# snc

lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k2a_1:" Lit., 'province of the sea': a name given to all countries outside of Palestine and Babylonia."
,k2a_2:" The Biblical Kadesh and Bared (Gen. XVI, 14), on the southern border of Palestine, [v. Targum <i>Onkelos</i> <i>loc. cit</i>. Josephus (Ant. IV. 7, 1) who names the place Arekem (cf. oerv in our Mishnah) identifies it with Petra. Hegar is identified by Hildesheimer, Beitrage zur Geographie Palastinas (pp. 53 and 68) with the wilderness of Shur on the South-western Palestine border of Egypt]."
,k2a_3:" Lydda. Two neighbouring places on opposite sides of the border. [Kefar Ludim was about two hours walking distance from Lud on the north-west, v. Kaftorhwa-Ferah (Luncz ed.) p. 128]."
,k2a_4:" The point of this remark is discussed <i>infra</i> 4b."
,k2a_5:" [G]. V. <i>infra</i> 4b."
,k2a_6:" The modern Acre."
,k2a_7:" I.e., by bringing proof that the signatures are authentic. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_i">CHAPTER I</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE BEARER OF A BILL OF DIVORCE [GET] FROM [A HUSBAND IN] FOREIGN PARTS<a id="k2a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL] IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE [ON PRESENTING IT TO THE WIFE]. 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.' RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS: [THIS DECLARATION IS] ALSO [REQUIRED] IF HE BRINGS IT FROM REKEM OR FROM HEGAR.<a id="k2a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ELEAZAR SAYS: EVEN IF HE BRINGS IT FROM KEFAR LUDIM TO LUD.<a id="k2a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY THAT THE DECLARATION 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED' IS REQUIRED ONLY FROM ONE WHO BRINGS A BILL OF DIVORCE [FROM FOREIGN PARTS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL] OR WHO TAKES IT [FROM THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO FOREIGN PARTS].<a id="k2a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; THE BEARER [OF SUCH A DOCUMENT] FROM ONE PROVINCE TO ANOTHER IN FOREIGN PARTS IS ALSO REQUIRED TO DECLARE, IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.' RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS IT IS REQUIRED EVEN IF HE TAKES IT FROM ONE GOVERNORSHIP<a id="k2a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; TO ANOTHER. R. JUDAH SAYS: [FOREIGN PARTS EXTEND] FROM REKEM EASTWARDS, REKEM BEING INCLUDED; FROM ASKELON SOUTHWARDS, ASKELON INCLUDED; AND FROM ACCO<a id="k2a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; NORTHWARDS, ACCO INCLUDED. R. MEIR, [HOWEVER,] HELD THAT ACCO COUNTS AS ERETZ ISRAEL IN THE MATTER OF BILLS OF DIVORCE. THE BEARER OF A BILL OF DIVORCE [FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER] IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS NOT REQUIRED TO DECLARE, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED;' IF ITS VALIDITY IS CHALLENGED IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE SIGNATURES.<a id="k2a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><P>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason [for this requirement]? Rabbah Says:

</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k2b_1:" [H] Lit., 'for her name': the rule that the Get must from its inception have been intended expressly for that woman."
,k2b_2:" In case the husband comes and questions the validity of the Get, and the declaration of the bearer is regarded as an authentication of the signatures by two witnesses."
,k2b_3:" Rabbah would still require the declaration, Raba not."
,k2b_4:" Here Raba would require the declaration, Rabbah not."
,k2b_5:" Here Rabbah would require the declaration, Raba not."
,k2b_6:" By the mouth of two witnesses a matter shall be established, Deut. XIX, 15."
,k2b_7:" As opposed to a pecuniary liability."
,k2b_8:" Since the recipient of the Get is a married woman she is prima facie (until we know that the Get is valid) forbidden to all other men."
,k2b_9:" V. Sot. 3."
,k2b_10:" Hence we do not suspect the husband of having broken this rule. "
}

txt:
<p>
It is because [the Jews in foreign parts] are [for the most part] ignorant of the rule of 'special intention'.<a id="k2b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba says: It is because it is not easy to find witnesses who can confirm the signatures.<a id="k2b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What difference does it make [in practice] which reason we adopt? &mdash; [It does] in the case where the Get has been brought by two persons;<a id="k2b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; or again, where it has been taken from one province to another in the Land of Israel;<a id="k2b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or again, from one place to another in the same foreign country.<a id="k2b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing that Rabbah's reason is that Jews abroad are ignorant of the rule of 'special intention', why does he not require that the Get should be brought by two bearers, so as to bring this case into line with the general rule of the Torah regarding evidence?<a id="k2b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; One witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition.<a id="k2b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But presumably the rule that one witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition applies for instance to the case of a piece of fat of which we do not know whether it is permitted or forbidden, there being no prima facie ground for declaring it prohibited. Here, however, since there is prima facie ground for assuming the prohibition regarding a married woman,<a id="k2b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the question becomes one of prohibited sex relationship, and for disproving such a relationship the evidence of two witnesses is required?<a id="k2b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Most [of the Jews abroad] are acquainted [with the rule of 'special intention'].<a id="k2b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And even if, following the practice of R. Meir, we take account of the exceptions, [it will make no difference.] for most of the scribes of the <i>Beth din</i> know the law, and it was the Rabbis who [on their own authority] insisted [on this declaration], and in this case,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k15a_1:" As much as to say, they are men of such bad character that their name is not fit to be mentioned in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>, and they do not form a precedent. For fuller notes v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 679."
