would not say [that she is divorced]? &mdash; He replied: She is not divorced. He [R. Assi] therefore raised [the following] objection: If a man says to another Konam<a id="k74b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; be whatever benefit you have of me unless you give my son a <i>kor</i> of wheat and two barrels of wine, R. Meir says he is forbidden [to have any benefit of him] until he gives, but the Sages say that such a man also may release himself from his own Vow without consulting a wise man by saying to himself, I regard myself as having received them [on his behalf]?<a id="k74b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Are these two cases parallel? In that case his intention is to give her trouble and he has not done so, but in this case he was trying to obtain some positive advantage and found he could do without it.
</p><p>
	A certain man said to his metayer, The general rule is that [a metayer] irrigates [the land] three times [a year] and takes a fourth of the produce [as his share]. [I want] you to irrigate four times and take a third. Before [he had finished irrigating] the rain came. R. Joseph said, He has not actually irrigated [the fourth time].<a id="k74b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said, There was no need [for a fourth irrigation].<a id="k74b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; May we say that R. Joseph adopted the point of view of the Rabbis<a id="k74b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabbah that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? &mdash; Can you really maintain this, seeing that it is a fixed rule with us that the law follows Rabbah,<a id="k74b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and in this matter the <i>halachah</i> does not follow Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel?<a id="k74b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. There can be no question that the law is as determined by the Rabbis.<a id="k74b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph follows the Rabbis without question, while Rabbah can say to you, My view can be justified even from the standpoint of the Rabbis. For the reason why the Rabbis ruled as they did in that case was only because his intention was to give her trouble,<a id="k74b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but here he was after some advantage and he found that he could do without it.
</p><p>
	We have learnt in another place: At first a man [who had bought a house from another in a walled city] used to hide himself on the last day of the twelve-month period, so that [the house] should become his for ever.<a id="k74b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Hillel the Elder, therefore, ordained that he [the owner] should throw his money into a certain chamber and that [having done so] he should be at liberty to break the door open and enter, and the other whenever he liked should come and take his money.<a id="k74b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba remarked upon this: From this regulation of Hillel we may learn that if a man said, This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and she gave it to him, if he accepted the money willingly she is divorced, but if she had to force it on him she is not divorced. For since Hillel found it necessary to ordain in this instance that a gift forced on the donee should be accounted a gift,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k75a_1:" He found that the owners hid themselves and consequently made the necessary regulation. And if it had been a common thing to refuse the payment when offered, he would have ordained that the gift should be effective in this case also, and therefore the money for the Get cannot be forced on him against his will."
,k75a_2:" 'Surety'. V. B.B. 173a, on the law of recovering from a surety if the borrower has assets."
,k75a_3:" Our own Mishnah."
,k75a_4:" I.e., evidence brought after the time allowed by the <i>Beth din</i>. Sanh. 31a."
,k75a_5:" Because he does not carry out the injunction, 'he shall give into her hand', Deut. XXIV, I."
,k75a_6:" V. <i>supra</i> 20b."
,k75a_7:" [It is assumed that in the latter case the Get comes into force only after the return of the paper when the condition has been fulfilled. Hence the question.]"
,k75a_8:" And as the condition can be fulfilled the Get is valid."
,k75a_9:" As in the case of the lost robe."
,k75a_10:" I.e., expressed both affirmatively and negatively. Kid. 61a"
,k75a_11:" And therefore it is a Get unconditionally."
,k75a_12:" Num. XXXII, 20ff, 'If ye shall do this thing&nbsp;&hellip; then this land shall be unto you a possession; and if ye shall not do so&nbsp;&hellip; behold ye have sinned, etc."
,k75a_13:" ['If ye shall do this thing&nbsp;&hellip; (condition), then his land shall be unto you a possession' (act).]"
,k75a_14:" [He said first 'this is your Get and then added the condition that 'the paper belongs to me'.]"
,k75a_15:" The condition to crossing the Jordan, and the act to their taking possession of the land of Sihon and Og. "
}

txt:
<p>
, we conclude that in general a gift forced on the donee is not accounted a gift. R. Papa (or as some say R. Shimi b. Ashi) strongly demurred to this, [saying:] But perhaps Hillel thought there was need for a special regulation only where the money was given not in the donee's presence, but where it was made to him personally, the gift would be effective whether he was willing to receive it or not? According to another version, Raba said: From the regulation of Hillel we may infer that if he said, This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i> and she gave them to him, whether he accepted them willingly or she forced them on him, the transfer is effective. For Hillel felt the need for a special regulation only where the money was given not in his presence, but if given to him personally the gift, whether accepted or forced on one, is effective. To this R. Papa (or some say R. Shimi b. Ashi) strongly demurred, [saying], Perhaps even if made to him personally the gift if made with his consent is effective but if against his will not, and Hillel made only the adjustment which was required?<a id="k75a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel gives a ruling in our Mishnah, the <i>halachah</i> follows him, save in the matters of the 'Areb',<a id="k75a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of 'Sidon'<a id="k75a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and of the 'later proof'.<a id="k75a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a man says, This is your Get on condition that the paper belongs to me, she is not divorced;<a id="k75a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; if he says, On condition that you return me the paper, she is divorced.<a id="k75a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Why this difference between the two cases?<a id="k75a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hisda replied: The authority followed here is Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said [in an analogous case that] she should give the money value; so here too, it is possible for her to make it right for him with a money payment.<a id="k75a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye strongly demurred to this, saying: I grant you that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel meant this ruling to apply where the object for which compensation is given cannot be produced,<a id="k75a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but would he have said the same where it can be produced? No, said Abaye: the authority followed here is R. Meir, who said that a condition to be binding must be duplicated,<a id="k75a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and here he has not duplicated his condition.<a id="k75a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba strongly objected to this, saying, The reason [according to you] is that he did not duplicate the condition, so that if he had duplicated the condition it would not have been a Get. Let us see now. Whence do we derive [the rule governing] conditions? From [the condition] of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben.<a id="k75a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore just as there the condition was mentioned before the act conditional on it,<a id="k75a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; so in all cases the condition should be mentioned before the act, and that excludes the present case where the act is mentioned before the condition.<a id="k75a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said Raba: the reason is that the act is mentioned before the condition. R. Ada b. Ahabah strongly objected to this, saying, The reason [according to you] is that the act was mentioned before the condition, so that if the condition were mentioned before the act it would not be a divorce. Let us see now. Whence do we derive the rule of conditions? From that of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben. Therefore just as there the condition relates to one thing and the act to another,<a id="k75a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; so it should be in all cases, to exclude such a one as this
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k75b_1:" The Get itself which has to be returned and so become a Get."
,k75b_2:" [Contrary to what has been assumed hitherto (p. 357, n. 7) the Get therefore, is valid retrospectively, when she returns the paper, the gift of which is regarded as a temporary one.]"
,k75b_3:" In order to release the wife from all ties to her brothers-in-law."
,k75b_4:" So as to commence with the affirmative condition."
,k75b_5:" Why did Samuel insist on the exact words of the formula?"
,k75b_6:" I.e., until it is two years old, (v. Keth. 60b). The words in brackets are best taken as a parenthesis."
,k75b_7:" According to Rashi, this means, before the time has expired; according to Tosaf., even before she has commenced her duties."
,k75b_8:" V. Tosef. Cit. V."
,k75b_9:" Who said above that if the robe is lost she can give the money value, which shows that in his opinion, the husband's object in making a condition is to obtain some substantial advantage, and therefore she may have to suckle the child for as much as two years."
,k75b_10:" Who said that she must give the robe itself, which shows that the condition is to be taken au pied de la lettre, and therefore one day is sufficient."
,k75b_11:" Lit., 'who is lenient in regard to'."
,k75b_12:" He said one day."
,k75b_13:" [R. Ashi has no intention for the present to reconcile the Mishnah and Baraitha; he merely disagrees with Raba's opinion.] "
}

txt:
<p>
where both the condition and the act relate to the same thing?<a id="k75b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said R. Ada b. Ahabah: the reason [why she is divorced] is because the condition and the act relate to the same thing. R. Ashi, however, said: The authority followed here is Rabbi; for R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi: The formula on condition' is equivalent to 'from now'.<a id="k75b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Samuel laid down that a Get given by a man on a sick bed<a id="k75b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; should run, 'If I do not die, this will not be a Get, and if I die it will be a Get'. Why not rather say, If I die it will be a Get and if I do not die it will not be a Get?<a id="k75b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A man does not like to commence with a mention of evil for himself. But why should he not say, This will not be a Get if I do not die?<a id="k75b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The condition must be mentioned before the act. Raba strongly questioned [Samuel's dictum]: Let us see, he said; whence do we derive the rule for conditions? From the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben. Therefore just as there the affirmative comes before the negative, so it should be in all cases, which would exclude this one where the negative comes before the affirmative? No, said Raba; the Get should run as follows: 'If I do not die it will not be a Get: if I die it will be a Get, if I do not die it will not be a Get.' [We write] 'If I do not die it will not be a Get', so as to avoid his commencing with a mention of evil for himself. [Then we say] 'If I die it will be a Get, if I do not die it will not be a Get', so that the affirmative may precede the negative.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF A MAN SAYS], HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU LOOK AFTER MY FATHER, ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE SUCK TO MY CHILD, (HOW LONG IS SHE TO GIVE IT SUCK? TWO YEARS.<a id="k75b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAYS, EIGHTEEN MONTHS), IF THE CHILD DIES OR THE FATHER DIES,<a id="k75b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; THE GET IS VALID. [IF HE SAYS], THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU LOOK AFTER MY FATHER FOR TWO YEARS, ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE SUCK TO MY CHILD FOR TWO YEARS, THEN IF THE CHILD DIES OR IF THE FATHER SAYS, I DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK AFTER ME, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS GIVEN NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT, THE GET IS NOT VALID. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT A GET LIKE THIS IS VALID. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL LAID IT DOWN AS A GENERAL RULE THAT WHEREVER THE OBSTACLE DOES NOT ARISE FROM HER SIDE, THE GET IS VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Do we require so long a period [as two years]? The following seems to contradict this: If she waited on him one day, or gave the child suck one day, the Get is valid?<a id="k75b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hisda replied: There is no contradiction; one statement gives the view of the Rabbis, the other that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Our Mishnah gives the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,<a id="k75b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Baraitha that of the Rabbis.<a id="k75b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the later clause in our Mishnah states the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, it follows [does it not] that the earlier clause states a view which is not that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? &mdash; We must say therefore that the Baraitha gives the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who insists only on a minimum fulfilment of<a id="k75b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; conditions, while the Mishnah gives the view of the Rabbis. Raba said: There is no contradiction; in the one case [the Mishnah] we suppose he mentions no time limit, in the other case he mentions a definite time limit.<a id="k75b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Upon which R. Ashi remarked: Wherever no time limit is mentioned, it is the same as mentioning a limit of one day.<a id="k75b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learnt: HOW LONG IS SHE TO GIVE IT SUCK? TWO YEARS, RABBI JUDAH SAYS, EIGHTEEN MONTHS. If we accept the view of Raba, this creates no difficulty, but if we accept that of R. Ashi, why should we require two years or eighteen months? One day should be enough? &mdash; What it means is this: One day in the next two years, to exclude the period after two years; one day in the next eighteen months, to exclude the period after eighteen months. An objection was raised [against this from the following]: [IF HE SAYS] THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU LOOK AFTER MY FATHER FOR TWO YEARS, ON CONDITION THAT YOU SUCKLE MY CHILD FOR TWO YEARS, THEN IF THE CHILD DIES, OR THE FATHER SAYS, I DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK AFTER ME, EVEN THOUGH SHE GAVE NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT, THE GET IS NOT VALID.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k76a_1:" 'If the child dies&nbsp;&hellip; the Get is valid'."
,k76a_2:" [For the fact of his mentioning a time limit shows that he is particular about the child being suckled for two years. So Rashi; but v. Tosaf.]"
,k76a_3:" I.e., in the first case also, if the child dies before she has suckled it one day, why should not the Get be void?"
,k76a_4:" I.e., he did not state the condition both affirmatively and negatively, after the model of the condition of the sons of Gad and Reuben."
,k76a_5:" E.g., Gen. XXIV, 3ff.; Num. XIX, V, 19ff.; Is., I, 19, 20."
,k76a_6:" V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 458, n. 9."
,k76a_7:" I.e., showing it to her without giving it to her."
,k76a_8:" Because the condition is of an entirely different nature."
,k76a_9:" To testify that there was a certain condition attached to the Get though not inserted in writing."
,k76a_10:" And even if the two witnesses to that condition came together, their evidence would be of no effect."
,k76a_11:" Because they cannot both testify to the same thing."
,k76a_12:" Antipatris, on the borders of Judea and Galilee."
,k76a_13:" This is explained <i>infra</i>, in the Gemara."
,k76a_14:" On the borders of Galilee and Judea, v. <i>supra</i> p. 34, n. 4."
,k76a_15:" The Gemara understands the Mishnah thus: If he actually went to Galilee but did not stay there thirty days, the Get is void, as his condition has not been fulfilled. If, however, he returns before reaching Galilee, he has not broken his condition, and is still able to fulfil it by going to Galilee and remaining there thirty days. Hence, since by going to Antipras and returning at once he makes the Get void, Antipras must be in Galilee, and similarly Kefar 'Uthnai must be in Judea."
,k76a_16:" That is to say, we reckon the condition as both broken and not broken, to the wife's disadvantage. "
}

txt:
<p>
This creates no difficulty for Raba, who may say that the previous clause<a id="k76a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; speaks of the case where he does not mention any time limit and this where he does.<a id="k76a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But on R. Ashi's view, why should the ruling be different in the first case from that in the second?<a id="k76a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is indeed a difficulty.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you look after my father for two years, or on condition that you suckle my child for two years, even though the condition is not fulfilled, the Get is valid because he did not say to her, [first] 'if you look after' [and then] 'if you do not look after', 'if you suckle' and 'if you do not suckle'.<a id="k76a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that if the condition is fulfilled it is a Get and if not it is no Get. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated.<a id="k76a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; According to one explanation, he addressed this remark to R. Meir, and according to another he addressed it to the Sages. According to one view he addressed his remark to R. Meir, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated. Hence in this connection we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, and wherever we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, we do not base a rule upon them.<a id="k76a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; According to another explanation he addressed his remark to the Rabbis, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scripture which is not duplicated and we base our rules upon them.
</p><p>
	A contradiction was raised [from the following]: [If a man said], This is your Get on condition that you look after my father for two years, on condition that you suckle my child for two years, then if the father or the child dies the Get is not valid. This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that although the condition has not been fulfilled the Get is valid, since she can say to him, Produce your father and I will wait on him, produce your child and I will suckle it. Now, R. Meir would seem to be in contradiction with himself, and the Rabbis would also seem to be in contradiction with themselves? &mdash; Between the two statements of R. Meir there is no contradiction: the former [speaks of] where [the man] did not double his condition, the latter of where he did double it. Between the two statements of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction; for by the 'Sages' here mentioned we understand Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said that wherever the obstacle does not arise from her side the Get is valid.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a man said to his wife in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get<a id="k76a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; on condition that you look after my father for two years, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, the second statement does not nullify the first,<a id="k76a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and she has the option of either waiting on the father or giving the husband the two hundred <i>zuz</i>. If, however, he said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me three hundred <i>zuz</i>, the second statement nullifies the first, nor can one of the first two witnesses and one of the second combine to form a pair.<a id="k76a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; To which ruling [does this last statement belong]? It cannot be the second one, because [the first condition there] is nullified?<a id="k76a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather it is the first one. But in this case it is self-evident?<a id="k76a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You might think that all [the witnesses who can help] to establish that there was a condition can be joined together. We are therefore told [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF A MAN SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM JUDEA TO GALILEE, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS<a id="k76a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEN TURNED BACK, HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN.<a id="k76a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE SAYS,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM GALILEE TO JUDEA, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS KEFAR 'UTHNAI<a id="k76a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEN TURNED BACK, THE CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING INTO FOREIGN PARTS, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ACCO [ACRE] AND TURNED BACK HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET SO SOON AS I SHALL HAVE KEPT AWAY FROM YOUR PRESENCE THIRTY DAYS, EVEN THOUGH HE CAME AND WENT CONSTANTLY, SO LONG AS HE WAS NOT CLOSETED WITH HER, THE GET IS VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS,] This would seem to imply that Antipras is in Galilee,<a id="k76a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; which [apparently] contradicts the following: 'Antipras is in Judea and Kefar 'Uthnai in Galilee. The space between the two is subject to the disabilities of both<a id="k76a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; so that [if he gets there and returns] she is divorced
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k76b_1:" The condition not having been broken, the Get is valid to the extent that she may not eat <i>terumah</i>. The condition having been broken, the Get is invalid and she cannot marry again on the strength of it."
,k76b_2:" V. <i>supra</i> 7b."
,k76b_3:" I.e., those who came from abroad to study were escorted by those of Palestine as far as Acre."
,k76b_4:" Since it says, IF HE CAME AND WENT etc."
,k76b_5:" A Get is called 'old' if after it was written the husband and wife were closeted together. Such a Get is invalid. V. <i>infra</i> 79b."
,k76b_6:" And so after divorcing her he may bring a charge that he was closeted with her in this period."
,k76b_7:" At the time of making the condition."
,k76b_8:" <i>Infra</i>."
,k76b_9:" For since we see him coming and going, the undertaking is all the more necessary."
,k76b_10:" And therefore perhaps the undertaking is not necessary."
,k76b_11:" And the levirate law still applies to her if the husband dies without issue."
,k76b_12:" The reason is given in the Gemara."
,k76b_13:" v. <i>supra</i>."
,k76b_14:" Even though he did not say 'from now', since it is understood that he meant this."
,k76b_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 72b."
,k76b_16:" V. <i>supra</i> 72a."
,k76b_17:" As soon as the death of the husband was announced."
,k76b_18:" I.e., had she to wait twelve months to he free from the levirate obligation."
,k76b_19:" [When the vote was taken to grant her permission to remarry; v. A.Z. 37a.] "
}