,k15a_2:" Who makes no distinction between a man in health or dying, while 'take' is not treated as 'accept on behalf'."
,k15a_3:" <i>Nasi</i>, the title of the officially recognised head of the Jewish community in Palestine under the Roman Empire, corresponding to the Resh Galutha in Babylonia. [The name of Simeon the 'Prince' does not occur elsewhere, hence the question whether his designation was 'the Prince' or whether the words 'in the name of the Prince' are omitted from the text. For a similar omission cf. B.K. 39b, 1, v. Tosaf.]"
,k15a_4:" Lit., 'half of it was signed in my presence'."
,k15a_5:" Lit., 'the whole of it was signed'."
,k15a_6:" The rule being that it must all be written and signed by two witnesses in his presence."
,k15a_7:" Which implies that it was completely written and completely signed in his presence. (Rashi)."
,k15a_8:" Viz., the line containing the name of the man and of his wife and the date."
,k15a_9:" Lit., 'the whole of it'."
,k15a_10:" By the attestation of two witnesses. V. <i>supra</i> 2b."
,k15a_11:" Which requires a declaration from the bearer."
,k15a_12:" Viz, the bearer, whose word is taken if he says that he recognises the signature of the witness; <i>supra</i> 3a."
}

txt:
<p>
to my daughter, it is worth twelve <i>maneh</i>; and then she died and the Sages carried out her instruction? He replied: The sons of Rokel &mdash; may their mother bury them!<a id="k15a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The first Tanna [in our passage] holds with R. Eleazar,<a id="k15a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Nathan and R. Jacob also hold with R. Eleazar, [so much so] that although the owner dies, we do not say that it is a religious duty to carry out his wishes. 'Some' [authorities] hold with the Rabbis. R. Judah speaking in the name of R. Jacob who himself spoke in the name of R. Meir held with R. Eleazar, only where the sender had died in the meanwhile he applied the principle of carrying out the wishes of the deceased. The Sages said the money should be divided, because they were in doubt. 'Here' [in Babylon] they said that the bearer could best estimate for himself, while R. Simeon the Prince merely desired to give an illustration.
</p><p>
	A question was asked in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>: Was R. Simeon the Prince really a prince,<a id="k15a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; or did he speak in the name of the Prince? &mdash; Come and hear: R. Joseph said that the <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Simeon the Prince. But the question still remains whether he was a Prince or only spoke in the name of a Prince? &mdash; Let it stand over.
</p><p>
	The text above says: R. Jose said that the <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Simeon the Prince. But is it not an established rule that the words of a man on his death bed have the same force as if they were written and delivered? [R. Joseph] understands [the Baraitha] to be speaking of the case [where the sender was] in good health. But R. Simeon said it should be returned 'to the heirs of the sender'. though all are agreed it is a fixed rule that it is a religious duty to carry out the instructions of the deceased? &mdash; Read: 'returned to the sender'.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ii">CHAPTER II</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE BEARER OF A GET FROM 'FOREIGN PARTS' DECLARES: 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT NOT SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', [OR]. 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE BUT NOT WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE', [OR] 'THE WHOLE OF IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE OF THE WITNESSES SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE',<a id="k15a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [OR] 'ONLY HALF WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE THOUGH BOTH WITNESSES<a id="k15a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE' &mdash; IN ALL THESE CASES THE GET IS INVALID.<a id="k15a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IF ONE [PERSON] DECLARES 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE AND ANOTHER SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. THE GET IS INVALID. IF TWO [PERSONS] DECLARE, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE AND ANOTHER SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID: R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. IF ONE DECLARES, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND TWO SAY, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN OUR PRESENCE', IT IS VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why this repetition? Is it not all included in what we have already learnt: The bearer of a Get from 'foreign parts' is required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'?<a id="k15a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If I had only that to go by, I might think that [though] he is required [to make this declaration], yet if he omitted [to do so the Get is still] valid. Now I know that [this is not the case].
</p><p>
	ONLY HALF OF IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE THOUGH BOTH WITNESSES SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. Which half is referred to? If you say the first half, what of the dictum of R. Eleazar, that if only one line<a id="k15a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is written with special reference to the woman for whom it is intended, the rest requires no such ['special intention']? &mdash; R. Ashi therefore said that the second half is meant.
</p><p>
	THE WHOLE WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE WITNESS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. R. Hisda said: Even if two other persons attest the signature of the second witness, the Get is still invalid. What is the reason for this? &mdash; In regard to both signatures alike<a id="k15a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; we must either insist on confirmation<a id="k15a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or follow the regulation of the Rabbis.<a id="k15a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba demurred strongly to this [reasoning]. Is there anything, he said, which is declared valid on the word of one witness<a id="k15a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and invalid on the word of two? No, said Raba; what we must say is that even
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k15b_1:" I.e., declare that they know this to be his signature."
,k15b_2:" In spite of the fact that if the bearer testifies alone, it is valid."
,k15b_3:" Lit., 'deducting a fourth'."
,k15b_4:" If a document is brought into court signed by two witnesses, A and B, of whom B is dead, and if A together with a third party attests the signature of B, then if money were to be awarded on the strength of that document, three-quarters of it would be awarded on the evidence of the one witness A, which is against the rule, as each witness must be responsible for a half, v. Keth. 21b."
,k15b_5:" The Mishnah quoted above ('if he says the whole was written in my presence but only one witness signed in my presence') has just been shown to be superfluous, and we are therefore entitled to infer some lesson from it. That inference, however, should be restricted to a minimum, and therefore the opinions of Raba and R. Ashi are preferable to that of R. Hisda."
,k15b_6:" That an apparent superfluity must be made the basis of some lesson."
,k15b_7:" Lit., 'not only this (but) also this'. I.e., first 'in my presence it was not signed (at all)', and then 'in my presence only one witness signed', the first case being contained in the second."
,k15b_8:" First where one attests the writing and the other the signatures, and then where one signature is left unattested."
,k15b_9:" So as to enclose a space which can be considered as 'private domain' for the purposes of transportation on Sabbath."
,k15b_10:" A quarter of a <i>log</i>, about 1 1/2 eggs; the minimum required for the ritual washing of the hands before meals."
,k15b_11:" Naz. 382. Yad. I, 2."
,k15b_12:" Yad. II, 1."
,k15b_13:" So that it is possible still to regard the hands as being washed together. "
}

txt:
<p>
if the bearer and another person confirm the signature of the second witness,<a id="k15b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [the Get] is invalid,<a id="k15b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; because this might be taken as a precedent for the attestation of other documents, and in this way three-quarters<a id="k15b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; of a sum in dispute might be assigned on the word of one witness.<a id="k15b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi strongly demurred to this [reasoning]. Is there anything. he said, which if stated by one persons is valid, but becomes invalid if another joins with him? No, said R. Ashi, what we have to say is that even if the bearer Says. 'I myself am the second witness', [the Get] is invalid, because in regard to both signatures alike we must either insist on confirmation or follow the regulation of the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	We learnt: [IF HE DECLARES.] 'THE WHOLE WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE WITNESS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', THE GET IS INVALID. What now about the other witness? Do we presume that there is no-one who attests his signature? That cannot be; for even where one [person declares] IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND ANOTHER SAYS 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', in which case one testifies to the whole of the writing and the other to the whole of the signing [ &mdash; even in that case the Get] is invalid; how much more so then if only half [of the signing is attested]? No; this shows that the proper explanation is either that of Raba or of R. Ashi, and that R. Hisda's is to be excluded.<a id="k15b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Hisda? &mdash; He can rejoin: On your theory,<a id="k15b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; what need is there to specify the case of 'in my presence it was written but not signed' [etc.]? Obviously the Mishnah was giving first a weaker and then a stronger instance;<a id="k15b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; so here, the Mishnah gives first a weaker and then a stronger instance.<a id="k15b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: An embankment five handbreadths deep and a fence [on it] five handbreadths high are not reckoned together [to form a single partition of ten handbreadths];<a id="k15b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the whole of the ten must be contained either in the embankment or in the fence. Meremar, however, in an exposition, [taught] that an embankment of five handbreadths and a fence on it of five handbreadths are reckoned together; and the law is that they are reckoned together.
</p><p>
	Ilfa inquired: Can the hands be half clean and half unclean, or can they not be? How is this question to be understood? Does it mean that two persons wash their hands from a revi'ith?<a id="k15b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Regarding this we have already learnt that a revi'ith is sufficient for washing the hands of one [person] and even of two.<a id="k15b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Is the case then that he washes one hand at a time? In regard to this too we have learnt<a id="k15b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; that if a man washes one hand by pouring water over it and the other by dipping [it in a river] the hands are clean. Is it then that he washes a half of his hand at a time? Regarding this it has been laid down in the school of R. Jannai that the hands cannot be made clean by halves. &mdash; The question may still be asked in regard to the case where the water is still dripping [from one hand<a id="k15b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; when he washes the second]. And suppose the water is dripping, what does it matter? Have we not learnt:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k24a_1:" Where it states a blind man is qualified to bring a Get."
,k24a_2:" Where a wife is declared competent to bring her own Get."
,k24a_3:" 'Even the women whose word etc.'"
,k24a_4:" Lit., 'mouth'."
,k24a_5:" [Because the clause refers to Eretz Yisrael no declaration is required. Abaye, on the other hand, may argue that there is no need to mention 'declaration' which is common to both Get and the report of death, since the latter too is accompanied by a 'declaration' made by the woman. (Rashi)]."
,k24a_6:" What need has she then to bring it before the <i>Beth din</i>?"
,k24a_7:" And she is still not the same as a bearer who has to make the declaration."
,k24a_8:" Thus she is a bearer till she comes there and is divorced by the act of lifting the Get from the ground."
,k24a_9:" Because he must 'give' it to her."
,k24a_10:" Lit., 'the message has not returned to the owner'. Because meanwhile she has become a principal in the transaction and has ceased to be an agent, whereas the law of agency requires that the agent should report to the principal that he has carried out his charge. V. <i>infra</i> 63b."
,k24a_11:" Here she never ceased being an agent and can well report to the husband, the sender."
,k24a_12:" V. 63b."
,k24a_13:" The wife should not be able to appoint an agent to receive the Get on her behalf from herself who is the agent of her husband."
,k24a_14:" As much as to say she considers it beneath her dignity to accept it in person from the agent appointed by her husband."
,k24a_15:" Since this procedure was at his express instructions."