txt:
<p>
and not divorced?<a id="k76b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: [We suppose that] he makes two conditions with her, thus: If I reach Galilee, this will be a Get at once, and also if I remain on the road thirty days and do not return it will be a Get. If then he reached Antipras and came back, so that he did not get to Galilee nor did he remain on the road thirty days, his condition has been broken.
</p><p>
	HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [AND HE GOT AS FAR AS ACCO]. This would imply that Acco is in foreign parts.<a id="k76b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But how can this be, seeing that R. Safra has said: When the Rabbis took leave of one another,<a id="k76b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; they did so in Acco, because it is forbidden for those who live in Eretz Yisrael to go out of it? &mdash; Abaye replied: He made two conditions with her, thus: If I reach foreign parts, this will be a Get at once, and if I remain on the road and do not return within thirty days it will be a Get. If he got as far as Acco and returned, so that he neither reached foreign parts nor remained on the road thirty days, his condition is broken.
</p><p>
	HERE IS YOUR GET SO SOON AS I SHALL KEEP AWAY etc. But he does not keep away?<a id="k76b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna replied: What is meant by 'PRESENCE here? Marital intercourse. And why is it called PRESENCE'? A polite expression is used. R. Johanan, however, said: The word 'PRESENCE is to be taken literally. For it does not say that [if he comes and goes] she is divorced, but 'THE GET IS VALID', that is to Say, it does not become an 'old' Get<a id="k76b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and when thirty days have passed [without his seeing her] it is a valid Get. It has been taught in accordance with R. Johanan: '[If he says,] Here is your Get so soon as I shall keep away from your presence thirty days, even though he was constantly coming and going, so long as he was not closeted with her the Get is valid, and we have no fear of its being an 'old' Get, since he was not closeted with her.' But is there not the possibility that he made it up with her?<a id="k76b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: Thus said my father, my teacher, in the name of Rab: This rule applies where he gives an undertaking<a id="k76b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that he will accept her word if she says he did not come [to her]. Some attach this statement to the Mishnah,<a id="k76b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; thus: [If a man says, this is your Get] from now if I do not return within twelve months, and he died within the twelve months, the Get is valid. But is there not the possibility that he made it up with her? Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: Thus said my father, my teacher in the name of Rab: The rule applies where he gives an undertaking that he will accept her word if she says that he did not come to her. Those who attach this statement to the Mishnah would without question attach it to the Baraitha<a id="k76b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; also. But those who attach it to the Baraitha might hesitate to attach it to the Mishnah, because [as far as we know] he has not come to see her.<a id="k76b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF A MAN SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIES WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IT IS NO GET.<a id="k76b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET FROM NOW IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIES WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IT IS A GET. [IF HE SAYS,] IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, AND THEY WROTE A GET BEFORE TWELVE MONTHS HAD PASSED AND GAVE IT AFTER, IT IS NO GET. [IF HE SAID,] WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND THEY WROTE IT BEFORE THE TWELVE MONTHS HAD PASSED AND GAVE IT AFTER, IT IS NO GET. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT A GET LIKE THAT IS VALID.<a id="k76b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY WROTE IT AFTER TWELVE MONTHS AND DELIVERED IT AFTER TWELVE MONTHS AND HE DIED, IF THE DELIVERY OF THE GET PRECEDED HIS DEATH THE GET IS VALID, BUT IF HIS DEATH PRECEDED THE DELIVERY OF THE GET IT IS NOT VALID. IF IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH WAS FIRST, THE WOMAN IS IN THE CONDITION KNOWN AS 'DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED'.<a id="k76b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A Tanna taught: 'Our Rabbis allowed her to marry'.<a id="k76b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Who are meant by 'our Rabbis'? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The <i>Beth din</i> which permitted the oil [of heathens].<a id="k76b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; They concurred with R. Jose, who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.<a id="k76b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Judah the Prince, the son of Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi, gave this ruling, but none of his colleagues [saya'to] agreed with him, or, as others report, [his ruling did not find acceptance] during the whole of his life [sha'ato].
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar asked a certain elder [who had been present there]: When you permitted her to marry, did you permit her to do so at once,<a id="k76b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or after twelve months?<a id="k76b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Did you permit it at once, since there is no chance of his coming again, or did you permit it only after twelve months, when his condition would be fulfilled? &mdash; But should not this question be attached to the Mishnah: [IF HE SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET] FROM NOW IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, THIS IS A GET: would it be a Get at once, seeing that he will not come again, or only after twelve months when his condition will have been fulfilled? &mdash; Indeed it might have been, but it was put in this way because he [the old man] asked had been present on that occasion.<a id="k76b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: All are agreed that if he Says, 'When the sun issues from its sheath'
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k78a_1:" Lit., 'an attached name', but is merely referred to as 'the block'."
,k78a_2:" Concerning which there is a difference of opinion whether the purchaser acquires the article of purchase put therein; v. B.B. (Sonc ed.) 85b p. 348 q.v. for notes."
,k78a_3:" I.e., we decide the question in B.B. From here."
,k78a_4:" And so it forms a domain of its own and is not merely a vessel."
,k78a_5:" The place occupied by the legs which belongs to the husband."
,k78a_6:" In which case he would not be particular about the place occupied by it, even if it rested on the ground."
,k78a_7:" In which case also he would not be particular about the place occupied by it."
,k78a_8:" In the case where she found the Get behind him."
,k78a_9:" V. <i>supra</i> 24a."
,k78a_10:" From where it was stuck between his girdle and his robe."
,k78a_11:" Deut. XXIV, 3."
,k78a_12:" As this is also a kind of giving."
,k78a_13:" Not merely 'found it' as our reading in the Mishnah has it."
,k78a_14:" Because she was not at the time capable of being divorced."
,k78a_15:" Because the slave is reckoned as her courtyard and it is being kept for her."
,k78a_16:" Because the slave when awake is regarded as looking after himself."
,k78a_17:" <i>Var. lec</i>., 'We must say that Raba means.'"
,k78a_18:" V. <i>supra</i> 212."
,k78a_19:" Lit., 'half by half'."
,k78a_20:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 350."
,k78a_21:" On the principle that a man's four cubits in a public ground acquire possession, v. B.M. 102."
,k78a_22:" And so established a prior right to the four cubits."
,k78a_23:" Lit., 'to be exact'. "
}

txt:
<p>
individual name,<a id="k78a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it has a special name [it is not included] even though it is not ten handbreadths high and is not four cubits by four.
</p><p>
	EVEN THOUGH HE IS WITH HER ON THE SAME BED. Raba said: This applies only if the bed is his, but if it is her bed, she is divorced. It has been taught to the same effect: R. Eliezer says: If it is on his bed she is not divorced, but if it is on her bed she is divorced. And if it is on her bed is she divorced? Is it not a case of the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the vendor?<a id="k78a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows [does it not] that if [the article purchased is placed in] the vessels of the purchaser standing in the domain of the vendor, the purchaser acquires possession?<a id="k78a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This, however, is not conclusive, as we may suppose the bed to be ten handbreadths high.<a id="k78a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But there is the place of the legs?<a id="k78a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Men are not particular about the place of the legs.
</p><p>
	IF HE THROWS IT INTO HER LAP OR INTO HER WORK-BASKET SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED. Why so? This is a case of the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the vendor? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: We suppose, for instance, that her work-basket was hanging from her. So too R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: We suppose, for instance, that her work-basket was hanging from her. R. Simeon b. Lakish said that [it would be sufficient] if it was tied to her even without hanging from her. R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If, [or instance, her work-basket was between her legs.<a id="k78a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Mesharsheya son of R. Dimi said: If her husband was a seller of handbags.<a id="k78a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: The place occupied by the folds of her dress is acquired by her and the place occupied by her work-basket is acquired by her. Raba said: What is R. Johanan's reason? Because a man is not particular about the place occupied by the folds of her dress or the place occupied by her work-basket. If has also been taught to the same effect: 'If he threw her [the Get] into her lap or into her work-basket or into anything like her work basket, she is thereby divorced.' What is added by 'anything like her work-basket'? &mdash; It adds the dish from which she eats dates.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF HE SAID TO HER, TAKE THAT BOND, OR IF SHE FOUND IT BEHIND HIM AND READ IT AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE HER GET, IT IS NO GET, UNTIL HE SAYS TO HER, THERE IS YOUR GET. IF HE PUT IT INTO HER HAND WHILE SHE WAS ASLEEP AND WHEN SHE WOKE UP SHE READ IT AND FOUND IT WAS HER GET, IT IS NO GET UNTIL HE SAYS TO HER, THAT IS YOUR GET.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. And suppose he says to her, That is your Get, what does it matter?<a id="k78a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; It is the same as if he said, Pick up your Get from the floor, and Raba has laid down that [if a man says,] Pick up your Get from the floor, his words are of no effect?<a id="k78a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We must suppose that she pulls it out from behind him.<a id="k78a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And suppose even that she pulls it out, do we not require that 'he give it into her hand,'<a id="k78a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and this condition is not fulfilled? &mdash; The rule would apply where he jerked his side towards her and she pulled it out.<a id="k78a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught to the same effect: 'If he said to her, Take this bond [and she did so], or if she pulled it out from behind him<a id="k78a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and on reading it found it was her Get, it is no Get until he says to her, That is your Get. This is the ruling of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Eleazar Says: It does not become a Get until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, saying, That is your Get. If he puts it into her hand while she is asleep and when she wakes she reads it and finds it is her Get, it is no Get until he says to her, That is your Get. So Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Eleazar Says, [It is no Get] until he takes it from her and gives it to her again saying, That is your Get.' [Both cases] required [to be stated]. For if only the former had been stated, I might say that Rabbi ruled [as he did there] because she was at the time capable of being divorced, but where he put it into her hand while she was asleep, seeing that she was not at the time capable of being divorced, I might think that he accepts the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. If again only the latter case had been stated, I might have thought that R. Simeon b. Eleazar meant his ruling to apply to that case only,<a id="k78a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the other he accepts the view of Rabbi. Hence [both statements were] necessary.
</p><p>
	Raba said: If he wrote a Get for her and put it in the hand of her slave while he was asleep and she was watching him, it is a Get,<a id="k78a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he is awake it is no Get,<a id="k78a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But why should this be, seeing that he is a 'moving courtyard', and a 'moving courtyard' does not confer ownership? And should you reply that the fact of his being asleep makes a difference, has not Raba said, That which does not confer ownership when moving about does not confer ownership when standing still or sitting? &mdash; [The law is as stated by Raba]<a id="k78a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; when the slave is bound.<a id="k78a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF SHE WAS STANDING ON PUBLIC GROUND AND HE THREW IT TO HER, IF IT LANDS NEARER TO HER SHE IS DIVORCED, BUT IF IT LANDS NEARER TO HIM SHE IS NOT DIVORCED. IF IT LANDS MIDWAY,<a id="k78a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IS DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED.<a id="k78a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; SIMILARLY WITH BETROTHALS AND SIMILARLY WITH A DEBT. IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS DEBTOR, THROW ME MY DEBT [IN PUBLIC GROUND] AND HE THROWS IT, IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE LENDER, IT BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE LENDER; IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE BORROWER, HE STILL OWES THE MONEY; IF IT LANDS MIDWAY, THEY DIVIDE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. How are we to understand NEARER TO HIM and how are we to understand NEARER TO HER? &mdash; Rab said: Within four cubits of her is nearer to her, within four cubits of him is nearer to him.<a id="k78a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; How are we to understand 'MIDWAY'? &mdash; R. Samuel son of R. Isaac replied: If, for instance, they were both within four cubits of the Get. In that case let us see which was there first?<a id="k78a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you retort that perhaps both came together &mdash; it is impossible that they should come exactly at the same moment?<a id="k78a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Kahana therefore said: We suppose here that they are exactly eight cubits from each other,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k78b_1:" I.e., part of it is nearer to him and part nearer to her."
,k78b_2:" And it is requisite that the whole should be given to her."
,k78b_3:" E.g., to prevent a dog snatching it."
,k78b_4:" V. Tosaf., s.v."
,k78b_5:" R. Jonathan was a Babylonian, R. Johanan a Palestinian."
,k78b_6:" As much as to say, Surely from the moment it comes near her she is divorced."
,k78b_7:" Lit., 'sharp one', i.e., scholar with keen sharp mind. For other interpretations v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 60, n. 2."
,k78b_8:" Though it was near to her people might malign her by saying it was far away."
,k78b_9:" Where it landed nearer to her."
,k78b_10:" That it is sufficient for the document to land near the person to whom it is thrown."
,k78b_11:" Deut. XXIV, 2. Her 'being another man's wife' is put on the same footing as her 'going forth'."
,k78b_12:" Tied round the Get."
,k78b_13:" V. B.M. 7a."
,k78b_14:" Lit., 'like a gutter'. [G]."
,k78b_15:" And in such a case the air certainly does not confer possession. "
}

txt:
<p>
and the Get extends from the four cubit space nearer to him into the four cubit space nearer to her.<a id="k78b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But then it is still [partly] attached to him?<a id="k78b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Therefore Rabbah and R. Joseph [gave a different reply], both saying that we are dealing here with a case where there are two groups of witnesses, one of which says that it was nearer to her and the other that it was nearer to him. R. Johanan said: The words of our text are NEARER TO HER [which can include] even a hundred cubits away, and NEARER TO HIM, [which can include] even a hundred cubits away.
</p><p>
	How are we to understand MIDWAY? &mdash; R. Shaman b. Abba said: It was explained to me by R. Johanan that where he is able to look after it<a id="k78b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but she is not able to look after it, this is NEARER TO HIM. Where she is able to look after it, but he is not, this is NEARER TO HER. If both of them are able to look after it, or neither of them is able [separately]<a id="k78b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to look after it, this is MIDWAY. The Rabbis repeated this explanation before R. Johanan as having been given by R. Jonathan.<a id="k78b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; He thereupon remarked: Do our colleagues in Babylon also know how to give this explanation? It has been taught to the same effect: 'R. Eliezer says: Even though it is nearer to her than to him and a dog came and ran off with it, she is not divorced.' She is not divorced, you say? How long is she to go on keeping it?<a id="k78b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; No; what he means to say is this: If it is nearer to her than to him, yet so placed that if a dog came and tried to make off with it he could save it but she could not, she is not divorced. Samuel said to Rab Judah: Shinena,<a id="k78b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be so near that she can stoop down and pick it up, but do you not actually [declare it valid] until it comes into her hand.<a id="k78b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi: There was an actual case of this kind,<a id="k78b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and she was compelled to give <i>halizah</i>.
</p><p>
	SO TOO IN REGARD TO BETROTHALS. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: This rule<a id="k78b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; was made with reference to bills of divorce and not to anything else. R. Abba thereupon pointed out to R. Assi the statement, SO TOO IN REGARD TO BETROTHALS. [He replied]: There is a special reason for that, because it is written, she may go forth and be [another man's wife].<a id="k78b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; He raised an objection: SIMILARLY WITH A DEBT. IF THE LENDER SAYS [TO THE BORROWER], THROW ME MY DEBT, AND HE THROWS IT, IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE LENDER IT BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE LENDER; IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE BORROWER, HE STILL OWES THE MONEY; IF IT LANDS MIDWAY, THEY DIVIDE? &mdash; The case we are dealing with here is when he says, Throw me what you owe me and be quit. If that is all [he rejoined], what need was there to state it? &mdash; It is necessary [to state it] when he says, Throw me my debt in the same way as a Get. Still, what need is there to state even this? &mdash; You might think that he can say to him, I was only making fun of you; therefore we are told [that this is no plea].
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: If the Get is in her hand and the string<a id="k78b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in his hand, and he is able to pull it with a jerk to himself, she is not divorced, but if not, she is divorced. What is the reason? We require a 'cutting off', and this is not realised.<a id="k78b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said: If she held her hand sloping<a id="k78b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and he threw it to her, even if the Get reached her hand she is not divorced. Why so? When it falls to the ground it falls within four cubits of her? &mdash; We assume that it does not come to rest there. But should she not be divorced by dint of its having come into the air of the four cubits? [And since this is not so] may we decide from this the question raised by R. Eleazar, whether the four cubits spoken of include the air above them or not? May we decide that they do not include the air? &mdash; [No;] we suppose here that she is standing on the brink of a river, so that from the outset it is liable to be lost [if it falls from her hand].<a id="k78b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k79a_1:" E.g., by rain."
,k79a_2:" By a fire in the courtyard."
,k79a_3:" Because it may be blown away by the wind before landing."
,k79a_4:" Because it may be blown by the wind outside of the court."
,k79a_5:" Those of the courtyard."
,k79a_6:" Those of the roof. Hence even when the Get was thrown over the parapet of the roof, it was still within the enclosure of the courtyard."
,k79a_7:" Shab. 97. The discussion there relates to an article thrown from one point to another in public ground across private ground, Rabbi holding that this constitutes a change of domain, v. also B.K. 70b."
,k79a_8:" Being all the time surrounded by the partitions of the courtyard, and the question of change of domain does not arise."
,k79a_9:" Over the parapet."
,k79a_10:" And therefore so long as it was ascending it is not regarded as having been 'given'."
,k79a_11:" E.g., a roof and a courtyard."
,k79a_12:" I.e., if the outer one was lent to the wife for the purpose of receiving the Get therein, it does not follow that the inner one was lent with it."
,k79a_13:" The roof or the courtyard as the case may be."
,k79a_14:" But where it is not originally hers but lent to her by the husband it may be assumed that the loan of the one includes the other."
,k79a_15:" Lit., 'three measures', 'norms', in regard to a Get."
,k79a_16:" From a public domain."
,k79a_17:" If the husband throws a Get into a basket on top of a high pole stuck in her ground."
,k79a_18:" Because it may be blown by the wind outside the court. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF SHE WAS STANDING ON A ROOF AND HE THREW IT UP TO HER, AS SOON AS IT REACHES THE AIRSPACE OF THE ROOF, SHE IS DIVORCED. IF HE WAS ABOVE AND SHE BELOW AND HE THREW IT TO HER, ONCE IT HAS LEFT THE SPACE OF THE ROOF, EVEN THOUGH [IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS] THE WRITING WAS EFFACED<a id="k79a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; OR IT WAS BURNT,<a id="k79a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IS DIVORCED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [AS SOON AS IT REACHES THE AIR-SPACE OF THE ROOF etc.] But it is not yet in safe keeping?<a id="k79a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: We speak of a roof which has a parapet. 'Ulla b. Menashia said in the name of Abimi: The reference here is to [the air space] within three handbreadths of the roof, since any space less than three handbreadths from the roof is reckoned as the roof.
</p><p>
	IF HE WAS ABOVE etc. But it is not yet in safe keeping?<a id="k79a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: [The rule applies] if for instance the lower partitions<a id="k79a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; overtop the upper ones.<a id="k79a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; So too R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia, If, for instance the lower partitions overtop the upper ones; and so too 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan, If, for instance, the lower partitions overtop the upper ones. Said R. Abba to 'Ulla: With whose view does this accord? With that of Rabbi, who said that being embraced [by the air space] is equivalent to coming to rest [upon the ground]?<a id="k79a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: You can even say that it has the authority of the Rabbis, since the Rabbis might differ from Rabbi only in the case of Sabbath, but here the deciding factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is in safe keeping.<a id="k79a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; So too, when R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan, For instance, if the lower partitions overtop the higher, R. Zera said to R. Assi, With whose view does this accord? With that of Rabbi, who said that being embraced by the air space is equivalent to coming to rest [on the ground,] and he replied, You can even say that it has the authority of the Rabbis, since the Rabbis might differ from Rabbi only in the case of the Sabbath, but here the deciding factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is in safe keeping.
</p><p>
	THOUGH THE WRITING WAS EFFACED. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This applies only if it was effaced while [the Get was] falling,<a id="k79a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it was effaced while [the Get was] ascending it is not so. Why? Because from the outset it was not destined to come to rest [in that way].<a id="k79a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	OR IT WAS BURNT. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This applies only if the Get was thrown before the fire was started, but if the fire was started first, it is not so. Why is this? Because from the outset it was destined to be burnt.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: Spaces marked off from one another<a id="k79a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; remain distinct for purposes of bills of divorce.<a id="k79a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rami b. Hama to Raba: Whence does the old man derive this idea? &mdash; He replied: It is from our Mishnah: If SHE WAS STANDING ON THE ROOF AND HE THREW IT TO HER, AS SOON AS THE GET REACHES THE AIR SPACE OF THE ROOF SHE IS DIVORCED. Now with what circumstances are we dealing? Are we to say that the roof is hers and the courtyard is hers? If so, why do I require even the air space of the roof? What then? His roof and his courtyard? In that case, even if it reaches the air space of the roof, what of it? Obviously therefore we must suppose the roof to be hers and the courtyard to be his. Now let us look at the next clause: IF HE WAS ABOVE AND SHE BELOW AND HE THREW IT TO HER, SO SOON AS IT LEFT THE SPACE OF THE ROOF, EVEN THOUGH THE WRITING WAS EFFACED OR IT WAS BURNT SHE IS DIVORCED. Now if the roof is hers and the courtyard his, why is she divorced? It must be therefore that the roof is his and the courtyard hers. Now can it be that the first clause speaks of where the roof is hers and the courtyard his, and the second of where the roof is his and the courtyard hers? [Hardly so;] and it must be that he lends her a place,<a id="k79a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [and this shows] that men will lend one place but not two places! &mdash; He replied: Is this conclusive? Perhaps each case stands on its own footing, the first clause speaking of where the roof is hers and the courtyard his, and the second of where the roof is his and the courtyard hers.<a id="k79a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: There are three cases in which a Get forms an exception to a general rule.<a id="k79a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; One is the rule laid down by Rabbi that being embraced [by the air space] is equivalent to coming to rest on the ground, regarding which the Rabbis joined issue with him. They only differed with regard to Sabbath, but here [in the case of a Get] the decisive factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is in safe keeping. The second is the rule laid down by R. Hisda: If a man stuck in private ground a pole, on the top of which was a basket, and he threw up something<a id="k79a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and it came to rest on it, even if it is a hundred cubits high he is liable, because private ground extends upwards to the sky. This applies only to Sabbath, but here<a id="k79a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the decisive factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is not in safe keeping.<a id="k79a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k79b_1:" And if he lends her one roof for receiving the Get, this is held to include the next adjoining to it."
,k79b_2:" But was then destroyed before it came to rest at the bottom of the basket."
,k79b_3:" And the sides of a basket do not afford safe keeping."
,k79b_4:" V. <i>supra</i> 782."
,k79b_5:" I.e., the outer basket has no bottom, so that the inner basket rests on the ground and is not in the husband's domain."
,k79b_6:" Suppose he used the Get to divorce her a year or two after it was written and she had had a child from him in the meanwhile."
,k79b_7:" Without the permission of the <i>Beth din</i>."
,k79b_8:" I.e., the <i>Beth din</i> do not prevent her."
,k79b_9:" [Lit., 'unworthy'; v. the Gemara <i>infra</i>. Mishnayoth texts read 'another'; i.e., he dated the Get by a Government not corresponding to the country in which the Get was written.]"
,k79b_10:" I.e., by the Achemenid era."
,k79b_11:" I.e., by the Seleucid era, beginning 311 B.C., v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 42, n. 7."
,k79b_12:" [The reference is, according to Blau Ehescheidung I, p. 66, to the First Temple, since documents were dated from the destruction of the Second, v. A.Z. 92]."
,k79b_13:" I.e., she must leave the second husband and cannot remarry the first."
,k79b_14:" Her 'property of plucking' (v. Gloss. s.v. <i>Mulug</i>); she loses the right to be redeemed from captivity, which the Sages assigned to her in lieu of such increment."
,k79b_15:" From what she brought in with her dowry."
,k79b_16:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k79b_17:" Being regarded as a 'loose woman'. "
}