,k24a_16:" [V. <i>supra</i> 21a. The courtyard might be treated as the husband's agent to take the Get to the wife and on coming into her possession it becomes her agent for receiving it; and should it be ruled that a woman may appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband, we might be led to rule that a courtyard which comes into her possession subsequently confers possession. The fact, however, is that it does not, because a courtyard comes under the category of 'hand' (v. <i>loc. cit</i>.) and at the time when the husband placed the Get in the courtyard, not being hers, it could not be considered her 'hand']."
,k24a_17:" Her task as the husband's agent ceases at that moment and she can report back to her husband that she has discharged her mission."
,k24a_18:" Lit., 'causing (the pupils) to read;' to train them in drafting the formula of a Get. "
}

txt:
<p>
And on the same basis it may be concluded that just as they are required to declare, 'In our presence it was written, and in our presence it was signed', so she is required to declare, 'In my presence etc.' [which shows that the rule refers to outside of Eretz Yisrael]. R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah also bears out [this view], since it says, THE WIFE HERSELF MAY BRING HER GET, ONLY SHE IS REQUIRED TO SAY etc., which shows that it refers to outside Eretz Yisrael. Does then R. Joseph take the earlier clause [in the Mishnah]<a id="k24a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and the later one<a id="k24a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; to refer to Eretz Yisrael, and the middle one<a id="k24a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; to outside Eretz [Yisrael]? &mdash; Yes; he refers the earlier and later clauses to Eretz Yisrael and the middle clause to outside. On what does he base this view [about the middle one]? &mdash; Because the Mishnah says, WHY IS A GET DIFFERENT FROM [THE REPORT OF] DEATH? BECAUSE THE WRITING AFFORDS PROOF, and it does not say, 'the writing and the declaration<a id="k24a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; afford proof.'<a id="k24a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THE WIFE HERSELF MAY ACT AS BEARER etc. Is not the wife divorced as soon as the Get comes into her hand?<a id="k24a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna said: This rule is for the case where he says to her, 'You will not be divorced by this [Get] except in the presence of such-and-such a <i>Beth din</i>.' But all the same, when she comes there she is divorced?<a id="k24a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact, said R. Huna b. Manoah in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: [the rule is for the case] where he says to her: When you come there, put it on the ground and take it up again.<a id="k24a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, he as much as says to her: Take your Get from the floor, and has not Raba laid down that if he says, Take your Get from the floor, it is no divorce?<a id="k24a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; No. [The rule applies to the case] where he said to her, 'Be my agent for taking [the Get] till you come there, and when you come there be your own agent for receiving [it, and take it].' But in this case the agent cannot return to [report to] the sender?<a id="k24a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He says to her: Be my agent for taking [the Get] till you come there, and when you come there appoint an agent for receiving [it].<a id="k24a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is all very well on the view that a woman may appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband, but on the view that a woman may not appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband<a id="k24a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; what is to be said?<a id="k24a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What is the reason for the latter view? That it shows a contempt for the husband;<a id="k24a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and in this case the husband is [evidently] not particular.<a id="k24a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; This is a valid answer according to the view that such a proceeding is forbidden because it shows a contempt for the husband, but on the view that the reason is because of [the resemblance of this agent to] a courtyard which comes [into her possession] subsequently,<a id="k24a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; what are we to say? &mdash; He says to her: Be my agent for taking [the Get] till you come there, and when you come there appoint another agent for taking it<a id="k24a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and [later] receive your Get from him. Or if you prefer I can say that he says to her: Be my agent for taking [it] till you come there, and when you come there declare in presence of the <i>Beth din</i>, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,' and [then] make the <i>Beth din</i> an agent [for receiving] and they will give it to you.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iii">CHAPTER III</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ANY BILL OF DIVORCE WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN [EXPRESSLY] FOR THE WOMAN [FOR WHOM IT IS INTENDED] IS INVALID. FOR INSTANCE, IF A MAN PASSING THROUGH THE STREET HEARS THE VOICE OF A SCRIBE DICTATING<a id="k24a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'SO-AND-SO DIVORCES SO-AND-SO FROM SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE' AND HE SAYS 'THAT IS MY NAME AND THAT IS THE NAME OF MY WIFE, IT IS NOT A VALID [DOCUMENT] TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE WITH. MOREOVER: IF HE WROTE [A GET] TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND CHANGED HIS MIND AND A FELLOW-TOWNSMAN MET HIM AND SAID TO HIM, MY NAME IS THE SAME AS YOURS AND MY WIFE'S NAME THE SAME AS YOUR WIFE'S', IT IS NOT VALID [FOR THE SECOND] ONE TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE WITH.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k24b_1:"[H], Librarius."
,k24b_2:" I.e., with intent to divorce."
,k24b_3:" For this particular wife."
,k24b_4:" Since this would seem to be included in the previous two."
,k24b_5:" Bererah, (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k24b_6:" In spite of the danger of her being confused with the younger."
,k24b_7:" I.e., either can claim that he is the Joseph b. Simeon mentioned in the bond."
,k24b_8:" B.B., 172a."
,k24b_9:" Because he can plead that the other is meant. So here the husband can plead that another man of the same name wrote the Get."
,k24b_10:" And not merely to the signing."
,k24b_11:" [Where, however, there are witnesses to the signing only, the Get cannot be used to divorce therewith even the elder, and similarly in the case of two men named Joseph b. Simeon living in the same town neither can claim from a third party on the strength of a bond.]"
,k24b_12:" The law being that a priest must not marry a divorced woman. Lev. XXI, 7."
,k24b_13:" Because it was never intended to be a Get."
,k24b_14:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k24b_15:" I.e., enable her to marry someone else."
,k24b_16:" Eretz Yisrael."
,k24b_17:" From marrying her brother. in-law. "
}

txt:
<p>
MOREOVER: IF HE HAD TWO WIVES WITH THE SAME NAME AND WROTE A GET WITH WHICH TO DIVORCE THE ELDER, HE MUST NOT USE IT TO DIVORCE THE YOUNGER. MOREOVER: IF HE SAID TO THE SCRIBE,<a id="k24b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; WRITE AND I WILL DIVORCE WHICHEVER I CHOOSE,' IT IS NOT VALID TO DIVORCE THEREWITH EITHER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [The second clause of the Mishnah puts the case where] HE WROTE [A GET] TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND CHANGED HIS MIND. What then is the case put in the first clause? &mdash; R. Papa said: We are dealing there with scribes practising [to write bills of divorce]. R. Ashi said: The language of the Mishnah bears this out, since it says 'DICTATING' and not 'reading', which shows that R. Papa is right.
</p><p>
	What is the point of the word MOREOVER? &mdash; The school of R. Ishmael taught: 'Not only is a Get invalid that has not been written for purposes of divorce [but for practice]. but also one that has been written for purposes of divorce [but not of this man's wife]; and not only is this [one invalid] that has not been written for the purposes of his divorce, but even the other one that has been written for the purposes of his divorce is invalid; and not only is this [one invalid] which has not been written for divorcing this [wife], but even the other one which has been written for divorcing this [wife] is invalid'. What is the reason? &mdash; If [the Scripture] had written, 'he shall give a writ of divorce into her hand,' I should say that this excludes the first case [mentioned above] where [the Get is not written] for the purpose of effecting a divorce, but that if a husband writes [a Get] to divorce his wife and then changes his mind, seeing that the document is meant to effect a divorce I should say it is valid; therefore the Divine Law says, 'and he write'.<a id="k24b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; And if it had merely said and he write, I should have said that this excludes the case where he does not write [the Get] for her,<a id="k24b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he has two wives [and writes for one or other of them] in which case he does [in a way] write for her, I should say that it is valid: therefore the text says, for her, that is to say. for her name. Why then is the last case specified?<a id="k24b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; To show that there is no [such thing as] a retrospective decision.<a id="k24b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE WROTE A GET WITH WHICH TO DIVORCE THE ELDER, HE MUST NOT USE IT TO DIVORCE THE YOUNGER. It is the younger only whom he must not divorce with it, but he may divorce with it the elder.<a id="k24b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: This means to say that if there are two men named Joseph b. Simeon living in a town, either can claim from a third party on the strength of a bond [written in his name].<a id="k24b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: On your reasoning, from the first clause of the Mishnah which says that if a man says to another MY NAME IS THE SAME AS YOURS [and takes a Get from him]. HE MAY NOT USE IT TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE, I understand that it is the second only who may not use it but the first may; but how can this be seeing that it is laid down<a id="k24b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [in reference to the case of two men named Joseph b. Simeon] that a third party cannot claim against either of them on the strength of the bond?<a id="k24b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; The truth is that [in regard to the latter kind of Get written by one man and used by another] we say it is valid [if used by the first] only if there are witnesses to the delivery,<a id="k24b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [the Mishnah] following R. Eleazar. So too [in regard to the former kind of Get where the two wives have the same name the Get is valid if given to the one for whom it was written] only if there are witnesses to the delivery, [the Mishnah following] R. Eleazar.<a id="k24b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: All the kinds [of Get mentioned in our Mishnah] disqualify [the woman named in them from living with her husband] if he is a priest,<a id="k24b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; except the first,<a id="k24b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said that the first also disqualifies. Samuel applies here the principle which he had elsewhere laid down, that wherever the Rabbis have declared a Get invalid, it does not effect divorce but it does disqualify [the wife of a priest from living with him], and wherever they have declared a <i>halizah</i><a id="k24b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; invalid it does not release<a id="k24b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [the sister-in-law] but it does disqualify her from [marrying] any of the brothers-in-law. In the West<a id="k24b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; they said in the name of R. Eleazar: [If the <i>halizah</i> was performed with] the left hand or by night, it does not release [the woman] but it does disqualify her;<a id="k24b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k32a_1:" Which fastens the handle to the blade."
,k32a_2:" The meaning is that this wind causes things which are usually closely united like brothers to fall apart, the word yafri [H] being interpreted as yarfi [H] 'loosens' or 'slackens'."
,k32a_3:" I.e., three persons."
,k32a_4:" Lit., 'for the better ordering of society'. Lest the bearer should give it to her in ignorance that it was annulled and she marry on the strength of it."
,k32a_5:" By holding up the Get for a month or two; for had he been intent on annulling it he would have made a special effort to overtake the bearer."
,k32a_6:" It seems self-evident."
,k32a_7:" Because he is describing its character wrongly."
,k32a_8:" Present tense."
,k32a_9:" And not a description of its character."
,k32a_10:" [As he cannot by a mere declaration annul a thing already in his possession]."