txt:
<p>
The third is the rule laid down by Rab Judah in the name of Samuel; A man should not stand on one roof and gather rain water from his neighbour's roof, because just as dwellings are distinct below so they are distinct above. This applies to Sabbath, but in regard to a Get the decisive factor is whether the owner is particular, and to this extent men are not particular.<a id="k79b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: If there are two courtyards one within the other, the inner one belonging to her and the outer one to him, and the outer partitions are higher than the inner ones, if he throws it to her, as soon as it reaches the air-space of the partitions of the outer one she is divorced, the reason being that the inner one itself is protected by the partitions of the outer one. The same, however, does not hold good with baskets; if there were two baskets one inside the other, the inner one belonging to her and the outer one to him and he threw the Get to her, even if it came into the air space of the inner one<a id="k79b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; she is not divorced, the reason being that it has not come to rest.<a id="k79b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And supposing even that it comes to rest, what of it? It is a case of the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the vendor?<a id="k79b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are speaking here of a basket which has no bottom.<a id="k79b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT A MAN MAY DIVORCE HIS WIFE WITH AN OLD GET, BUT BETH HILLEL FORBID THIS. WHAT IS MEANT BY AN OLD GET? ONE AFTER THE WRITING OF WHICH HE WAS CLOSETED WITH HER. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the ground of their difference? &mdash; Beth Shammai hold that we are not to prohibit her [to marry again] out of fear that people may [afterwards] say that her Get came before her child,<a id="k79b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas Beth Hillel hold that we do prohibit her for fear people will say her Get came before her child. R. Abba said in the name of Samuel: If she married [on the strength of such a Get]<a id="k79b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; she need not leave [the second husband]. According to another report, R. Abba said in the name of Samuel, If she was divorced [with such a Get], she has full liberty to marry again.<a id="k79b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE GET WAS DATED BY A REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT,<a id="k79b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; BY THE EMPIRE OF MEDIA,<a id="k79b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; BY THE EMPIRE OF GREECE,<a id="k79b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; BY THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE OR BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE,<a id="k79b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; OR IF BEING IN THE EAST THE WRITER DATED IT FROM THE WEST, OR BEING IN THE WEST HE DATED IT FROM THE EAST, THE WOMAN [WHO MARRIES AGAIN ON THE STRENGTH OF IT] MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS<a id="k79b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; AND REQUIRES A GET FROM BOTH AND HAS NO CLAIM EITHER FOR A <I>KETHUBAH</I> OR FOR INCREMENT<a id="k79b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; OR FOR MAINTENANCE OR FOR WORN CLOTHES<a id="k79b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; FROM EITHER OF THEM: IF SHE TAKES THESE FROM EITHER OF THEM SHE MUST RETURN THEM. A CHILD BORN TO HER FROM EITHER OF THEM IS A MAMZER.<a id="k79b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; NEITHER OF THEM [IF A PRIEST] IS TO DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HER: NEITHER OF THEM HAS A RIGHT TO HER FINDS OR TO THE PRODUCT OF HER LABOUR, AND NEITHER CAN ANNUL HER VOWS. IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE SHE IS DISQUALIFIED FOR MARRYING A PRIEST.<a id="k79b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k80a_1:" V. Yeb. 912."
,k80a_2:" v. Sot. 28A."
,k80a_3:" The <i>kethubah</i> referred to here is a stipulation made by her with her husband that, should she die in his lifetime, her sons should inherit her property over and above their share in their father's inheritance, v. Yeb. 91A."
,k80a_4:" I.e., (potential) co-wives. Cf. 1. Sam. I, 6. The reference is to two women within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity who married two brothers, v. Yeb. 22."
,k80a_5:" The wife of the brother still living."
,k80a_6:" Her marriage consequently was void, and hence the sister-in-law could have married the deceased husband's brother and had no right to contract another marriage without giving <i>halizah</i>."
,k80a_7:" I.e., she must leave her husband and cannot marry the brother-in-law."
,k80a_8:" I.e., another wife of the dead brother. Where there are two wives, only one may contract the levirate marriage."
,k80a_9:" V. Yeb. 94b."
,k80a_10:" To hand over to the husband on payment of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k80a_11:" [Var. lec. 'R. Eliezer'.]"
,k80a_12:" Explained in the Gemara."
,k80a_13:" Because we suspect collusion between the wife and the first husband."
,k80a_14:" [The reference is to the Eastern Roman Empire; v. next note]."
,k80a_15:" V. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 50, n. 2."
,k80a_16:" Cf. <i>supra</i>, 5b."
,k80a_17:" To make it clear that the Get should be dated according to the era of the State where it is made out."
,k80a_18:" And therefore dating by it would cause no jealousy on the part of the Government."
,k80a_19:" On the eras mentioned in this passage v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 42, n. 7, and p. 47, n. 2."
,k80a_20:" Shili and Hini were two places within walking distance of each other. V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 753, n. 6."
,k80a_21:" The local of the deed is the place where the deed is written and this must be entered in the deed, not the place where the transaction recorded took place. "
}

txt:
<p>
IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE, SHE BECOMES DISQUALIFIED FOR EATING TITHE,<a id="k80a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST FOR EATING <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k80a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; THE HEIRS NEITHER OF THE ONE HUSBAND NOR THE OTHER INHERIT HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>,<a id="k80a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF THEY DIE BROTHERS OF BOTH ONE AND THE OTHER OF THEM [IF NECESSARY] TAKE <I>HALIZAH</I> BUT NEITHER CAN MARRY HER. IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR THE NAME OF HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THE ABOVE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER.
</p><p>
	IF ANY OF THE NEAR RELATIVES CONCERNING WHOM IT IS LAID DOWN THAT THEIR RIVALS<a id="k80a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY [WITHOUT GIVING <I>HALIZAH</I>] WENT AND MARRIED AND IT WAS THEN FOUND THAT THIS ONE<a id="k80a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS INCAPABLE OF BEARING,<a id="k80a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; THE ONE WHO MARRIED MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS<a id="k80a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. IF A MAN MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND HER RIVAL<a id="k80a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; THEN WENT AND MARRIED ANOTHER MAN AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS INCAPABLE OF BEARING, THE OTHER MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER.<a id="k80a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A SCRIBE WROTE A GET FOR THE HUSBAND AND A RECEIPT FOR THE WIFE<a id="k80a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BY MISTAKE GAVE THE GET TO THE WIFE AND THE RECEIPT TO THE HUSBAND AND THE TWO EXCHANGED THEM AND AFTER A TIME THE GET WAS PRODUCED BY THE MAN AND THE RECEIPT BY THE WOMAN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. R. ELEAZAR<a id="k80a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID: IF [IT IS PRODUCED] AT ONCE,<a id="k80a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS NO GET, BUT IF [IT IS PRODUCED] AFTER A TIME, IT IS A GET; IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF THE FIRST TO RENDER VOID THE RIGHT OF THE SECOND.<a id="k80a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is meant by A REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT? &mdash; The empire of the Romans.<a id="k80a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Why is it called A REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT? &mdash; Because it has neither a script nor a language [of its own].<a id="k80a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Ulla said: Why was it laid down that [the year of] the reign should be stated in a Get? For the sake of keeping on good terms with the Government. And for the sake of keeping on good terms with the Government is the woman to leave her husband and the child to be a mamzer.? &mdash; Yes. R. Meir in this is quite consistent, since R. Hamnuna said in the name of 'Ulla: R. Meir used to say, If any alteration is made in the form which the Sages fixed for bills of divorce, the child is a mamzer.<a id="k80a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BY THE EMPIRE OF GREECE. All [these eras] had to be mentioned.<a id="k80a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; For if I had been told only the REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT, I might have thought that the objection to it is that it bears sway now, but in regard to the Empire of Media and Greece I might think that what is past is past.<a id="k80a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And if I had been told the empires of Media and Greece, I might have thought that the objection is that they were once empires, but as regards the building of the Temple, what is past is past. And if I had been told the building of the Temple, I might have thought that the objection is because they might say that the Jews are recalling their former glory, but this does not apply to the mention of the destruction of the Temple, which recalls their sorrow.<a id="k80a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence all were necessary.
</p><p>
	IF BEING IN THE EAST THE WRITER DATED IT FROM THE WEST. Who is referred to? Is it the husband? Then this is the same as IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR OF HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN! It must be then the scribe; and so Rab said to his scribe, and R. Huna also said to his scribe, When you are in Shili,<a id="k80a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; write 'at Shili', even though you were commissioned in Hini, and when you are in Hini, write 'at Hini', even though you were commissioned in Shili.<a id="k80a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k80b_1:" That the year of the current reign must be mentioned."
,k80b_2:" Probably = Senator: an elder whose office it was to decide questions regarding boundaries between fields, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 270, n. 10."
,k80b_3:" [Pers. Astandar, a district (astan) deputy (dar) of the king. Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. p. 92.]"
,k80b_4:" More correctly Kashkar (Jastrow). [According to Obermeyer <i>loc. cit</i>. Kashkar was the name given to the whole of the Mesene district (S. E. Babylon) of which it was the capital during the Sassanian period.]"
,k80b_5:" Viz., to the Government, the Santer being a minor official."
,k80b_6:" This and the one regarding the year of the reign."
,k80b_7:" [In which case she is forbidden to her brother-in-law for fear people will say that he had already given her <i>halizah</i> before she remarried and is now taking her unto himself as a wife, which. is not allowed.]"
,k80b_8:" V. Yeb. 81a."
,k80b_9:" [If such a woman was informed on good authority that her husband had died and she married again and then her husband returned, she is forbidden to go back to him, for fear people might say that the husband had in reality divorced her before she remarried and that now he is taking her back, which is forbidden (v. Deut. XXIV, 4). If the sister-in-law in this case were allowed to marry the brother-in-law after marrying another, this might create a precedent (cf. n. 2), but not if she misconducted herself.]"
,k80b_10:" This and the one about the forbidden degrees."
,k80b_11:" And forbidden to the brother-in-law."
,k80b_12:" Lit., 'thrown before him', after the death of her husband, and therefore should not have remarried till she made sure that the levirate marriage of her rival was in order."
,k80b_13:" [Her potential rival exempts her forthwith on the death of her husband from levirate marriage and <i>halizah</i>.] "
}

txt:
<p>
This<a id="k80b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is the ruling of R. Meir, but the Sages say that even though he dated it only by the term of office of the Santer<a id="k80b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in the town, she is divorced. A certain Get was dated by the term of office of the prefect<a id="k80b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; of Bashcar.<a id="k80b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman son of R. Hisda sent to Rabbah to inquire how to deal with it. He sent him back reply: Such a one even R. Meir would accept. What is the reason? Because he is an official of the proper Government. But why should he be different from the Santer in the town? &mdash; To date it that way is an insult to them,<a id="k80b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but to date it this way is a compliment to them.
</p><p>
	R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna who had it from Rab: This is the ruling of R. Meir, but the Sages say that the child is legitimate. The Sages, however, agree with R. Meir that if his name or her name or the name of his town or her town was wrongly given, the child is a mamzer. R. Ashi said: We find this also implied in our Mishnah: IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. Now who is the authority for this statement? Shall I say R. Meir? If so, the two rulings<a id="k80b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; might have been run into one? We conclude therefore that it was the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	IF ANY OF THE NEAR RELATIVES CONCERNING WHOM etc. [They are penalised] if they MARRY, which implies, 'but not if they misconduct themselves'.<a id="k80b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; May we take this as a refutation of R. Hamnuna, who said that if a woman while waiting for her brother-in-law misconducted herself, she is forbidden to her brother-in-law?<a id="k80b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; [it means,] if they marry, and the same is the rule if they misconduct themselves; and the reason why the word MARRY was used was as a polite expression. Some report the discussion thus: [They are penalised] if they marry, and the same rule [we should say,] applies if they misconduct themselves. May we presume then that the Mishnah supports R. Hamnuna, who said that if a woman while waiting for her brother-in-law misconducted herself she is forbidden to her brother-in-law? &mdash; No; the rule applies only where they actually married, because in that case they may be confused with a woman whose husband went abroad.<a id="k80b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A MAN MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW etc. Both cases<a id="k80b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; required to be stated. For had I only the first one, I might say the reason [why she is penalised]<a id="k80b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is because the precept of levirate marriage has not been carried out, but here where this precept has been carried out I might say that the rule does not apply. If again I had been told only in this case, I might have said that the reason is because she was put at his disposal,<a id="k80b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the other case where she is not put at his disposal<a id="k80b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; I might say that she should not be penalised. Hence [both statements were] necessary.
</p><p>
	IF THE SCRIBE WROTE AND BY MISTAKE GAVE THE GET TO THE WIFE AND THE RECEIPT TO THE HUSBAND&nbsp;&hellip; R. ELEAZAR SAYS, IF [IT WAS PRODUCED] AT ONCE etc. How do we define AT ONCE and how do we define AFTER A TIME? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The whole of the time during which they are sitting and dealing with that matter is called AT ONCE; once they have risen it is called AFTER A TIME. R. Adda b. Ahabah, however, said: So long as she has not married, it is called AT ONCE, but once she has married, it is called AFTER A TIME. We have learnt: IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF THE FIRST TO RENDER VOID THE RIGHT OF THE SECOND. Now if we take the view of R. Adda b. Ahabah, it is quite correct to mention here the SECOND; but on Samuel's view, what are we to make of SECOND? &mdash; 
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k81a_1:" A priest being forbidden to marry a divorced woman."
,k81a_2:" Shall we make her leave him so that people should not say that a priest has been allowed to divorce his wife and take her back?"
,k81a_3:" V. <i>infra</i> 89."
,k81a_4:" In which case the rumour is a serious one."
,k81a_5:" And we adopt the more rigorous construction."
,k81a_6:" Supposing the first husband died and she afterwards married a priest, which, if she was really divorced, she may not do."
,k81a_7:" If they were born after the alleged divorce."
,k81a_8:" And there can be no question about the qualifications of his children."
,k81a_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k81a_10:" Whereas Beth Shammai disqualified her merely because her husband had written a Get, even if he did not give it."
,k81a_11:" Where it would come in sight of the house."
,k81a_12:" Produce from which the sacred dues have not yet been separated. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k81a_13:" I.e., it may be consumed casually, but not for a fixed meal. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k81a_14:" Deut. XXVI, 12."
,k81a_15:" As soon as it comes in the courtyard."
,k81a_16:" Ibid. 12."
,k81a_17:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. Erusin. "
}