,k32a_11:" [And therefore the gift had never passed into possession. Applying this mutatis mutandis in the case of a Get, batel should have no effect, because it is a wrong description of the character of the Get]. "
}

txt:
<p>
the pin in the handle of the plough<a id="k32a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; becomes loose [rafia]. R. Joseph said: Even a peg in a wall becomes loose. R. Aha b. Jacob said: Even a cane in a wicker basket becomes slack.<a id="k32a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iv">CHAPTER IV</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN AFTER DISPATCHING A GET TO HIS WIFE MEETS THE BEARER, OR SENDS A MESSENGER AFTER HIM, AND SAYS TO HIM, THE GET WHICH I HAVE GIVEN TO YOU IS CANCELLED, THEN IT IS CANCELLED. IF THE HUSBAND MEETS THE WIFE BEFORE [THE BEARER] OR SENDS A MESSENGER TO HER AND SAYS, THE GET I HAVE SENT TO YOU IS CANCELLED, THEN IT IS CANCELLED. ONCE, HOWEVER, THE GET HAS REACHED HER HAND, HE CANNOT CANCEL IT. IN FORMER TIMES A MAN WAS ALLOWED TO BRING TOGETHER A <I>BETH DIN</I><a id="k32a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; WHEREVER HE WAS AND CANCEL THE GET. RABBAN GAMALIEL THE ELDER, HOWEVER, LAID DOWN A RULE THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE, SO AS TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k32a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [The Mishnah] does not say 'meets him,' but simply 'MEETS', that is to say, even accidentally; and we do not say in that case that he merely desires to annoy his wife.<a id="k32a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; OR SENDS A MESSENGER AFTER HIM etc. Why state this?<a id="k32a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You might think that the commission given to the second has no more force than that given to the first and therefore should not countermand it. Now I know [that this is not so]. IF HE MEETS HIS WIFE BEFORE THE BEARER etc. Why state this? &mdash; You might think that although we rejected [above the idea] that he desires to annoy [his wife]. this is only when he says to the bearer [that the Get is cancelled]. but [if he says so] to [the wife] herself he certainly does mean merely to annoy her. Now I know [that this is not so]. OR SENDS A MESSENGER TO HER. Why state this? &mdash; You might think that while he would not put himself out merely to annoy her, yet if he sends a messenger, to whose trouble he is indifferent, he certainly desires merely to annoy her. Now I know [that this is not so]. ONCE THE GET HAS REACHED HER HAND HE CANNOT CANCEL IT. Is not this self-evident? &mdash; It required to be stated in view of the case where he made efforts from the very first to cancel it. You might think that in this case, subsequent events prove him to have actually annulled [the Get]. Now I know [that this is not so]. 
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: [If he says,] 'It is canceled [batel]', 'I don't want it,' his words take effect. [If he said,] 'It is invalid', 'it is no Get,' his words are of no effect.<a id="k32a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; This means to say, does it not, that the expression batel<a id="k32a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is equivalent to 'let it be canceled.'<a id="k32a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; How can this be, seeing that Rabbah b. Aibu has said in the name of R. Shesheth (or, according to others, Rabbah b. Abbuah said), If the recipient of a gift says after it has come into his possession. 'This gift is to be cancelled,' 'let it be cancelled', 'I don't want it,' his words are of no effect,<a id="k32a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he said, 'It is canceled [batel],' 'it is no gift', his words have effect. This shows, does it not, that batel means 'cancelled from the outset'?<a id="k32a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: The expression batel
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k32b_1:" I.e., if a man says. Take this gift to So-and-so, the bearer does not become a recipient, and the giver may still retract, even as in the case of a Get."
,k32b_2:" Without the words 'it is'."
,k32b_3:" Lit., 'will not cause to leave'."
,k32b_4:" Because he is correctly stating his intention."
,k32b_5:" Because he is wrongly describing the Get."
,k32b_6:" Which does take effect."
,k32b_7:" If a man said to her, 'Be betrothed to me at the end of thirty days' time with this money,' and she consented, she may retract within the thirty days. Just as the betrothal is there cancelled, so the Get should be here."
,k32b_8:" Her 'I will not' cancels her 'I will'. "
}

txt:
<p>
has two meanings: it means 'canceled already' and it means 'will be canceled'. If used either of a Get or of a gift, it is used in the sense most effective for the purpose.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: We have it on authority that the bearer of a gift is on the same footing as the bearer of a Get. The outcome of this [principle] is that the expression 'take' has not the same force as 'take on behalf of.'<a id="k32b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina found R. Nahman b. Isaac leaning against the bolt of the door and revolving the question: What of the expression 'batel'?<a id="k32b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This was left unanswered. R. Shesheth said or, according to others, it has been laid down in a Baraitha: [If a man said] 'This Get shall not avail', 'shall not release [the woman]', 'shall not part',<a id="k32b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'shall not dismiss', 'shall not divorce', 'let it be a potsherd', 'let it be like a potsherd,' his words take effect.<a id="k32b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; If he said, 'It does not avail', 'it does not free', 'it does not part', 'it does not dismiss', 'it does not divorce', 'it is a potsherd', 'it is like a potsherd', his words are of no effect.<a id="k32b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; The question was raised: What of the expression 'Behold it is a potsherd'? &mdash; Rabina said to R. Aha the son of Raba, or, according to others, R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: How does this differ from the expression, 'Behold it is sanctified', 'behold it is common property'?<a id="k32b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Can the man afterwards [use the same Get to] divorce with or not? &mdash; R. Nahman says that he may use it again to divorce with, R. Shesheth says he may not. The law is according to the ruling of R. Nahman. Is that so? Has it not been laid down that the law [in the case of a betrothed woman] is according to the ruling of R. Johanan, who said that she may retract?<a id="k32b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Are [the two cases] parallel? There it is a case of words merely on each occasion: one set of words comes and cancels another.<a id="k32b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Here, even granted that the husband cancels the commission of the bearer, he surely does not cancel the Get itself.
</p><p>
	IN FORMER TIMES etc. It has been stated: How many must be present at the cancelling? &mdash; R. Nahman says two, R. Shesheth says three. R. Shesheth says three, because the Mishnah speaks of a '<I>BETH DIN</I>'; R. Nahman says two, because two are also called a <i>Beth din</i>. Said R. Nahman: What is my ground for saying this? Because we have learnt: [He says:] I hand over in the presence of you
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k48a_1:" In which case there is no question that the purchaser does not become owner of the soil, as he has to return the land at the Jubilee."
,k48a_2:" Where the land is purchased in the epoch of the Jubilee."
,k48a_3:" Lit., 'he descends into'."
,k48a_4:" I.e., he never for a moment imagines himself to be the owner of the land."
,k48a_5:" An argument against Resh Lakish."
,k48a_6:" Bek. I, 11. Although the land is returnable at the Jubilee."
,k48a_7:" Ibid. I, 6."
,k48a_8:" In which case he automatically acquires the land under and between the trees, v. B.B. 81a."
,k48a_9:" I.e., the period of the Second Temple, when the Jews observed the law of the Jubilee strictly."
,k48a_10:" [I.e., of the first Temple, where it was not strictly observed (Rashi). Maim., Yad Bikkurim IV, 6. takes the first and second Jubilee in a literal sense &mdash; the first and second Jubilee cycles observed by the Jews]."
,k48a_11:" B.B. 72b."
,k48a_12:" Before the Jubilee, when the field would automatically revert to him."
,k48a_13:" And not one of 'purchase', and therefore liable to be redeemed at a lower rate. V. Lev. XXVII, 16-23."
,k48a_14:" Lev. XXVII, 22, 23."
,k48a_15:" E.g., one which he bought from any other man and which would have to be restored to him or to his heirs at the Jubilee."
,k48a_16:" By inheritance."
,k48a_17:" But not one which is only capable of becoming such subsequently."
,k48a_18:" The case put by R. Meir."
,k48a_19:" While R. Meir does."
,k48a_20:" And not a field of purchase, in spite of the fact that he originally purchased it from his father."
,k48a_21:" In spite of the fact that he purchased it from his father."
,k48a_22:" For fuller notes on the whole of this passage, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 285ff."
,k48a_23:" Lit., 'he would not have found his hands and feet.'"
,k48a_24:" B.K. 69b and <i>supra</i> 25a."
,k48a_25:" So that the property had never been divided, for as soon as it was divided it was in effect sold, and had no owner capable of bringing firstfruits. "
}

txt:
<p>
in the period when the law of the Jubilee is in force,<a id="k48a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan says that he brings the firstfruits and makes the recital, while Resh Lakish says that he brings them without making the recital. R. Johanan who says that he brings them and makes the recital takes the view that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, while Resh Lakish, who says that he brings without making the recital, takes the view that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body. It was necessary [to state the difference between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish] in both cases. For if it had been stated only in the latter case,<a id="k48a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; I might have said that Resh Lakish rules as he does there because when the purchaser buys<a id="k48a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [the field] he actually has in mind only the produce,<a id="k48a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the other case, where he has in mind the land itself, I might think that he agrees with R. Johanan. if again I had only the other case I might think that there [only] R. Johanan rules in this way, but in this case he agrees with Resh Lakish. Hence [both] had to be [stated].
</p><p>
	Come and hear:<a id="k48a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man buys a tree and the soil under it, he brings the firstfruits from it and makes the recital!<a id="k48a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are speaking here of the period when the Jubilee is not observed. Come and hear:<a id="k48a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a man buys two trees in another man's field, he brings the firstfruits but does not make the recital,'<a id="k48a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that if he buys three<a id="k48a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he does make the recital? &mdash; There too we speak of the period when the Jubilee is not observed. Now, however, that R. Hisda has stated that the controversy [between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish] refers only to the period of the second Jubilee,<a id="k48a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but In the period of the first Jubilee<a id="k48a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; both agree that he [the purchaser] had to bring and recite, since they still could not rely on the fields being returned, there is no difficulty: the one [R. Johanan] speaks of the first Jubilee and the other of the second Jubilee. Shall we say that we find in the following passage<a id="k48a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the same difference between Tannaim: 'How do we know that if a man buys a field from his father and then sanctifies it and his father subsequently dies,<a id="k48a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it is reckoned as "a field of possession"?<a id="k48a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Because Scripture says, And if he sanctifies&nbsp;&hellip; a field which he hath bought which is not of the field of his possession [he shall give thine estimation].<a id="k48a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [This signifies] a field which is not capable of becoming a "field of possession,"15 [and we therefore] except [from this rule] such a one as this which is capable of becoming a "field of his possession".<a id="k48a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the opinion of R. Judah and R. Simeon. R. Meir says: From where do we know that if a man buys a field from his father and his father dies and he then subsequently sanctifies the field, it is reckoned as a field of his possession? Because it says, If he sanctifies a field which he hath bought which is not of the field of his possession. [This signifies] a field which is not a "field of possession", and we therefore except from this rule such a one as this which is [now] a field of his possession.'<a id="k48a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Now R. Judah and R. Simeon, [while agreeing that in the case] where his father died and then he sanctified the field<a id="k48a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is reckoned a 'field of possession'], do not require a text to indicate this.