txt:
<p>
It means, the prospective right of the second.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN WROTE A GET WITH WHICH TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND THEN CHANGED HIS MIND, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT HE HAS THEREBY DISQUALIFIED HER FOR MARRYING A PRIEST.<a id="k81a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH HE GAVE IT TO HER ON A CERTAIN CONDITION, IF THE CONDITION WAS NOT FULFILLED, HE HAS NOT DISQUALIFIED HER FOR MARRYING A PRIEST.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Joseph the son of R. Manasseh of Dewil sent an inquiry to Samuel saying: Would our Master instruct us with regard to the following problem. If a rumour spread that So-and-so, a priest, has written a Get for his wife, but she still lives with him and looks after him, what are we to do?<a id="k81a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He sent back a reply: She must leave him, but [first] the case must be examined. What are we to understand by this? Shall we say that we examine whether we can put a stop to the rumour or not? [This cannot be] because Samuel lived in Nehardea, and in Nehardea it was not the rule [of the <i>Beth din</i>] to put a stop to rumours.<a id="k81a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But we do examine whether people speak of 'giving' also as 'writing'.<a id="k81a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But granted that they call 'giving' 'writing', do they not also call 'writing' itself 'writing'? &mdash; That is so; and [the reason why she has to leave him is] because if it is found that 'giving' is called 'writing', perhaps the people [when they say he has 'written'] mean that he has 'given' [her the Get].<a id="k81a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And still must she leave him? Has not R. Ashi said: We pay no regard to any rumour [that is spread] after the marriage? &mdash; When it says 'she must leave', it means 'she must leave the second husband'.<a id="k81a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is so, you cast a slur on the children of the first?<a id="k81a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since it is from the second that we separate her and we do not separate her from the first, people will say that he divorced her just before his death.<a id="k81a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah reported R. Johanan as saying in the name of Rabbi Judah b. Ila'i: What a difference we can observe between the earlier generations and the later! (By the earlier generations he means Beth Shammai, and by the later R. Dosa). For it has been taught: 'A woman who has been carried away captive may still eat <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k81a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; according to the ruling of R. Dosa. Said R. Dosa: What after all has this Arab done to her? Because he squeezed her breasts, has he disqualified her for marrying a priest?'<a id="k81a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah further quoted R. Johanan as saying in the name of Rabbi Judah b. Ila'i: What a difference we can observe between the earlier generations and the later! The earlier generations used to bring in their produce by way of the kitchen garden<a id="k81a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; so as to make it liable to tithe, whereas the later generations bring in their produce over roofs and through enclosures so as not to make it liable for tithe, R. Jannai laid down that <i>tebel</i><a id="k81a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is not liable for tithe<a id="k81a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; until it has come in front of the house, since it says, I have put away the hallowed things out of mine house.<a id="k81a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, says that even a courtyard<a id="k81a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; imposes the liability, as it says, That they may eat within thy gates and be filled.<a id="k81a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN HAS DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND THEN STAYS WITH HER OVER NIGHT IN AN INN, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE FROM HIM A SECOND GET, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT SHE DOES REQUIRE A SECOND GET FROM HIM. THIS, HOWEVER, IS ONLY WHEN THE DIVORCE IS ONE AFTER MARRIAGE; [FOR BETH HILLEL] AGREE THAT IF THE DIVORCE IS ONE AFTER BETROTHAL,<a id="k81a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND GET FROM HIM, BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT [YET] TAKE LIBERTIES WITH HER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: The difference of opinion [recorded here] relates only to the case where she was seen to have intercourse,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k81b_1:" And therefore he meant the intercourse to be a method of betrothal, and since he has married her again he must give her a second Get."
,k81b_2:" In either case according to Beth Hillel he has married her again."
,k81b_3:" And we take the mere fact of their having been alone together as sufficient proof that they have married again."
,k81b_4:" And therefore do not presume that they have married again."
,k81b_5:" That where she was not seen to have intercourse she does not require a second Get even according to Beth Hillel."
,k81b_6:" I.e., not stated in the name of any particular authority, so that it may be regarded as the view of the majority and therefore authoritative."
,k81b_7:" V. note 7."
,k81b_8:" I.e., even of persons who ordinarily are not eligible to give evidence."
,k81b_9:" I.e., who are not disqualified on other grounds, such as being a robber etc."
,k81b_10:" If the husband did not wish to act too impetuously, he could have the Get written in folds, the scribe folding the paper over after every two or three lines and a witness signing on the back. If any fold was left without a signature. the Get was called 'bald' and was not valid, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 699 nn. 1-3 and 6 and diagram p. 704."
,k81b_11:" In which case we presume that the number of folds corresponds to the number of persons who were present at the time, and that one of these neglected to sign. As stated <i>supra</i> 66b, this would invalidate the Get."
,k81b_12:" Lit., 'raise him in regard to the pedigree'."
,k81b_13:" Lit., 'who has a pedigree'."
,k81b_14:" Three being the minimum for a folded Get as two for a plain one, in order to protract the proceedings for the reason stated <i>supra</i> p. 391. n. 7."
,k81b_15:" And therefore a concession was made in this case."
,k81b_16:" If doubt is thrown on the validity of the Get, it can be established by proving the genuineness of three of the signatures on it, provided at least two of these are not relatives. If two relatives had signed, it might happen that these were the two whose signatures were confirmed "
}

txt:
<p>
Beth Shammai holding that a man [in such a case] will not scruple to commit fornication, whereas Beth Hillel hold that a man will scruple to commit fornication.<a id="k81b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Where, however, she was not seen to have intercourse, both agree that she does not require a second Get from him.
</p><p>
	We learn: [BETH HILLEL] AGREE THAT IF THE DIVORCE IS ONE AFTER BETROTHAL, SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND GET FROM HIM, BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT TAKE LIBERTIES WITH HER. Now [if a second Get is required] where she was seen to have intercourse, what difference does it make whether it was after betrothal or after marriage?<a id="k81b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We must suppose therefore that the Mishnah speaks of a case where she was not seen to have intercourse, and that R. Johanan was giving the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel were of accord that where she was not seen to have intercourse she does not require from him a second Get. Where they differed was when she was seen to have intercourse, Beth Shammai holding that a man would not scruple [in such a case] to commit fornication, and Beth Hillel holding that a man would scruple to commit fornication'. But according to the Mishnah, which we have explained to refer to the case where she was not seen to have intercourse, what are we to say is the [ground of] difference [between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel]? &mdash; We must suppose there were witnesses to their being alone together but no witnesses to the intercourse, in which case Beth Shammai hold that we do not regard the witnesses to their being alone together as being ipso facto witnesses to their intercourse, whereas Beth Hillel hold that we do regard the witnesses to their being alone together as being ipso facto witnesses to their intercourse.<a id="k81b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Hillel admit, however, that if the divorce is one after betrothal she does not require a second Get from him, because since he would not take liberties with her we do not regard them as being ipso facto witnesses to intercourse.<a id="k81b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But did R. Johanan say this?<a id="k81b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Did not R. Johanan say that the <i>halachah</i> follows the anonymous Mishnah,<a id="k81b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and we have explained the Mishnah to be referring to the case where she was not seen to have intercourse? &mdash; Different Amoraim report R. Johanan's opinion differently.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN MARRIES A [DIVORCED] WOMAN ON THE STRENGTH OF A 'BALD' GET,<a id="k81b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. A 'BALD' GET MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANYONE'S SIGNATURE.<a id="k81b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS THE VIEW OF BEN NANNOS, BUT R. AKIBA SAYS THAT IT MAY BE COMPLETED ONLY BY RELATIVES WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ELSEWHERE.<a id="k81b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; WHAT IS A 'BALD' GET? ONE WHICH HAS MORE FOLDS THAN SIGNATURES.<a id="k81b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason for [invalidating] A 'BALD' GET? &mdash; As a precaution, in case he said 'All of you [write]'.<a id="k81b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A 'BALD' GET MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANYONE'S SIGNATURE. Why does R. Akiba not permit a slave [to sign]? &mdash; Because this might lead people to say that he is competent to bear witness [in general]. But in the same way they might be led to say that a near relative is competent to bear witness? &mdash; The fact is that the reason why he does not allow a slave is because people might be led to think him of Israelite parentage.<a id="k81b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; According to this a robber who could prove his Israelitish descent<a id="k81b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; should be competent. Why then do we learn here: R. AKIBA SAYS, IT MAY BE COMPLETED ONLY BY RELATIVES WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ELSEWHERE, which would imply that a relative may testify but not a robber? &mdash; We must say therefore that the reason in the case of a slave is that people might be led to say that he has been emancipated; and similarly in the case of a robber people might be led to say that he has reformed himself. But as to a relative what objections can be raised? Everyone knows that a relative is a relative.
</p><p>
	R. Zera said in the name of Rabbah b. She'ilta who had it from R. Hamnuna the elder who had it from R. Adda b. Ahabah: If a 'bald' Get has seven folds and six witnesses, or six folds and five witnesses, or five folds and four witnesses, or four folds and three witnesses, then Ben Nannos and R. Akiba differ [as to how it is to be completed]. But if it has three folds and two witnesses both agree that only a relative may complete it. Said R. Zera to Rabbah b. She'ilta: Let us see now. Three in a folded Get correspond to two in a plain Get.<a id="k81b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing then that a relative is forbidden to sign the latter, should he not be forbidden to sign the former also? &mdash; He replied: I was also perplexed by this, and I asked R. Hamnuna, who in turn asked R. Adda b. Ahabah, who replied, Don't bother about three on a folded Get, since these are not required by the Torah.<a id="k81b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught to the same effect: A 'bald' Get which has seven folds but six witnesses, six folds and five witnesses, five folds and four witnesses, or four folds and three witnesses is judged differently by Ben Nannos and R. Akiba, to the extent that if it was completed by a slave Ben Nannos says that the child [born from a marriage contracted on the strength of such a Get] is legitimate while R. Akiba says that it is a mamzer. If, however, it has three folds and two witnesses, both agree that only a relative may complete it.
</p><p>
	R. Joseph read [in the statement of R. Zera] 'a competent witness' [instead of 'relative']. But in the Baraitha it says 'relative'? &mdash; R. Papa said: Read, 'a competent witness'.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: Only one relative has been declared eligible to sign as witness on it but not two, for fear lest it should be confirmed on the strength of the signatures of two relatives and one competent witness.<a id="k81b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi: This is indicated in the Baraitha also
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k83a_1:" To supplement his first statement."
,k83a_2:" On the assumption that in the last case he means 'to Simeon only'."
,k83a_3:" Lit., 'answered and said'."
,k83a_4:" Because now she cannot fulfil the law of the levirate marriage."
,k83a_5:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 83."
,k83a_6:" Because as far as he went she had never been divorced."
,k83a_7:" And consequently still forbidden to the priest, since she had at any rate been divorced from her husband. V. <i>supra</i>."
,k83a_8:" The marriage of a divorcee to a priest involves the breach of an ordinary prohibition which carries with it no death penalty."
,k83a_9:" Involving, as it does, the penalty of death."
,k83a_10:" In virtue of this peculiar divorce, she becomes at the time of divorce on one side a divorcee in respect of men in general, while on the other side she remains a married woman in respect of the priest. Seeing that the divorced side was sufficient to prohibit her to the priest, should not the married side be sufficient to prohibit her to all other men?"
,k83a_11:" As much as to say, If R. Eliezer had been alive, he could have found answers to your objections."
,k83a_12:" The flaws in the objections are now pointed out."
,k83a_13:" That is to say, he has done nothing positive to this effect."
,k83a_14:" Because the widow cannot possibly marry the husband's brother."
,k83a_15:" Viz., the divorcee to marry the brother of the second husband, in the case put by R. Tarfon, so that there would be no point in his objection."
,k83a_16:" Where failure to fulfill the condition renders the Get void."
,k83a_17:" Laymen."
,k83a_18:" Priests."
,k83a_19:" Who is permitted to her husband and forbidden to others."
,k83a_20:" And therefore there is no point in his objection."
,k83a_21:" Which forbids her to the said man also in the way of fornication."
,k83a_22:" And so there is no point in R. Akiba's objection. "
}

txt:
<p>
that he permits what he had forbidden, if he says only 'To Reuben',<a id="k83a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; what is to be done? Do we take the words 'To Reuben' to apply also to Simeon, presuming that why he now says Reuben is because he had been mentioned first, or does he mean Reuben and Reuben only? And assuming that he means Reuben only, if he says 'To Simeon' what is to be done? Do we take the words 'To Simeon' to apply to Reuben also, presuming that why he now says Simeon is because he had just mentioned him, or does he mean Simeon and Simeon only? R. Ashi asked,<a id="k83a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If he said, Also to Simeon, what are we to do? Do we take 'also' to mean 'besides Reuben', or 'besides everyone else' [but not Reuben]? &mdash; These questions are left undecided.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: After the demise of R. Eliezer, four elders came together to confute his opinion. They were R. Jose the Galilean, R. Tarfon, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Akiba. R. Tarfon argued as follows:<a id="k83a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Suppose this woman went and married the brother of the man to whom she had been forbidden and he died without children, would not the first be found to have uprooted an injunction from the Torah?<a id="k83a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence you may conclude that this is no 'cutting off'.<a id="k83a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose the Galilean then argued as follows: Where do we find the same thing should be forbidden to one and permitted to another? What is forbidden is forbidden to all alike and what is permitted is permitted to all alike. Hence we may conclude that this is no 'cutting off'. R. Eleazar b. Azariah then argued as follows: 'Cutting off' means something which completely cuts him off from her. Hence you may conclude that this is no cutting off'. R. Akiba then argued as follows: Suppose this woman went and married some other man and had children from him and was then widowed or divorced from him, and she afterwards went and married this man to whom she had been forbidden, would not her original Get have to be declared void and [consequently] her children bastards? From this we conclude that this is no cutting off'. Or alternatively I may argue: Suppose the man to whom she was forbidden was a priest and the man who divorced her died, then in respect of the priest she would be a widow<a id="k83a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and in respect of all other men a divorcee.<a id="k83a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; There then follows an argument <i>a fortiori</i>: Seeing that she would have been forbidden to the priest qua divorcee, though this involves but a minor [transgression],<a id="k83a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; should she not all the more as a married woman, which is a much more serious affair,<a id="k83a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; be forbidden to all men?<a id="k83a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; From this we may conclude that this is no 'cutting off'. R. Joshua said to them: You should not seek to confute the lion after he is dead.<a id="k83a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: All these objections can be countered except that of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, in which there is no flaw. It has been taught to the same effect: R. Jose said: I consider the argument of R. Eleazar b. Azariah superior to all the others.
</p><p>
	The<a id="k83a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Master said above: R. Tarfon argued thus: Suppose she went and married the brother of the man to whom she was forbidden and he died without children, would not the first be found to have uprooted an injunction from the Torah? Uprooting, [you say]? He uprooted?<a id="k83a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You should read, He stipulates to uproot an injunction from the Torah. He stipulates? Is there any word about it? Can she not do without marrying the brother of that man? &mdash; You should read, He may possibly cause an injunction to be uprooted from the Torah. But in that case a man should be forbidden to marry his brother's daughter, since perhaps he will die without children and he will thus cause an injunction to be uprooted from the Torah?<a id="k83a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is the flaw in the argument. In what case then [does R. Tarfon assume R. Eliezer to differ from the Rabbis]? Is it where the husband says 'except'? In that case R. Eliezer would allow her to marry him,<a id="k83a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; as it has been taught: 'R. Eliezer agreed that if a man divorced his wife Saying to her, You are hereby permitted to any man except So-and-so, and she went and married some other man and was widowed or divorced, she is permitted to marry the man to whom she had been forbidden.' It must be therefore where he says 'on condition'.<a id="k83a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'R. Jose the Galilean argued as follows: Where do we find that the same thing should be forbidden to one and permitted to another? What is forbidden is forbidden to all and what is permitted is permitted to all'. Is that so? What of <i>terumah</i> and holy meats which are forbidden to one class<a id="k83a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and permitted to another?<a id="k83a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are speaking of sexual prohibitions. But what of forbidden degrees of consanguinity? &mdash; We speak of marriage. But there is the case of a married woman?<a id="k83a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is the flaw in the argument. In what case then [does R. Jose assume R. Eliezer to differ from the Rabbis]? Is it where he says 'on condition' [that you do not marry So-and-so]? She is permitted to him in the way of fornication!<a id="k83a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It must be then where he says 'except'.<a id="k83a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'R. Akiba argued as follows: Suppose she went and married some other man and had children from him and was then widowed or divorced and she went and married the man to whom she had been forbidden, would not her original Get have to be declared void and her children bastards?' If that is so, then wherever there is a condition in the Get she should not marry, for fear lest she should not fulfil the condition and the Get would prove to be void and her children bastards. This is the flaw in the argument. In what case then [does R. Akiba suppose R. Eliezer to differ from the Rabbis]? It cannot be where he says 'except', because there R. Eliezer permits her, as it has been taught, 'R. Eliezer agrees that if a man divorced his wife saying to her, You are hereby permitted to any man except So-and-so, and she went and married some other man and became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to the man to whom she was originally forbidden'?<a id="k83a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It must be therefore if he says 'on condition'. 'Alternatively [R. Akiba argued]: Suppose the man to whom she was forbidden was a priest and the man who divorced her died, then she would be a widow in respect of the priest and a divorcee in respect of all other men. There thus follows an argument <i>a fortiori</i>. Seeing then that she would be forbidden to the priest qua divorcee, though this involves but a minor [transgression], should she not all the more as a married woman, which is a much more serious affair, be forbidden to all men'. In what case then [does R. Akiba assume R. Eliezer to have differed from the Rabbis]? Is it where he says 'on condition'?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k83b_1:" As in respect of all other men, and therefore the <i>a fortiori</i> argument adduced above does not apply."
,k83b_2:" Viz., the first of his objections."
,k83b_3:" Viz., the second of his objections."
,k83b_4:" And therefore we cannot argue from the case where the man to whom she is forbidden is a priest to cases in general."
,k83b_5:" In our Mishnah that the Get is valid as it stands."
,k83b_6:" V. <i>supra</i>, 82b."
,k83b_7:" That R. Eliezer bases his ruling on the text 'and she marry another man', v. <i>supra</i>."
,k83b_8:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k83b_9:" Because it is written, When a man taketh a wife (Deut. XXIV, 1), referring to the first marriage, and afterwards, and she be another man's wife (ibid. 2), referring to the second marriage."
,k83b_10:" As here, where the first man makes her forbidden to a certain man, and the second renders her permissible, v. Tosef. Git. VII."
,k83b_11:" To all other men."
,k83b_12:" By means of <i>halizah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k83b_13:" As soon as he is dead."
,k83b_14:" By remitting the vow, v. <i>supra</i> 36b."
,k83b_15:" By pointing out the consequences of the vow, so that the one who made it can say, Had I known this I would not have vowed, and the revision renders the vow void retrospectively."
,k83b_16:" The vow, that is to say, is not rendered void, only the husband disallows her observing it; v. Ned, 68a."
,k83b_17:" Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k83b_18:" Viz., R. Tarfon, R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba."
,k83b_19:" Because she is tied to him till her death."
,k83b_20:" I.e., the use of the double form where the single would have sufficed implies that another lesson may be learnt in addition to this."
,k83b_21:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 83."
,k83b_22:" V. note 10."
,k83b_23:" Who says in our Mishnah that a substantive reservation in the Get does not necessarily invalidate it."
,k83b_24:" Where the divorce is only for one day."
,k83b_25:" And the condition is worthless. "
}

txt:
<p>
In that case she is for purposes of fornication a divorcee in respect of him?<a id="k83b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It must be therefore where he says 'except'. Now if R. Akiba [thought that the difference is where he says] 'except', why did he not bring [merely] the objection which applied to that case,<a id="k83b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and if [he thought that it was where he says] 'on condition', why does he not bring [merely] the objection applying to that case?<a id="k83b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Akiba had heard one report according to which R. Eliezer said 'except', and another according to which he said 'on condition'. For the version which gave 'except' he had one objection, and for the version which gave 'on condition' he had another objection. And what is the flaw [in the second objection of R. Akiba]? We cannot say it is that the prohibition of her marrying a priest is on a special footing,<a id="k83b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; because R. Eliezer also bases his ruling<a id="k83b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; on the priestly prohibition?<a id="k83b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba follows the version which R. Jannai gave in the name of a certain elder.<a id="k83b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'R. Joshua said to them, You should not seek to confute the lion after he is dead.' This would imply that R. Joshua concurred with him. But how can this be, seeing that he himself also brought an objection against him?<a id="k83b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What he meant was this: I also have objections to bring, but whether for me or for you, it is not fitting to seek to confute the lion after he is dead. What was the objection of R. Joshua? &mdash; As it has been taught: R. Joshua said: Scripture compares her status before the second marriage to the one before the first marriage.<a id="k83b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as before the first marriage she must not be tied to any other man, so before the second marriage she must not be tied to any other man.
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the above text: 'R. Eliezer agreed that if a man divorced his wife saying to her, You are permitted any man except So-and-so, and she went and married some other man and became widowed or divorced, she is then permitted to marry the man to whom she was at first forbidden.' R. Simeon b. Eleazar argued against R. Eliezer's view, saying, Where do we find that what one man renders forbidden can be made permissible by another?<a id="k83b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But are there no such cases? Is there not that of the sister-in-law who is rendered forbidden<a id="k83b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; by the husband and permissible by the brother-in-law?<a id="k83b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In that case it is really the brother-in-law who makes her forbidden, since as far as the husband is concerned she is permitted.<a id="k83b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of vows, where the one who makes the vow forbids and the wise man permits?<a id="k83b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This is not really so], as R. Johanan has said that the wise man does not release except where there is a change of mind.<a id="k83b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But there is the husband's power of disallowing, since the wife vows but the husband disallows?<a id="k83b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The answer to that is provided by what R. Phineas said in the name of Raba; for R. Phineas said in the name of Raba: A woman who makes a vow always does so subject to the consent of her husband.
</p><p>
	'R. Eleazar b. Azariah argued as follows: "Cutting off"17 means something that cuts him off from her. From this we conclude that this is not "cutting off".' What do the [other] Rabbis<a id="k83b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; make of this 'cutting off'? &mdash; They require it for the ruling contained in the following, as had been taught: '[If a man says], This is your Get on condition that you never drink wine, on condition that you never go to your father's house, this is not "cutting off".<a id="k83b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [If he says], For thirty days, this is "cutting off".' And the other [R. Eleazar]? &mdash; We can learn this, [he says,] from the use of the form kerithuth in place of <i>kareth</i>.<a id="k83b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Rabbis? &mdash; They do not stress the difference between <i>kareth</i> and kerithuth.<a id="k83b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: [If a man said,] This is your Get on condition that you do not drink wine all the days of my life, this is no 'cutting off', but if he said, All the days of So-and-so's life, this is 'cutting off'. Why this difference? [If you say that where he says] 'the life of So-and-so', it is possible that he may die and she may fulfil the condition, [I may rejoin that where he says] 'my life', there is also a possibility that he may die and she may fulfil the condition? &mdash; We should read therefore, [If he says,] All the days of your life,<a id="k83b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; this is no 'cutting off', but if he says, All the days of my life or of So-and-so's life, this is cutting off'.
</p><p>
	Raba put the following question to R. Nahman: [If he says], To-day you are not my wife, but to-morrow you will be my wife, what is to be done? The answer is not clear whether we accept the view of R. Eliezer<a id="k83b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; or that of the Rabbis. We ask: If we adopt the view of R. Eliezer, are we to say that in that case R. Eliezer ruled as he did, because as he permitted her she is permitted in perpetuity, but here<a id="k83b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he would not do so, or are we to say that he makes no difference? And we ask, if we adopt the view of the Rabbis, are we to say that in that case the Rabbis ruled as they did because she is not entirely separated from him, but here they would say that once she is separated she is separated?<a id="k83b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Having asked the question he himself answered it:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k84a_1:" Seeing that she has not carried out the condition, the Get may be void and she may still be the wife of the first husband."
,k84a_2:" I.e., out of fear that people will say this."
,k84a_3:" And then marry the man mentioned in the Get."
,k84a_4:" V. Ned. 14b. And so here we disregard the possibility that she will after all not be divorced and not carry out her condition."
,k84a_5:" By the second man. So as to be able to marry the man mentioned in the Get."
,k84a_6:" I.e., to annoy her."
,k84a_7:" In B.M. 94a."
,k84a_8:" And therefore its non-fulfilment does not affect the validity of the document."
,k84a_9:" Of a condition which R. Judah b. Tema would declare void."
,k84a_10:" And R. Judah would not declare the condition void, and the Get would not be valid till it had been fulfilled."
,k84a_11:" And the Get is valid at once."
,k84a_12:" Which is prohibited."
,k84a_13:" Since in this case the condition would be void."
,k84a_14:" For in his view R. Judah b Tema would still make the validity of the Get depend on the fulfilment of the condition."
,k84a_15:" Which is also considered a condition that cannot be fulfilled."
,k84a_16:" Which is considered one capable of fulfilment, "
}

txt:
<p>
It is reasonable to suppose that whether [we adopt the view of] R. Eliezer or of the Rabbis, [we should decide that] once she is separated from him she is separated.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says.] This is your Get on condition that you marry So-and-so, she should not marry, but if she does marry she need not leave the second husband. What does this mean? &mdash; R. Nahman said: What it means is this: She must not marry that man, for fear that people should say that men may make presents of their wives. If, however, she marries anyone else, she need not leave him. And do we not as a precaution make her part from him, and [are we not afraid that] we may be permitting a married woman to another?<a id="k84a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman thereupon said: What is meant is this: She must not marry that man, for fear people should say that men can make presents of their wives, but if she does marry him she need not part from him since we do not separate them merely as a precaution.<a id="k84a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: [According to you] it is that man whom she must not marry, which implies that she may marry another. But [how can this be] seeing that she has to carry out his condition? And should you say that it is possible for her to marry [another] to-day and be divorced to-morrow,<a id="k84a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and so fulfil the condition, comparing this case to that in regard to which you joined issue with Rab Judah, as it has been stated: If a man says, I forbid myself to sleep to-day if I shall sleep to-morrow, Rab Judah says that he should not sleep to-day lest perhaps he should sleep to-morrow, whereas R. Nahman says that he may sleep today and we disregard the possibility of his sleeping to-morrow?<a id="k84a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But how can you compare the two cases? In that case [of the sleeper] the matter lies in the man's own hands, since if he likes he can keep himself from sleeping by pricking himself with thorns, but in this case does it lie with her whether she is divorced or not?<a id="k84a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, said Raba; [what we must say is] that she must not marry either that man or any other; she must not marry him for fear people should say that men may make presents of their wives, nor must she marry another since she has to fulfil the condition. If, however, she marries that man, she need not part from him since we do not separate them merely out of precaution, whereas if she marries another she must leave him since she is required to fulfil the condition. It has been taught in accordance with Raba: This woman must not marry either that man or any other. If, however, she has married him she need not part from him, but if she marries another she must part from him.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says.] 'This is your Get on condition that you go up to the sky', 'on condition that you go down to the abyss', 'on condition that you swallow a reed four cubits long' 'on condition that you bring me a reed of a hundred cubits', on condition that you cross the great sea on foot,' this is no Get. R. Judah b. Tema, however, says that one like this is a Get. And R. Judah b. Tema laid it down as a general principle that if any condition impossible at any time of fulfilment was laid down by him at the outset, he must be regarded as merely trying to put her off,<a id="k84a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the Get] is valid.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said in the name of Rab that the <i>halachah</i> follows the view of R. Judah b. Tema. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: This is indicated by [the language of] the Mishnah,<a id="k84a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; since it says, 'Wherever a condition possible at any time of fulfilment is laid down at the outset, it is a valid condition.' This implies that if it is impossible of fulfilment it is void,<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and so we may conclude.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: [If a man says,] 'Here is your Get on condition that you eat swine's flesh,' what is the law? &mdash; Abaye replied: That is exactly a case in point.<a id="k84a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba, however, replied: It is possible for her to eat and be scourged.<a id="k84a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye stresses the words 'general principle' [used by R. Judah b. Tema], so as to cover [the eating of] swine's flesh; Raba stresses the words 'one like this is a Get' to exclude [the eating of] swine's flesh.
</p><p>
	Objection was raised [against Raba] from the following: [If a man says,] 'Here is your Get on condition that you have intercourse with So-and-so', if the condition has been fulfilled this is a Get, otherwise not. [If he says,] 'On condition that you do not have intercourse with my father or your father', we disregard the possibility of her having intercourse with them.<a id="k84a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Now this ruling does not contain the words 'On condition that you have intercourse with my father or your father',<a id="k84a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; This is intelligible from the standpoint of Abaye,<a id="k84a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but creates a difficulty from the standpoint of Raba?<a id="k84a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba may reply to you: There is a reason why [the eating of] swine's flesh should be a valid condition, because it is possible for her to eat it and be scourged. 'So-and-so' also it is possible for her to persuade by a money present [to marry her]. But does it lie with her to have intercourse with his father or her father? Even supposing that she would commit the offence, would his father or her father commit the offence? We must therefore say that according to Raba the words 'general principle' [in the statement of R. Judah b. Tema] are meant to cover the case of his father and her father,<a id="k84a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the words 'one like this is a Get', to exclude the case of swine's flesh,<a id="k84a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k84b_1:" Since she may be able to persuade him with money to marry her, the condition is considered capable of fulfilment."
,k84b_2:" Though the condition cannot be fulfilled without incurring the liability of a flogging."
,k84b_3:" V. B.M. 51a; 94a."
,k84b_4:" <i>Supra</i> 78a."
,k84b_5:" Who in that case held that he need not actually give it to her again."
,k84b_6:" R. Kahana, R. Johanan was apparently speaking to some disciples of his from Babylon, whence R. Kahana also came; V. B.K. 117a. V, also Tosaf. s.v,"
,k84b_7:" By his first delivery of it,"
,k84b_8:" Even though she is not yet divorced, she is treated as a divorcee and must not marry a priest should the husband die without giving her the Get a second time as required."
,k84b_9:" Lit., 'we learn here'."
,k84b_10:" Viz., that merely speaking them does not invalidate the Get,"
,k84b_11:" His name and her name, the name of his town and her town. V. <i>supra</i>."
,k84b_12:" And <i>a fortiori</i> if before."
,k84b_13:" That words which invalidate when written do not invalidate if only spoken."
,k84b_14:" Lest he should say something which might invalidate it."
,k84b_15:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k84b_16:" I.e., for fear one might be confused with the other. "
}

txt:
<p>
while according to Abaye 'general principle' covers swine's flesh and 'one like this' excludes 'So-and-so'.<a id="k84b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was brought [from the following]: [If he says], 'Here is your Get on condition that you eat swine's flesh', or, supposing she was a lay woman, 'on condition that you eat terumah', or, supposing she was a nazirite, 'on condition that you drink wine', then if the condition has been fulfilled this is a Get, and if not it is not a Get.<a id="k84b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This is consistent with the view of Raba but conflicts with that of Abaye, [does it not]? &mdash; Abaye may reply to you: Do you imagine that this ruling represents a unanimous opinion? This represents the view of the Rabbis. But could he [Abaye] not base his view on the ground that [such a Get contains] a stipulation to break an injunction laid down in the Torah, and wherever a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah, the condition is void?<a id="k84b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Adda the son of R. Ika replied: When we say that where a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah the condition is void, we refer for instance to a stipulation to withhold the food, raiment and marriage duty [of a married woman], where it is the man who nullifies the injunction, but here it is she who nullifies it, Rabina strongly demurred to this [saying], Is not her whole purpose in nullifying only to carry out his condition, so that in point of fact it is he who nullifies? No, said Rabina. When we say that wherever a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah the condition is void, we mean, for instance, [a stipulation] to withhold her food, raiment and marriage duty, where he is unquestionably nullifying [the injunction]. But in this case [will anyone tell her that] she is absolutely bound to eat? She need not eat and will not be divorced.
</p><p>
	WHAT MUST HE DO? HE MUST TAKE IT FROM HER, etc. Who is the authority for this ruling? &mdash; Hezekiah said: It is R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, [It is no Get] until he takes it from her and again gives it to her saying, Here is your Get.<a id="k84b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said, You may even hold that it is Rabbi;<a id="k84b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; your colleague<a id="k84b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; has suggested that there is a special reason here, since she has already become possessed of it<a id="k84b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; to the extent of being disqualified in regard to the priesthood.<a id="k84b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET. R. Safra said: The words here are<a id="k84b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET. Surely this is self-evident? It says, IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET? &mdash; You might think that this is the case<a id="k84b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; only [if he inserts them] after the substantive part of the Get<a id="k84b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [has been written],<a id="k84b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but where [he made the reservation] before the substantive part [has been written], then even [if he made it] orally [the Get] should be invalid. Therefore [R. Safra] tells us [that this is not so]. Raba on the other hand held that the rule<a id="k84b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only if [he made the reservation] after the substantive part [was written], but if before the substantive part was written then even if made orally [the Get] is invalid. Raba was quite consistent in this, as he used to say to the scribes who wrote bills of divorce, Silence the husband till you have written the substantive part [of the Get].<a id="k84b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: All conditions [written] in a Get make it invalid. This is the view of Rabbi. The Sages, however, say that a condition which would render it invalid if stated orally makes it invalid if written, but one which does not invalidate it if stated orally does not invalidate it if written. [Hence] the word 'except'<a id="k84b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; which invalidates it [if expressed] orally also invalidates it [if inserted] in writing, whereas ['on condition'] which does not invalidate it [if expressed] orally does not invalidate it [if inserted] in writing.
</p><p>
	R. Zera said: They disagree only where [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part [was written], Rabbi holding that we disallow 'on condition' in virtue of having disallowed 'except',<a id="k84b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; while the Rabbis considered that we need not disallow 'on condition' in virtue of having disallowed 'except'. If, however, [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part [has been written].
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k85a_1:" The father of R. Abin."
,k85a_2:" Hence he emended the word 'invalid' into 'valid', but not 'the unanimous ruling is' into 'this is', although the latter in itself would have been preferable."
,k85a_3:" Because the expression 'you are permitted to any man' still covers all possible cases and there is no reservation."
,k85a_4:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k85a_5:" Fem. of Nathin. A descendant of the Gibeonites who were accepted into the community of Joshua, but who were forbidden to intermarry with the Israelites. V. Josh. X, and Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 340. n. 12."
,k85a_6:" [The act of betrothal, that is to say, is valid, though they are not allowed to marry. Whereas with those enumerated in the first part of the Mishnah the betrothal is of no effect and no divorce is necessary to separate them.]"
,k85a_7:" I.e., those mentioned in Lev. XX. For <i>kareth</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k85a_8:" Which carries with it only flogging but no death penalty nor <i>kareth</i>."
,k85a_9:" V. Deut. XXIII, 4."
,k85a_10:" Ibid, 8. The words in brackets are omitted in some texts."
,k85a_11:" I.e., does this constitute a reservation invalidating the Get or not."
,k85a_12:" And therefore that it is no reservation."
,k85a_13:" I.e., even though her marriage was a binding one."
,k85a_14:" Lit., '[the rule of] she shall go forth and be'. And therefore only her father should have power to receive her Get for her."
,k85a_15:" And the Get is invalid, owing to the reservation it contains."
,k85a_16:" Since she is in any case forbidden to them."
,k85a_17:" Lev. XX, 13. The Hebrew is [H], lit., 'lyings', the plural form being taken to indicate both natural and unnatural intercourse."
,k85a_18:" Num. XXX, 13."
,k85a_19:" If she marries a priest. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k85a_20:" Lev, XXII, 11. And since she may not eat of it she is not the 'purchase of his money', and therefore is not fully permitted to marry 'any man'."
,k85a_21:" Num. XXVII, 11. Since he is to inherit her, she thus remains in a sense his wife."
,k85a_22:" V. Kid. 2a."
,k85a_23:" Deut. XXIV, 2. "
}

txt:
<p>
, both sides agree that [the Get is still] valid. As for the Mishnah which says. IF HE HAS WRITTEN IT, and which we have explained as referring to 'except', so that 'on condition' would not invalidate [the Get], if you like I can say that it is assuming it [to be inserted] before the substantive part [has been written], so that it concurs with the Rabbis, or if you like I can say that it is assuming it [to be inserted] after the substantive part [has been written], so that it concurs with both authorities. Raba, however, said that they [Rabbi and the Rabbis] disagree in the case where [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part has been written, Rabbi holding that we disallow the insertion in this case in virtue of having disallowed it before the substantive part [has been written], while the Rabbis considered that we need not disallow one in virtue of the other; but if [it is inserted] before the writing of the substantive part, both sides agree that [the Get is] invalid. As for the Mishnah which says. IF HE HAS WRITTEN IT. and which we have explained as referring to 'except', so that 'on condition' would not invalidate [the Get], it is assuming it to be inserted after [the writing] of the substantive part, and it follows the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	The father of R. Abin recited before R. Zera: 'If he wrote the Get with [the insertion of] a condition, the unanimous ruling is that it is invalid,' [He said to him:] The unanimous ruling is that it is invalid? [How can this be] seeing that there is a dispute on the subject? What you must say is, The unanimous ruling is that it is valid. And in what circumstances? If the words are inserted after the writing of the substantive part. Why did not R. Zera say to him, [Say,] This is invalid, [the ruling then being] according to Rabbi? &mdash; [R. Zera reasoned] that the tanna<a id="k85a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; had been taught to say 'The unanimous ruling is', and that he might confuse 'valid' and 'invalid', but that he would not confuse 'this is' with 'the unanimous ruling is'.<a id="k85a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF HE SAID,] YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANY MAN BUT MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY BROTHER AND YOUR BROTHER, A SLAVE. A HEATHEN, OR ANYONE TO WHOM SHE IS INCAPABLE OF BEING BETROTHED, THE GET IS VALID.<a id="k85a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE SAYS.] YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANYONE BUT A HIGH PRIEST (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A WIDOW) OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A DIVORCEE OR A <I>HALUZAH</I>),<a id="k85a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AN ORDINARY PRIEST, OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH),<a id="k85a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; A LAY ISRAELITE, OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS OF ISRAELITISH BIRTH). A BASTARD OR A NATHIN, OR ANYONE WHO IS CAPABLE OF BETROTHING HER ALBEIT IN TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW,<a id="k85a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; THE GET IS INVALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The general statement in the first clause brings under the rule all other persons who become liable to <i>kareth</i><a id="k85a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [by having intercourse with her]; the general statement in the second clause brings under the rule all other persons who are forbidden [to marry her] only in virtue of a negative command,<a id="k85a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; (such as, for instance, an Ammonite, a Moabite,<a id="k85a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; a Nathin, an Egyptian and an Edomite).<a id="k85a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba inquired of R. Nahman: [If he says, you may marry anyone] except [that you may not] be betrothed to a minor, what is the law?<a id="k85a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Do we emphasise the fact that at the present at any rate he is not capable of betrothing her<a id="k85a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; or rather the fact that he will one day be capable? &mdash; He replied: [We have a teaching:] 'A girl under age can be divorced [after her father's death] even though her betrothal was contracted by her father.'<a id="k85a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Now why should this be, seeing that we require that her separation should be on the same footing as her union?<a id="k85a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason must be, because she will one day be capable of betrothal; so here we say that he will one day be capable of betrothal.<a id="k85a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Suppose he says, You may marry anyone] except those still to be born, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that as yet at any rate they are not born, or on the fact that one day they will be born? &mdash; He replied: We have the answer in our Mishnah: [IF HE SAID, ANY MAN BUT] A SLAVE, A HEATHEN, [IT IS VALID]. Now if we suppose [that this constitutes a reservation in the Get], then [the excepting of] a slave and a heathen also [should constitute a reservation in the Get], since it is possible for them to become proselytes? &mdash; [To this Raba rejoined:] Those are not bound to become proselytes in the ordinary course of things, these will be born in the ordinary course of things.
</p><p>
	[If he said she may marry anyone] except the husband of her sister, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that now at any rate she is not eligible for him, or rather perhaps on the fact that possibly her sister will die and she will become eligible for him? &mdash; He replied: We have [the answer] in our Mishnah: [ANY MAN BUT] A SLAVE, A HEATHEN. Now [the excepting] of a slave and heathen also [should constitute a reservation] since they can become proselytes? &mdash; [He rejoined]: Conversion is not a usual occurrence, death is.
</p><p>
	[If he said, you may marry] excepting you commit fornication, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or on the fact that he did leave a reservation in the sphere of intercourse? &mdash; He replied: We have [the answer] in our Mishnah: [ANY MAN BUT] MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER. Now to what [does the exception apply]? Shall I say to marriage? But are his father and her father capable of marrying her? It must be then to fornication, and when he excepts his father and her father this is no reservation,<a id="k85a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; which shows that when he excepts anyone else, it is counted as a reservation? &mdash; [He rejoined:] perhaps the exception refers after all to marriage, since he may transgress the law and marry her.
</p><p>
	[If he says], Excepting unnatural intercourse, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he made no reservation in the sphere of natural intercourse, or on the fact that the text says, as with a woman?<a id="k85a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [If he says], Except [that I reserve to myself] the right of annulling your vows, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or rather perhaps on the text, her husband may establish it or her husband may make it void?<a id="k85a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [If he says], Except that you may not eat <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k85a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or on the fact that it is written the purchase of his money [shall eat of it]?<a id="k85a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Suppose he said, Excepting that I shall inherit you, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage or that the text says, to his kinsman and he shall inherit it?<a id="k85a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [If he says,] Except for your being betrothed by a document, what is the law? Do we say that it is possible for one to betroth her by a money present or by intercourse,<a id="k85a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; or rather perhaps do we go by the text and she shall depart and marry,<a id="k85a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; which indicates that all kinds of marrying are on the same footing? &mdash; These questions are left undecided.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE ESSENCE OF THE GET IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANY MAN.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k85b_1:" Because she is already free."
,k85b_2:" Because not having been emancipated as far as work is concerned, she cannot marry an Israelite."
,k85b_3:" [Or Hozae, the modern Khuzistan, S.W. Persia. V. Kid. 6b.]"
,k85b_4:" <i>Supra</i> 43b, q.v."
,k85b_5:" Which shows that these words confer emancipation."
,k85b_6:" Heb. 'yadayim', 'hands'."
,k85b_7:" Lit., 'hands which do not prove are still counted hands', v. Kid. 5b."
,k85b_8:" We-den, 'and this'."
,k85b_9:" Iggereth, 'a letter'."
,k85b_10:" In place of li-mehak [H] 'to go'. [In other words, Abaye rules out the matres lectionis in these three words, in view of the ambiguity they may give rise to.]"
,k85b_11:" [The [H] and [H] are interchangeable letters in Semitic languages.]"
,k85b_12:" Di-tehewjen, di-tezbijen, 'that you may marry', 'whom you please'."
,k85b_13:" Third pers. plur. fem."
,k85b_14:" Terukin, 'release',"
,k85b_15:" Shebukin, 'divorce',"
,k85b_16:" So as not to look like a yod."
,k85b_17:" I.e., not an abstract noun but a participle passive."
,k85b_18:" Kedu, 'accordingly'."
,k85b_19:" Le-hithnasseba, 'to be married',"
,k85b_20:" <i>Supra</i> 72a. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. JUDAH SAYS: [HE MUST ADD,] AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE AND A BILL OF DISMISSAL. WHEREWITH YOU MAY GO AND MARRY ANY MAN THAT YOU PLEASE. THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. There is no question that if a man says to his wife, Behold you are hereby a free woman, his words are of no effect,<a id="k85b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he says to his bondwoman, Behold you are hereby permitted to any man, his words are of no effect.<a id="k85b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If he said to his wife, Behold you belong to yourself, what are we to say? Does he mean, you belong to yourself entirely, or only as far as your work is concerned? &mdash; Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: Since we have learnt: THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF. Now seeing that a slave whose body belongs [to his master] becomes his own owner when he says to him, Behold you belong to yourself, how much more so with a wife whose body does not belong to him?
</p><p>
	Rabina asked R. Ashi: If a man said to his slave, I have no concern with you, what [are we to say]? &mdash; R. Hanin said to R. Ashi, or, according to another report, R. Hanin of Huzna'ah<a id="k85b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; said to R. Ashi: Come and hear, as it has been taught:<a id="k85b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man sells his slave to a heathen, he thereby becomes emancipated, but he requires a deed of emancipation from his first master. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: This is the case only if he did not write out an oni for him, but if he wrote out an oni for him, this is his deed of emancipation. What is an oni? &mdash; R. Shesheth said: If he gave him a written statement saying. If you escape from him, I have no concern with you.<a id="k85b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	RABBI JUDAH SAYS. [HE MUST ADD], AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE. What is the ground of the difference [between the Rabbis and R. Judah]? &mdash; The Rabbis held that an indication<a id="k85b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; which is not definite can still count as an indication,<a id="k85b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and so though he did not insert the words 'and this', the circumstances show that he was divorcing her with this Get. R, Judah on the other hand held that an indication not definite does not count as an indication, and the reason why the Get is valid is because he has inserted the words 'and this', which show that he was divorcing her with this Get, but if he did not insert these words, people will say that he divorced her by word of mouth, and the document is merely a corroboration.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: The one who writes out the Get should not spell [H] which might be read we-din [and it is just], but [H].<a id="k85b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He should not spell [H] which might be read igarath [a roof], but [H].<a id="k85b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He should not write [H]<a id="k85b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which might be read li-mehak [to me from this], nor should he spell [H]<a id="k85b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; which might be understood 'as a joke'. The words and [H] and [H]<a id="k85b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; should have each three yods [at the end], as two might be read di-tehewjan<a id="k85b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [that they may be] and de-tezibjan<a id="k85b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [whom they may like]. The <i>waw</i> of the words [H]<a id="k85b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and [H]<a id="k85b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; should be lengthened<a id="k85b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; as otherwise the words might be read terikin [those who are divorced] and shebikin [those that are released].<a id="k85b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; The <i>waw</i> of [H]<a id="k85b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; should also be lengthened so as not to read [H] which means 'in vain'. He should not write [H] which might be read la-yithnesseba [she shall not be married], but [H].<a id="k85b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: Are the words 'and this' required or not? &mdash; Come and hear: Raba laid down the formula of the Get thus: '[We are witnesses] how So-and-so son of So-and-so dismissed and divorced his wife from this day and for all time'. We see that he does not mention 'and this'. But if we are to go by this, we might ask, did he mention all the rest of the Get? Nevertheless we require the rest, and so we require [this also].
</p><p>
	The words 'from this day' are to rule out the view of R. Jose who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.<a id="k85b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; The words 'for all time',
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k86a_1:" <i>Supra</i> 83b."
,k86a_2:" As an offender against the law, v. B.M. 80a."
,k86a_3:" So Rashi; others; four years. Jastrow, however, translates 'any boil, even up to a white spot'."
,k86a_4:" R. Eleazar holding that the witnesses to delivery make the Get effective. V. <i>supra</i> 17b."
,k86a_5:" Lit., 'for the good order of the world', In case the witnesses die and the husband challenges the validity of the Get."
,k86a_6:" Bills of divorce which are invalid without however rendering the offspring of the subsequent marriage illegitimate."
,k86a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> 79b."
,k86a_8:" V. the discussion <i>infra</i>."
,k86a_9:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k86a_10:" V. <i>supra</i> 81b."
,k86a_11:" The words in brackets are omitted in some texts, but they seem to be requisite for the argument."
,k86a_12:" V. <i>supra</i> 81b."
,k86a_13:" Lit., 'the rule regarding the peace of the government'. V. <i>supra</i> 79b."
,k86a_14:" The words in brackets are omitted in some texts, and appear to be superfluous."
,k86a_15:" The Mishnah adopting the view of R. Meir that in these cases the child is a bastard."
,k86a_16:" The Mishnah here too adopting the view of R. Meir."
,k86a_17:" Although the Get is up to this point ineffective."
,k86a_18:" V. <i>supra</i>. 5b."
,k86a_19:" I.e., to the case where there are no witnesses."
,k86a_20:" Where there is no date."
,k86a_21:" Whether he wrote it with his own hand or not. "
}

txt:
<p>
are to rule out the formula about which Raba questioned R. Nahman, viz., if he said, 'To-day you are not my wife but to-morrow you will be my wife'.<a id="k86a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF. Rab Judah laid down the following formula for the deed of sale of a slave: 'This slave is legally adjudicated to bondage, and is absolved and dissociated from all freedom and claims and demands of the King and the Queen,<a id="k86a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and there is no mark of any [other] man upon him, and he is clear of all blemishes and from any boil that may come out within two years,<a id="k86a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; whether new or old.' What is the remedy for such a boil? &mdash; Abaye said: [A mixture of] ginger and silver dross and sulphur and vinegar of wine and olive oil and white naphtha laid on with a goose's quill.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE FOLLOWING THREE BILLS OF DIVORCE ARE INVALID BUT IF A WOMAN MARRIES ON THE STRENGTH OF THEM THE CHILD [BORN OF SUCH MARRIAGE] IS LEGITIMATE: [ONE.] IF THE HUSBAND WROTE IT WITH HIS OWN HAND BUT IT WAS ATTESTED BY NO WITNESSES; [A SECOND]. IF THERE ARE WITNESSES TO IT BUT NO DATE; [A THIRD,] IF IT HAS A DATE BUT THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE WITNESS. THESE THREE BILLS OF DIVORCE ARE INVALID, BUT IF SHE MARRIES THE CHILD IS LEGITIMATE. R. ELEAZAR, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT ATTESTED BY WITNESSES AT ALL, SO LONG AS HE GAVE IT TO HER IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES IT IS VALID,<a id="k86a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ON THE STRENGTH OF IT SHE MAY RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY, SINCE SIGNATURES OF WITNESSES ARE REQUIRED ON THE GET ONLY AS A SAFEGUARD.<a id="k86a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Are these all?<a id="k86a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Is there not also the 'old' Get?<a id="k86a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; With an 'old' Get she need not part [from her second husband], with one of these she must. This is a good answer for one who holds that with one of these she must part, but to one who holds that she need not part,<a id="k86a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; what can we reply? &mdash; With an 'old' Get her marriage is permitted in the first instance,<a id="k86a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; with one of these only retrospectively. But there is a 'bald' Get?<a id="k86a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; With such a Get the child born is a bastard, but here the child is legitimate. This answer is satisfactory if we adopt the view of R. Meir, (who said that wherever any alteration is made in the form prescribed by the Sages for bills of divorce, the child is a bastard).<a id="k86a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but if we accept the view of the Rabbis what reply can be made? &mdash; With a 'bald' Get she must part [from the second husband], here she need not. This is a satisfactory answer if we accept the view that here she need not part, but if we adopt the view that here also she must part, what reply can be given? &mdash; The Mishnah is not dealing with a folded Get.<a id="k86a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But there is the Get with an improper reign inserted?<a id="k86a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There she must leave the husband, here she need not leave him. This is a good enough reason for one who holds that here she need not part, but to one who holds that she must part what answer can be made? &mdash; (There the child is a bastard, here the child is legitimate. This accords well enough with the view of R. Meir, but if we adopt the view of the Rabbis what can be said?).<a id="k86a_14"><sup>14</sup></a> &mdash; We must suppose that the Mishnah follows R. Meir, so that there the child is a bastard but here it is legitimate.
</p><p>
	[Which kinds of Get] are excluded by the specific number mentioned at the beginning of the ruling, and which by the specific number mentioned at the end? &mdash; The first number excludes those we have mentioned.<a id="k86a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The second number excludes the one regarding which it has been taught: 'If a man brings a Get from abroad and gives it to the wife without saying, In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'. [the second husband] must put her away and the child is a bastard. This is the opinion of R. Meir.<a id="k86a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; The Sages, however, say that the child is not a bastard.<a id="k86a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; What should the man do? He should take it from her and give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and say, In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.<a id="k86a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE HUSBAND WROTE WITH HIS OWN HAND BUT IT WAS ATTESTED BY NO WITNESSES. Rab said: It is definitely stated here, WITH HIS OWN HAND. To what [was Rab referring]? Shall I say to the first clause of the ruling?<a id="k86a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Then what has he told us? It says distinctly, WITH HIS OWN HAND? [Shall I say] to the middle clause?<a id="k86a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [In this case it can hardly matter],<a id="k86a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; since it is attested by witnesses? &mdash; He must refer then to the last clause, IF IT HAS A DATE BUT THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE WITNESS.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k86b_1:" V. <i>supra</i> 66b."
,k86b_2:" And so we suppose that the scribe not only wrote but also signed."
,k86b_3:" If he wrote himself, and therefore if the scribe wrote without signing, the child is not legitimate."
,k86b_4:" Even if we assume in each case that the scribe wrote without signing."
,k86b_5:" And knows that he is not to write save on definite instruction from the husband. V. <i>supra</i>. 71b-72a."
,k86b_6:" And he might have written on the instruction of a third party, in which case the Get is invalid. V. <i>supra</i> ibid."
,k86b_7:" R. Eleazar thought he referred to the middle clause."
,k86b_8:" So as not to cast a slur on the children."
,k86b_9:" Women within the fifteen forbidden degrees of consanguinity to the deceased husband's brother, v. Yeb. 30b and <i>supra</i> p. 383. n. 5."
,k86b_10:" Because the divorce is regarded as valid."
,k86b_11:" I.e., the co-wife of one of those women of forbidden degrees of consanguinity who was divorced with such a Get."
,k86b_12:" Since she is no longer regarded as a co-wife of a woman forbidden to the brother-in-law."
,k86b_13:" Biblically the Get is valid,"
,k86b_14:" [Read with <i>var. lec</i>. Haifa.]"
,k86b_15:" By drinking from it; v. Num. XIX. For explanation, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k86b_16:" [So Rashi. It is not clear what species of insect is referred to; v. Lewysohn, Zoologie p. 315.]"
,k86b_17:" Whereas others let some drip back from their beaks, and so spoil the water."
,k86b_18:" That the witnesses to delivery render them effective."
,k86b_19:" Which would seem to show that the rule applies to commercial documents also."
,k86b_20:" And does not disqualify the woman from marrying a priest on her husband's death, much less does it enable her to marry again."
,k86b_21:" Rab."
,k86b_22:" R. Hisda being one of them."
,k86b_23:" The Amora of that name."
,k86b_24:" Since we do not know for which it was meant."
,k86b_25:" [G], V. <i>infra</i> in the Gemara."
,k86b_26:" Lit., 'with which the witnesses are read'."
,k86b_27:" That the matter may be rectified by giving both documents to each woman."
,k86b_28:" I.e., the delivery by the bearer to the woman."
,k86b_29:" [Once the Get has been written in the name of the woman there is no need for such a special intention to accompany the delivery of the Get.] "
}

txt:
<p>
[Rab tells us that in this case the child is legitimate only] if [the Get is] written with his own hand, but if the scribe has written it and there is only one witness, the child is not [legitimate]. Samuel, however, said that even if the scribe had written it and there was [the signature of only] one witness, [the child is] legitimate, since we have learnt, If the scribe wrote and there was the signature of a witness, the Get is valid.<a id="k86b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rab? &mdash; [He might rejoin:] Is there any comparison? There her marriage is permitted in the first instance,<a id="k86b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but here only retrospectively.<a id="k86b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And Samuel? &mdash; [He can rejoin:] There is no difficulty;<a id="k86b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; there we assume that the scribe is fully competent,<a id="k86b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; here that he is not so competent.<a id="k86b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; So too R. Johanan said: The Mishnah definitely stated, WITH HIS OWN HAND. Said R. Eleazar to him, But it is attested by the signature of witnesses?<a id="k86b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: [I refer] to the last clause.
</p><p>
	Rab sometimes ruled [in such cases] that [the woman] should leave [the second husband] and sometimes that she need not leave him. How was this? If she had children [he ruled that] she need not leave,<a id="k86b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; if she had no children she must leave. Mar Zutra b. Tobia raised an objection [from the following]: 'If any of these<a id="k86b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; had been doubtfully betrothed or doubtfully divorced, they must give <i>halizah</i> but cannot marry the brother-in-law'. What is meant by 'doubtfully' betrothed? If, for instance, he had thrown to her the betrothal token, and it was doubtful whether it landed nearer to him or nearer to her, this is a doubtful betrothal. A doubtful divorce is where he wrote [the Get] with his own hand but it was not attested with the signature of witnesses, or if it was attested but had no date, or if it had a date but the signature of only one witness; this is a doubtful divorce. Now if you say that [a woman so divorced] should not leave [her second husband],<a id="k86b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; then her co-wife<a id="k86b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; on the strength of such a one might come to marry the brother-in-law?<a id="k86b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [He replied]: Let her marry him; it is of no consequence, since the only danger is of breaking a rule of the Rabbis.<a id="k86b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Levi said: In neither case need she leave [the second husband]. So too said R. Johanan: In neither case need she leave the second husband. So too R. Johanan said to the sons of R. Halafta of Huna:<a id="k86b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus said your father, In neither case need she leave, and the karzith in the stacked corn does not spoil the water of purification.<a id="k86b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; What is a karzith? &mdash; Abaye explained: The large fly found among the stacks,<a id="k86b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Daniel the son of R. Kattina raised an objection against this [from the following]: 'All birds spoil the water of purification [by drinking of it] except the pigeon, because it swallows the water completely.'<a id="k86b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if what has been said is correct, it should say, 'except the pigeon and the karzith?' &mdash; The authority could not speak definitely, as the big one does not spoil but the small one does spoil. Up to what size [is it reckoned small]? &mdash; R. Jeremiah (or it may have been R. Ammi) said, Up to the size of an olive.
</p><p>
	R. ELEAZAR SAYS THAT EVEN THOUGH etc. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce.<a id="k86b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; When [he continued] I stated this in the presence of Samuel, he said, In the matter of [commercial] documents also. Rab however, said, Not in the matter of documents. But it is stated [in the Mishnah]: SHE MAY RECOVER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY?<a id="k86b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Eleazar gave two rulings. and Rab concurred with him in one but differed from him in regard to the other. So too R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in bills of divorce. R. Jannai, however, said that such a document has not even a tincture of a Get in it.<a id="k86b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not R. Jannai accept the ruling of R. Eleazar? &mdash; What he meant was, According to the Rabbis, such a document has not even a tincture of a Get. So too R. Jose son of R. Haninah said in the name of Resh Lakish: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. R. Johanan, however, said that such a document has not even a tincture of a Get. Are we to say that R. Johanan does not accept the ruling of R. Eleazar? &mdash; What he meant was, According to the Rabbis such a document has not even the tincture of a Get.
</p><p>
	R. Abba b. Zabda sent to Mari b. Mar saying, Inquire of R. Huna whether the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce or not. Before he could do so, R. Huna died, but Rabbah his son said to him, Thus said my father in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. Moreover our teachers who are well versed in the <i>halachah</i> said in the name of our Master,<a id="k86b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce, since R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rab, The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. According to another version: And our Colleagues<a id="k86b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; that are well versed in the <i>halachah</i> and the disciples of our Teacher [Rab] said that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. For R. Hisda said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria in the name of Rab that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. So too when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said, R. Eleazar<a id="k86b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; says that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF TWO MEN SENT [TO THEIR WIVES] TWO BILLS OF DIVORCE WITH THE SAME NAMES AND THEY BECAME MIXED UP [THE BEARER] MUST GIVE BOTH OF THEM TO EACH OF THE WOMEN. CONSEQUENTLY, IF ONE OF THEM WAS LOST THE OTHER BECOMES VOID.<a id="k86b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; IF FIVE MEN WROTE JOINTLY IN THE SAME DOCUMENT, SO-AND-SO DIVORCES SO-AND-SO AND SO-AND-SO SO-AND-SO, AND IF THE WITNESSES DULY SIGNED BELOW, ALL ARE VALID AND THE GET IS TO BE GIVEN TO EACH OF THE WOMEN. IF THE SCRIBE WROTE OUT THE FORMULA<a id="k86b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR EACH ONE AND THE WITNESSES SIGNED BELOW, THE ONE TO WHICH THE SIGNATURES ARE ATTACHED<a id="k86b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; IS [ALONE] VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Who is the authority [for this rule]?<a id="k86b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jeremiah said: It is not R. Eleazar. For if we were to follow R. Eleazar, since he holds that it is the witnesses to delivery<a id="k86b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; that make [the Get] effective, [they could not do so in this case] since they do not know with which [Get] either of the women is divorced. Abaye said: It is possible to ascribe this ruling to R. Eleazar also, since I may say, Granting that R. Eleazar requires the Get to be written in the name of that particular woman, does he also require it to be given in the name of that particular woman?<a id="k86b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF FIVE WROTE JOINTLY etc, What is meant by JOINTLY and what is meant by FORMULA? &mdash; R. Johanan said: If there is one date for all it is a 'joint' [Get], if there is a separate date for each it is a formula [Get]. Resh Lakish, however, said
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k87a_1:" And only the last one is valid, because this separates all the others from the signatures."
,k87a_2:" In this case the signatures can apply to all."
,k87a_3:" And not to the Get itself, v, B. B. 176a."
,k87a_4:" Lit., 'they inquired (of his welfare)'."
,k87a_5:" Hence there is no separation."
,k87a_6:" As far as the upper names are concerned."
,k87a_7:" Which is invalid. V. <i>supra</i>, 17a. The questioner presumes that the various divorces bear different dates, with the result that all the divorces except the last have not been signed on the same day as written."
,k87a_8:" I.e., they are all written and signed on the same day."
,k87a_9:" <i>Supra</i> 42a. Here too the two slaves are emancipated with the one document; and it is a principle that the emancipation of slaves is regulated by the same laws as those of divorce.]"
,k87a_10:" Ibid."
,k87a_11:" In order to make it a 'formula' Get, with only the last one being valid."
,k87a_12:" With the formula 'we, So-and-so'."
,k87a_13:" Lit., 'Hebrew witnesses'."
,k87a_14:" Lit., 'Greek witnesses'."
,k87a_15:" All the signatures being under one another."
,k87a_16:" The Gemara discusses why the other is not also valid."
,k87a_17:" As neither has two names attached immediately beneath it."
,k87a_18:" I.e., supposing the signature is 'Reuben son of Jacob' and 'Reuben' comes under the first Get on the right and son of Jacob' under the second on the left. We can then suppose that we have two distinct signatures, one for each Get."
,k87a_19:" But of his son. "
}

txt:
<p>
: Even if there is one date for all it is still called a formula [Get],<a id="k87a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and a 'joint' [Get] is where he writes 'We, So-and-so and So-and-so have divorced our wives So-and-so and So-and-so'<a id="k87a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abba strongly demurred to this. If we accept the view of R. Johanan, he said, that a 'joint' [Get] is one where there is the same date for all, have we not to consider the possibility that when the witnesses sign they are attesting only the last? Has it not been taught: 'If witnesses subscribe to an expression of kind regards in a Get, [the Get] is invalid, since we apprehend that they may have attested the expression of kind regards'?<a id="k87a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Has it not been stated in connection with this: R. Abbahu said: It was explained to me by R. Johanan that if it is written 'they gave him greeting,'<a id="k87a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it is invalid, but if 'and they gave', it is valid? So here we suppose that what is written is, 'So-and-so and So-and-so and So-and-so'.<a id="k87a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, if we accept the view of R. Johanan that a 'formula' [Get] is one where there is a separate date for each, why [should it be invalidated]<a id="k87a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; as being a 'formula' [Get]? Why not rather as being one which is 'written by day and signed by night'?<a id="k87a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: We state as follows in the name of R. Johanan, that [this rule applies] where it is written with each one, On the first day of the week, on the first day of the week.<a id="k87a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina said to R. Ashi: On the view of Resh Lakish &mdash; that a 'formula' [Get] is also one in which there is one date for all, and that a 'joint' [Get] is one in which it is written thus: 'We, So-and-so and So-and-so have divorced our wives So-and-so and So-and-so, it follows that two women would be divorced with the same Get, and the Torah has laid down that he must write 'for her', [which implies, for her] and not for her and her neighbour? &mdash; [We must suppose] that he further writes, So-and-so divorced So-and-so and So-and-so divorced So-and-so. Rabina thereupon said to R. Ashi: How does this differ from the case regarding which it has been taught: 'If a man makes over all his property in writing to two of his slaves, they acquire possession and emancipate one another'?<a id="k87a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [He replied]: Have we not explained this to apply only where he writes two deeds.<a id="k87a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan and it has been taught in agreement with Resh Lakish. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: 'If five men wrote in the same Get, So-and-so divorces So-and-so and So-and-so So-and-so and So-and-so So-and-so, and one date [is written] for all of them and the witnesses are subscribed below, all are valid and the document must be given to each woman. If there is a [separate] date for each one and the witnesses are subscribed at the bottom, the one to which the signatures are attached is [alone] valid. R. Judah b. Bathyra says that if there is a space between them it is invalid but if not it is valid, since the date does not constitute a division'. It has been taught in agreement with Resh Lakish: 'If five persons wrote jointly in the same Get, We, So-and-so and So-and-so have divorced our wives So-and-so and So-and-so, So-and-so divorcing So-and-so and So-and-so divorcing So-and-so, and there is one date for all and the witnesses are signed below, all are valid and the document must be given to each one. If there is a [separate] date for each one or space between one and another and the witnesses are signed at the bottom, the one to which the signatures are attached is valid. R. Meir says that even if there is no space between them it is invalid since the date makes a division,' But on the view of Resh Lakish why is it required here that there be a [separate] date for each one,<a id="k87a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; seeing that he has said that even if there is one date for all it is still a 'formula' [Get]? &mdash; That is the case only where they were not lumped together at the beginning,<a id="k87a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but here where they were lumped together at the beginning, if the various parts are separated by dates, there is a division, but otherwise not.
</p><p>
	MISHNAH, IF TWO BILLS OF DIVORCE ARE WRITTEN [ON THE SAME SHEET] SIDE BY SIDE AND THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES IN HEBREW<a id="k87a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; RUN FROM UNDER ONE TO UNDER THE OTHER AND THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES IN GREEK<a id="k87a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; RUN FROM UNDER ONE TO UNDER THE OTHER,<a id="k87a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; THE ONE TO WHICH THE TWO FIRST SIGNATURES ARE ATTACHED IS [ALONE] VALID.<a id="k87a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THERE IS ONE SIGNATURE IN HEBREW AND ONE IN GREEK AND THEN AGAIN ONE IN HEBREW AND ONE IN GREEK RUNNING FROM UNDER ONE [GET] TO UNDER THE OTHER,<a id="k87a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; BOTH ARE INVALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why should not one be rendered valid by the signature Reuben [under it] and the other by the signature 'son of Jacob witness'<a id="k87a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [under it] seeing that we have learnt, 'The signature "son of So-and-so, witness" [renders a document] valid'? &mdash; We suppose that he writes 'Reuben son of' under the first Get and 'Jacob witness' under the second. But cannot the first be rendered valid by 'Reuben son of' and the second by 'Jacob witness', since we have learnt, 'The subscription, "So-and-so witness" [renders the document] valid'? &mdash; We suppose he did not add 'witness'. Or alternatively I may say that he does add 'witness', but we know that this is not the signature of Jacob.<a id="k87a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k87b_1:" As special signature for the left hand text."
,k87b_2:" V. <i>supra</i> 36a."
,k87b_3:" Rashi says that a 'Greek' signature means one in which the name of the father comes before the name of the son, but it is more natural to suppose that it means simply one written in the Greek way, i.e., from left to right, so that the substantive signature would come under the left-hand Get and he separated from it by two lines containing the names of the fathers of the Hebrew signatories."
,k87b_4:" Since the signatures to the first would come partly under this Get. V. previous note."
,k87b_5:" Between the text and the signatures."
,k87b_6:" Who are not eligible as witnesses."
,k87b_7:" I.e., that they may have written from right to left, so as to correspond with the Hebrew signatures."
,k87b_8:" One of the witnesses either Greek or Hebrew might have, under the influence of the preceding signatures, signed in a reverse manner respectively either to the left or to the right, with the result that three of the signatures belong to one document only."
,k87b_9:" I.e., the next column of the roll."
,k87b_10:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k87b_11:" Because the signatures do not follow immediately on either document."
,k87b_12:" I.e., without turning the document upside down."
,k87b_13:" [H] v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 131, n. 2."
,k87b_14:" I.e., to sign only 'So-and-so son of So-and-so'. According to another reading, this sentence is placed after the next, and the custom referred to will then be that of writing the family name. V. Tosaf. 88a s.v. [H]."
,k87b_15:" Or any other descriptive name instead of his father and her father."
,k87b_16:" I.e., the bottom of the first sheet and the top of the second, taking care that the text shall still be continuous."
,k87b_17:" Which shows that it has not been cut off."
,k87b_18:" By 'date' we must understand all that part which is already found on the first sheet. "
}

txt:
<p>
But perhaps he signed the name of his father? &mdash; A man would not omit his own name and sign the name of his father. But perhaps he uses it as a mark?<a id="k87b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Did not Rab [for his signature] draw a fish, R. Hanina a palm branch, R. Hisda a samek, R. Hoshaya an ayin, and Rabbah son of R. Hanah a mast?<a id="k87b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A man would not take the liberty of using his father's name as a mark. But cannot the one Get be rendered valid by two Hebrew signatures and the other by two Greek signatures,<a id="k87b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; since we have learnt, 'A Get written in Hebrew and signed in Greek or written in Greek and signed in Hebrew is valid'? And should you object that since [the second Get] is separated [from its signatures] by two lines<a id="k87b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not valid, has not Hezekiah said: If he filled up the space<a id="k87b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [with the signatures of] relatives,<a id="k87b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it is still valid? &mdash; Ze'iri has in fact taught that both of them are valid. What then [is the reason of] our Tanna? &mdash; [He thinks perhaps] the [Greek] signatures are reversed,<a id="k87b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; so that all are subscribed to the one Get.
</p><p>
	ONE SIGNATURE IN HEBREW AND ONE IN GREEK. But cannot one Get be rendered valid by one Hebrew signature and one Greek and the other also by one Hebrew signature and one Greek, since we have learnt that if there is one Hebrew signature and one Greek the document is valid? &mdash; Ze'iri has in fact taught that both are valid. What then [is the reason of] our Tanna? &mdash; He thinks that perhaps one of the signatures is reversed,<a id="k87b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; so that there are three signatures to one Get and only one to the other.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF SOME OF THE GET WAS LEFT OVER [FROM THE FIRST SHEET] AND IS WRITTEN ON THE NEXT SHEET<a id="k87b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE WITNESSES [SIGN] BELOW, [THE GET IS] VALID. IF THE WITNESSES HAVE SIGNED AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET OR AT THE SIDE OR ON THE BACK OF AN UNFOLDED GET,<a id="k87b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS INVALID. IF THE TOP OF ONE GET IS FASTENED TO THE TOP OF ANOTHER AND THE WITNESSES' SIGNATURES ARE BETWEEN THE TWO, BOTH OF THEM ARE INVALID.<a id="k87b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE TWO ARE ATTACHED END TO END AND THE WITNESSES' SIGNATURES ARE BETWEEN, THE ONE ON WHICH THE WITNESSES SIGNATURES FOLLOW DIRECTLY<a id="k87b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; IS VALID. IF THE TOP OF ONE IS ATTACHED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE OTHER AND THE WITNESSES SIGNATURES ARE IN THE MIDDLE, THE ONE IN WHICH THE SIGNATURES COME AT THE END IS VALID. A GET OF WHICH THE TEXT IS IN HEBREW AND THE SIGNATURES IN GREEK, OR THE TEXT IN GREEK AND THE SIGNATURES IN HEBREW, OR WHICH HAS ONE HEBREW SIGNATURE AND ONE GREEK, OR WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY A SCRIBE AND SIGNED BY ONE WITNESS, IS VALID. IF A MAN SIGNS, 'SO-AND SO, WITNESS,' IT IS VALID. IF HE SIGNS, 'SON OF SO-AND-SO, WITNESS, IT IS VALID, IF HE SIGNS, 'SO-AND-SO SON OF SO-AND-SO WITHOUT ADDING 'WITNESS', IT IS VALID. THIS WAS THE CUSTOM OF THE MORE ELEGANT CIRCLES<a id="k87b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; IN JERUSALEM.<a id="k87b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE WROTE HIS OWN FAMILY NAME AND HERS,<a id="k87b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; THE GET IS VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [IF SOME OF THE GET IS WRITTEN ON THE NEXT SHEET.] But is there not a danger that these were originally two distinct bills, and he has kept the date of the first and the witnesses of the last and cut off the date of the second and the signatures of the first?<a id="k87b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Abba said in the name of Rab: We suppose there is a space at the bottom.<a id="k87b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But is there not a danger that he has cut off the date of the second?<a id="k87b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As R. Abba in the name of Rab answered in the previous instance, that we suppose there is a space at the bottom,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k88a_1:" In which case it is as if he annulled the first part so rendering the Get invalid, v. <i>supra</i>, 32b. But v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k88a_2:" That he would break off in the middle of a sentence."
,k88a_3:" That it has not been cut."
,k88a_4:" [Because then it cannot be the signature of another document at right angles to the first, whereas our Mishnah speaks of a case where the foot of the signature is towards the text which may indicate that it belongs to another document which has been removed.]"
,k88a_5:" Presuming that, the signatures are written parallel to the text."
,k88a_6:" And therefore there is no sure clue to which they belong."
,k88a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> 66b."
,k88a_8:" For notes v. <i>supra</i> 66b, 71b."
,k88a_9:" With the witness."
,k88a_10:" Deut. IV, 25. As much as to say, beyond three generations it is reckoned as antiquated."
,k88a_11:" Ahab is made responsible rather than Omri as being more prominent."
,k88a_12:" Shallum, Zechariah and Zimri are not reckoned as they reigned less than a year."
,k88a_13:" Jer. XV, 9."
,k88a_14:" ['When thou shalt beget' indicating one generation, and 'children', 'children's' and 'children' two each, (Tosaf.)]."
,k88a_15:" II Kings XVII, 2."
,k88a_16:" Ibid. 4."
,k88a_17:" V. B.B. 121b, Ta'an. 28a."
,k88a_18:" Dan. IX, 14."
,k88a_19:" II Kings XXIV, 16. The Rabbis take this to refer to the men of learning."
,k88a_20:" In Deut. IV, 25. The numerical value of the letters of this word is 852. For the sake of these two years, the curse of 'Ye shall soon utterly perish' (Ibid. 26) was not fulfilled in them. "
}

txt:
<p>
so here we suppose that there is a space at the top. But perhaps he changed his mind [before completing it] and then after all wrote [the rest subsequently]?<a id="k88a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We suppose that 'You are hereby' comes at the end of one sheet and 'permitted' at the top of the next. But perhaps he just happened [to change his mind at that point]? &mdash; Such a possibility<a id="k88a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; we do not apprehend. R. Ashi said: We assume that we can tell from the bottom of the roll.<a id="k88a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF THE WITNESSES HAVE SIGNED AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET etc. Is that so? Did not Rab sign at the side? &mdash; It is all right if the top of the signature is towards the text.<a id="k88a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; In that case why does it state IF THE TOP OF ONE IS FASTENED TO THE TOP OF THE OTHER AND THE SIGNATURES ARE BETWEEN, BOTH OF THEM ARE INVALID? Cannot we see which signature is turned towards the text,<a id="k88a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and declare that Get valid? We suppose there that the signatures run from one to the other like a cross bar.<a id="k88a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Then what about the next clause: IF THE TOP OF ONE IS ATTACHED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE OTHER AND THE WITNESSES' SIGNATURES ARE IN THE MIDDLE, THE ONE IN WHICH THE SIGNATURES COME AT THE END IS VALID? If they run from one to the other like a bar, they are read neither with one nor with the other? &mdash; The fact is that Rab only signed thus on letters.<a id="k88a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A GET OF WHICH THE TEXT IS IN HEBREW AND THE SIGNATURES IN GREEK&nbsp;&hellip; OR WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY A SCRIBE AND SIGNED BY ONE WITNESS IS VALID. R. Jeremiah said: What we have learnt [in explanation of this] is, if the scribe signed.<a id="k88a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: Who is the authority for this ruling? R. Jose. A certain marriage <i>kethubah</i> was brought before R. Abbahu in which the handwriting of the text and the signature of one witness could be identified. He thought of declaring it valid, but R. Jeremiah said to him, What we have learnt is that the scribe signed.<a id="k88a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE WROTE HIS FAMILY NAME AND HER FAMILY NAME, IT IS VALID. Our Rabbis taught: The family name of ancestors allowed in bills of divorce is one which has been in use at any time in the past ten generations. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If it has been in use within three generations, it is valid, but if only beyond that, [the Get is] invalid. Whose authority is followed in the dictum of R. Hanina: 'An ancestral family name which has been in use within three generations may be inserted in bills of divorce'? &mdash; The authority of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. R. Huna said: Where do we find this in the Scripture? [In the verse], When thou shalt beget children and children's children, and ye shall have been long in the land.<a id="k88a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: The land of Israel was not laid waste until seven Courts of Justice had sanctioned idolatry, namely, [those of] Jeroboam son of Nebat, Baasha son of Ahiah, Ahab son of Omri,<a id="k88a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Jehu son of Nimshi, Pekah son of Remaliah,<a id="k88a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Menahem son of Gadi, and Hoshea son of Elah, as it says, She that hath borne seven languisheth, she hath given up the ghost, her sun is gone down while it was yet day, she hath been ashamed and confounded.<a id="k88a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ammi said: Where is this intimated in the Torah? &mdash; [In the verse], When thou shalt beget children and children's children.<a id="k88a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab: It is written of Hoshea son of Elah: And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord yet not as the kings of Israel,<a id="k88a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also written, Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria<a id="k88a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; etc.? &mdash; He replied to them: Jeroboam had stationed guards on the roads<a id="k88a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; to prevent the Israelites from going up [to Jerusalem] for the festivals, and Hoshea disbanded them, and for all that the Israelites did not go up to the festivals. Thereupon God decreed that for those years during which the Israelites had not gone up to the festival they should go a corresponding number into captivity.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said in the name of Mar 'Ukba, or, according to others, R. Hisda said in the name of R. Jeremiah: Meremar discoursed as follows. What is the point of the words, Therefore hath the Lord watched over the evil and brought it upon us: for the Lord our God is zaddick [righteous].<a id="k88a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Because the Lord is righteous, does He therefore watch over the evil and bring it upon us? The truth is that God did a kindness [<i>zedakah</i>] with Israel by driving forth the captivity of Zedekiah while the captivity of Jeconiah was still intact &mdash; For it is written of the captivity of Jeconiah, And the harash [craftsmen] and the masger [smiths] a thousand.<a id="k88a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [They were called] harash [dumb] because when they opened their mouths all became as it were dumb, [and they were called] masger [closer] because if they once closed [a discussion], no-one would re-open it. How many were they? &mdash; A thousand. 'Ulla said: [The righteousness consisted] in anticipating by two years [the numerical value of] we-noshantem ['and ye grow old'].<a id="k88a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k88b_1:" For fuller notes on this passage v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 239."
,k88b_2:" [The bracketed words are left out in some texts without however affecting the meaning.]"
,k88b_3:" Cf. Keth. 77a."
,k88b_4:" And she cannot marry again on the strength of it."
,k88b_5:" She must not marry a priest if her husband dies before giving her another Get, or if her husband is a priest she must leave him."
,k88b_6:" By inducing the non-Jew to go and extort a Get from him; v. B.B. 48a."
,k88b_7:" [H] v. B.M., (Sonc. ed.) p. 47, n. 1. And the heathen court is in fact not competent to enforce the giving of a Get."
,k88b_8:" And if we allowed the woman after receiving such a Get to live with a priest, it might be thought that she is allowed also after receiving a similar Get enforced by a Jewish court."
,k88b_9:" In Babylonia."
,k88b_10:" I.e., not fully ordained, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>Hedyot</i>, this being impossible outside the Land of Israel. V. Sanh. 14a."
,k88b_11:" [H] cf. [G], 'market-place'."
,k88b_12:" Ex. XXI, 1."
,k88b_13:" Of the Sanhedrin in Palestine."
,k88b_14:" Claims supported by witnesses attesting the defendant's former admission of his liability, or who were actually present at the time of the transaction. V. Sanh. 2b."
,k88b_15:" Whereas the law is that for them ordained judges are necessary. V. ibid."
,k88b_16:" V. B.K. 84b."
,k88b_17:" And she must not marry another man without receiving a Get from the first."
,k88b_18:" Apparently this means that if the husband is a priest, she can no longer continue to live with him. But v. the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k88b_19:" [H] a reason for correcting the report."
,k88b_20:" And no attention is paid to the report."
,k88b_21:" The one reported to have been divorced. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Aha b. Jacob said: This shows [that the word] soon' [used] by the Master of the Universe means eight hundred and fifty-two years.<a id="k88b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A GET GIVEN UNDER COMPULSION [EXERCISED] BY AN ISRAELITE COURT IS VALID, BUT BY A HEATHEN COURT IS INVALID. A HEATHEN COURT, HOWEVER, MAY FLOG A MAN AND SAY TO HIM, DO WHAT THE ISRAELITE [AUTHORITIES] COMMAND YOU, (AND IT IS VALID).<a id="k88b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: A Get given under compulsion [exercised] by an Israelite court with good legal ground<a id="k88b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is valid, but if without sufficient legal ground, it is invalid,<a id="k88b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but it still disqualifies [the woman for a priest].<a id="k88b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If enforced by a heathen court on good legal grounds, it is invalid, but disqualifies; if without sufficient legal ground, there is no tincture of a Get about it. How can you have it [both ways]? If the [heathens are] competent to apply compulsion, then it should actually be valid. If they are not competent to apply compulsion, it should not disqualify! &mdash; R. Mesharsheya explained: According to the strict rule of the Torah, a Get enforced by a heathen court is valid, and the reason why [the Rabbis] declared it invalid was to prevent any [Jewish woman] from attaching herself to a heathen and so releasing herself from her husband.<a id="k88b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is so, [why did Samuel say that] if it is enforced [by a heathen court] without sufficient legal ground, it has not even the tincture of a Get? Let it at least be on a par with the similar Get exacted by an Israelite court, and disqualify the woman [for] a priest? &mdash; The truth is that R. Mesharsheya's [explanation] is erroneous.<a id="k88b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And what is the reason? &mdash; [A Get enforced by a heathen court] on legal grounds is liable to be confused with [a Get enforced by] an Israelite court on legal grounds,<a id="k88b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but [a Get enforced by a heathen court] without proper grounds will not be confused with [a Get enforced by] a Jewish court with legal grounds.
</p><p>
	Abaye once found R. Joseph sitting in court and compelling certain men to give a bill of divorce. He said to him: Surely we<a id="k88b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; are only laymen,<a id="k88b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and it has been taught: R. Tarfon used to say: In any place where you find heathen law courts,<a id="k88b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; even though their law is the same as the Israelite law, you must not resort to them since it says, These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them,<a id="k88b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; that is to say, 'before them' and not before heathens. Another explanation, however, is that it means 'before them' and not before laymen? &mdash; He replied: We are carrying out their commission,<a id="k88b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; just as in the case of admissions and transaction of loans.<a id="k88b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case [he rejoined], we should do the same with robberies and injuries?<a id="k88b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We carry out their commission in matters which are of frequent occurrence, but not in matters which occur infrequently.<a id="k88b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF COMMON REPORT IN THE TOWN DECLARES A WOMAN TO BE BETROTHED, SHE IS REGARDED [BY THE <I>BETH DIN</I>] AS BETROTHED;<a id="k88b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; IF TO BE DIVORCED, SHE IS REGARDED AS DIVORCED.<a id="k88b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [THIS, HOWEVER, IS ONLY THE CASE] PROVIDED THE REPORT HAS NO QUALIFICATION.<a id="k88b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; WHAT IS MEANT BY A QUALIFICATION? [IF THE REPORT IS,] SO-AND-SO DIVORCED HIS WIFE CONDITIONALLY, HE THREW HER THE BETROTHAL MONEY, BUT IT IS UNCERTAIN WHETHER IT LANDED NEARER TO HER OR NEARER TO HIM &mdash; THIS IS A QUALIFICATION.<a id="k88b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. And do we [on the strength of such a report] declare her<a id="k88b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; prohibited to her husband? Has not R. Ashi said that we take no notice of reports spread after marriage? &mdash; What [the Mishnah] means is this: 'If common report declares her to be betrothed, we regard her as betrothed; if it declares her to have been betrothed and then divorced,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k89a_1:" And may marry anyone without a Get from the fiance."
,k89a_2:" That she was betrothed."
,k89a_3:" With a heathen or a slave, and so disqualified herself for marrying a priest."
,k89a_4:" So Jast. Rashi: walks with outstretched neck."
,k89a_5:" I.e. if she was reported to have done so before marrying a priest (Tosaf.)."
,k89a_6:" Because enemies may always spread false reports about her."
,k89a_7:" Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k89a_8:" Ibid. XIX, 15."
,k89a_9:" The matter testified to."
,k89a_10:" To prohibit her to marry a high priest."
,k89a_11:" I.e., the report does not definitely say that she was betrothed."
,k89a_12:" I.e., that she has been betrothed."
,k89a_13:" Which deprives the report of its force."
,k89a_14:" And more than a mere report."
,k89a_15:" If after investigation we cannot confirm it."
,k89a_16:" If there is a prima facie ground for considering it wrong."
,k89a_17:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 413, n. 1."
,k89a_18:" And she cannot become engaged again till she is divorced from the first."
,k89a_19:" V. Kid. 2a. So that she never was really engaged to the first. Hence no harm can ensue from the suppression of the report. "
}

txt:
<p>
, she is regarded as divorced.'<a id="k89a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; On what ground? Because the report<a id="k89a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is accompanied by its own neutralisation.
</p><p>
	Raba said: If she was reported in the town to have misconducted herself,<a id="k89a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; we take no notice, as we can put it down to mere looseness of behaviour which has been observed in her. [The same difference of opinion is found] between Tannaim: 'If she ate in the street, if she quaffed<a id="k89a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in the street, if she suckled in the street,<a id="k89a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; in every case R. Meir says that she must leave her husband. R. Akiba says she must do so as soon as gossips who spin in the moon begin to talk about her. R. Johanan b. Nuri thereupon said to him: If you go so far, you will not leave our father Abraham a single daughter who can stay with her husband,<a id="k89a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas the Torah says, If he find in her some unseemly thing,<a id="k89a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and it further says, At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a thing be established;<a id="k89a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and just as there the 'thing'<a id="k89a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; must be clearly ascertained, so here it must be clearly ascertained.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If the report is] that she was lain with we take no notice of it;<a id="k89a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [if that she is] a married woman, we take no notice; [if that she is] a betrothed woman, we take no notice; [if the name of] the man is not mentioned, we take no notice of it; [if the report is that she has been betrothed] in another town, we take no notice; [if that] she is a bastard, we take no notice; [if that] she is a bondwoman, we take no notice. [If there is report that] So-and-so sanctified his possessions or declared them common property, we take no notice. 'Ulla said: It is not sufficient that a mere rumour should have been heard; [we take notice] only if lights have been seen burning and couches spread and people entering and leaving, and then they said, So-and-so is being betrothed to-day. 'Being betrothed' 'you say? Perhaps even so she was not betrothed?<a id="k89a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You should say: [People say that] So-and-so was betrothed to-day. So Levi also taught: 'It is not enough that a mere rumour should be spread; [we only take notice] if lights have been seen burning and couches spread and women spinning by lamplight and congratulating her and saying [to one another], So-and-so is being betrothed to-day.' 'Being betrothed' do you say? Perhaps after all she was not betrothed? &mdash; R. Papa said: You must say, [and what they say is], 'So-and-so has been betrothed to-day'. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: It is not enough that there should be a mere rumour. If, however, lights have been seen burning and couches spread and people entering and leaving, then if they say something<a id="k89a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; this is a report', but if they do not say something this is a qualification.<a id="k89a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; How can this be, seeing that they have not said anything? &mdash; [The object of this statement is] to repudiate the view of Rabbah b. R. Huna who said that the 'qualification' referred to can be something said ten days later. [R. Johanan here] tells us that if [in such conditions] people said nothing at the time, this is a qualification of the report, but if they said something [of a qualifying nature] after ten days, this is no qualification. R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna: It is not sufficient to hear a mere rumour; we take notice only if on asking, Who told So-and-so, we are informed, So-and-so, and he again heard from So-and-so, and so on until our inquiries bring us to a reliable statement. But a reliable statement is valid evidence?'<a id="k89a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact is that when R. Samuel b. Judah came, he said in the name of R. Abba who had it from R. Huna who had it from Rab: It is not enough that they should have merely heard a rumour; it is requisite that they should inquire, Where did So-and-so learn this, and they should be told, He heard it from So-and-so who heard it from So-and-so, and they have gone abroad.
</p><p>
	Abaye said to R. Joseph: Do we suppress a report<a id="k89a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? &mdash; He replied: Since R. Hisda has said that [the <i>Beth din</i> takes no notice] till they hear it from reliable persons, we may infer that we do suppress a report.<a id="k89a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; On the contrary, he rejoined; since R. Shesheth has said that even if spread only by women it is a report to be considered, we may infer that we do not suppress a report. He replied: It depends on the place. In Sura they suppress a report, in Nehardea they do not suppress a report.
</p><p>
	A certain woman was reported to have become engaged to a Rabbinical student. R. Hama sent for her father and said to him, Tell me the facts of the case. He replied: He affianced her conditionally, [on condition, that is,] that he would not go to Be Hozai,<a id="k89a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and he went there. He thereupon said: Since at the time when the report was first spread there was no qualification, it is not in your power to add one now.<a id="k89a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain woman was reported to have been affianced with the flesh sticking to date stones by the well of Be Shifi. R. Idi b. Abin sent to inquire of Abaye what was to be done in such a case. He replied: Even those authorities who say that as a rule we should not suppress a report would here advise that it should be suppressed, because people will then say that the Rabbis examined her engagement gift and found that it did not contain the value of a <i>perutah</i>.<a id="k89a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain woman was reported to have become engaged
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k89b_1:" I.e., to years of discretion. People would conclude that in spite of his appearance he was not yet grown-up, and therefore the suppression of the report would do no harm."
,k89b_2:" Jud. V, 15. The verse is rendered thus: 'Among the divisions of Reuben it is only the grownups who are rational'."
,k89b_3:" I.e., if the circumstances were such that the report might have been qualified, though it actually was not."
,k89b_4:" Yeb. 92a."
,k89b_5:" Here apparently is a case of a report without qualification that a woman is engaged being disregarded."
,k89b_6:" Viz., on condition that her husband had divorced her, and although this qualification was not actually added to the report, there was room for it, and therefore we allow it to neutralise the report."
,k89b_7:" He is there to say that he never divorced his wife in the first instance, and therefore the betrothal to the second was invalid."
,k89b_8:" Although in such a case the Rabbis permitted her to marry, yet they expected her to make further inquiries, and if after she married the first husband turned up, they penalised her, v. Yeb. 87b."
,k89b_9:" And found to have some substance."
,k89b_10:" Lit., 'betrothed according to the Torah'. I.e., in the presence of witnesses."
,k89b_11:" And though in Sura, the place of Rab, it was the custom, Samuel would naturally rule according to the custom of his own place."
,k89b_12:" V. <i>supra</i> 64b."
,k89b_13:" After having become the wife of another man, in violation of Deut. XXIV, 2."
,k89b_14:" Al. Shisha."
,k89b_15:" And so no scandal would arise,"
,k89b_16:" The betrothal to the second was also based on mere report. "
}

txt:
<p>
to one of the sons of a certain man. Raba thereupon said: Even those authorities who hold that we should not as a rule suppress a report would advise that here we should suppress it, as people will only say that the Rabbis examined her engagement and found that it was contracted by a minor.
</p><p>
	A certain woman was reported to have become engaged to a minor who looked like an adult. In connection with this R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi: In a similar case which occurred, they said that he had not yet attained to 'the divisions of Reuben',<a id="k89b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; referring to the verse, Among the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart.<a id="k89b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	PROVIDED THE REPORT HAS NO QUALIFICATION. Rabbah b. R. Huna said: The 'qualification' they had in mind might be made ten days later. R. Zebid said: If there is room for a qualification,<a id="k89b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; we suspect a qualification. R. Papa raised to R. Zebid an objection from the following: PROVIDED THE REPORT HAS NO QUALIFICATION? &mdash; He replied: It means, provided there is no room for a qualification. Said R. Kahana to R. Papa: Do you not concur with this, seeing that we have learnt,<a id="k89b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a woman [who heard from one witness that her husband had died] became betrothed and then her husband turned up, she is allowed to return to him'.<a id="k89b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now is not the reason [for disregarding the report] because we say that the second betrothed her conditionally?<a id="k89b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a special reason there, namely that the husband challenges the betrothal.<a id="k89b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is the case, then why cannot she return to him even if she married the second? &mdash; By marrying she committed an offence<a id="k89b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and therefore the Rabbis penalised her, but in becoming betrothed she committed no offence and therefore the Rabbis did not penalise her.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: A report which has not been confirmed in the <i>Beth din</i><a id="k89b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is no report. R. Ashi further said: We pay no heed to reports spread after marriage. This implies that we do pay heed to reports spread after betrothal? &mdash; R. Habiba said: We pay no attention to reports spread after betrothal either. The law is that we pay no heed to such reports.
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: The disciples of Rab sent to Samuel saying: Would our Master be so good as to instruct us. If a woman was reported to have been engaged to one man, and then another came and betrothed her with full formality,<a id="k89b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; what is to be done? He sent back reply: She must leave him, but I want you to ascertain the facts and inform me. What did he mean by saying, 'I want you to ascertain the facts'? Shall I say his object was that if it turned out that the first betrothal was not a valid one the report should be suppressed? How can this be seeing that Samuel was located in Nehardea, and in Nehardea it was not the custom to suppress a report?<a id="k89b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; His object must therefore have been that if it turned out that the first betrothal was a valid one she would not require a Get from the second. In this he joined issue with R. Huna, who said that if a married woman put out her hand and took the betrothal money from another, she thereby became engaged. [This again is based] on the dictum of R. Hamnuna who said: If a woman says to her husband, You have divorced me, her word is to be accepted, since the presumption is that a woman would not be so brazen as to say this in front of her husband [if it was not true].<a id="k89b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And the other [Samuel]? &mdash; [He can reply:] R. Hamnuna would maintain this only where she speaks in the presence of the husband, but if he is not present she would certainly be impudent enough to say this. 
</p><p>
	Suppose they could not ascertain the truth of the matter, what [was to happen]? &mdash; R. Huna said: The first would have to divorce her and the second could then marry her; but it would not be right for the second to divorce her and the first to marry her. What is the reason? Because people might say that here is a man who is taking back a woman who has been betrothed to him and divorced.<a id="k89b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shinnena<a id="k89b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the son of R. Idi, however, said that it is allowable also for the second to divorce her and the first to marry her, because people would merely say that the Rabbis had examined the betrothal [of the second] and found it invalid.<a id="k89b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Suppose she was reported [to have become betrothed] to both one<a id="k89b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other, what is to be done? &mdash; R. papa said: In this case also the first must divorce her and the second can then marry her. Amemar, however, said that she is allowed to marry either,
</P>