<a id="k48a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Is not then the point at issue between them this: R. Meir held that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, and in this case therefore on the death of his father he does not inherit anything, and therefore if his father died and he sanctified it subsequently a text is necessary to indicate [that it is 'a field of his possession'],<a id="k48a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon held that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, and in this case on the death of his father he does inherit the field, and therefore if he sanctifies it after the death of his father no text is necessary [to indicate that it is 'a field of his possession'], and where a text is required is to indicate [that it is 'a field of his possession' even] when he sanctified it before the death of his father?<a id="k48a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: All the same I may still maintain that in general R. Judah and R. Simeon held that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the parent body, but in this case R. Judah and R. Simeon found a text which they interpreted [to the contrary effect]: The Divine Law [they said,] might have written, 'If he sanctifies a field which he has bought, which is not his possession.' What is the force of the words, 'Which is not of the field of his possession'? [It signifies], one which is not capable of becoming the field of his possession, [and we] except from the rule one that is capable of becoming the field of his possesslon.<a id="k48a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph said: Had R. Johanan not maintained that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, he would not have had a leg to stand on<a id="k48a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>. For R. Assi said in the name of R. Jonathan that if brothers divide an inheritance they stand to one another in the relation of purchasers and have to restore their shares to one another at the Jubilee.<a id="k48a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Now [this being so], should you assume [that the possession of the increment is] not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, then you would not find anyone qualified to bring firstfruits save an only son who had inherited from an only son up to the days of Joshua son of Nun.<a id="k48a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: Both Scripture and a Baraitha support Resh Lakish. Scripture,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k48b_1:" Lev. XXV, 15. This indicates that, at the time of the Jubilee, the crops were sold, not the land."
,k48b_2:" A firstborn takes a double portion only of property which was actually in possession of the father at the time of death, not of that which is to accrue subsequently. If, therefore, he takes a double portion of this field, it shows that his father, in spite of having sold it, was still reckoned as owner."
,k48b_3:" Because although he owns the produce (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>Mulug</i>), this is not equivalent to owning the land itself."
,k48b_4:" Cf. Ex. XXII, 4."
,k48b_5:" Lit., 'they value'."
,k48b_6:" [If A wrongfully acquires a field from B and sells it to C who was unaware that it was stolen and C spends money on improving it and a crop is produced, B may come and seize the field, crop and improvements, after paying C his costs in connection with the improvements. B is then entitled to recover from A the price he paid him for the field even from A's mortgaged property, but the value of the crop and increased value of the field due to the improvements only from A's unmortgaged property.]"
,k48b_7:" V. Keth. 52b."
,k48b_8:" Lit., 'for the good order of the world'. [This refers to all the rulings given in this Mishnah and supplies the connecting link between this chapter and the preceding one, as well as the reason for its inclusion in this tractate (v. Tosaf).]"
,k48b_9:" I.e., is its sanction only Rabbinic?"
,k48b_10:" Ex. XXII, 4."
,k48b_11:" I.e., he can claim only property of the same quality as the best of his own, even if this is not equal to the best of the defendant's."
,k48b_12:" The abuse to be prevented is explained lower down."
,k48b_13:" The meaning of this is discussed presently."
,k48b_14:" B.K. 6b. This is explained lower down."
,k48b_15:" Who apparently says that according to Scripture damage is to be estimated in all cases as if done to the best of the claimant's land. "
}

txt:
<p>
where it says, According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee.<a id="k48b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; A Baraitha, as it has been taught: A firstborn son receives a double portion of a field which [was due to] be restored to his father at the Jubilee.<a id="k48b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: We have it on tradition that a husband [before going to law] about property belonging to his wife requires authorization from her.<a id="k48b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, is the case only if the suit does not concern the produce. But if the suit concerns the produce, while he is putting forward claims to the produce he can put forward claims to the land itself as well.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_V">CHAPTER V</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE<a id="k48b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; IS PAID OUT<a id="k48b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; OF [PROPERTY OF] THE BEST QUALITY, A CREDITOR OUT OF LAND OF MEDIUM QUALITY, AND A WOMAN'S <I>KETHUBAH</I> OUT OF LAND OF THE POOREST QUALITY. R. MEIR, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT A WOMAN'S <I>KETHUBAH</I> IS ALSO PAID OUT OF MEDIUM [QUALITY LAND]. PAYMENT CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY WHERE THERE ARE FREE ASSETS AVAILABLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONLY LOWEST GRADE LAND. PAYMENT FROM ORPHANS CAN BE RECOVERED ONLY FROM LOWEST GRADE LAND. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PRODUCE CONSUMED<a id="k48b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND FOR THE BETTERMENT OF PROPERTY [DURING WRONGFUL TENURE] [AND PAYMENT] FOR THE MAINTENANCE [BY A MAN'S HEIRS] OF HIS WIDOW AND DAUGHTERS<a id="k48b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IS NOT ENFORCED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY, TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k48b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; THE FINDER OF A LOST ARTICLE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH, TO PREVENT ABUSES.<a id="k48b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [COMPENSATION&nbsp;&hellip; PROPERTY OF THE BEST QUALITY.] Is this only an ordinance to prevent abuses?<a id="k48b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; It derives from the Scripture, as it is written, The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay!<a id="k48b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: This statement holds good only if we take the view of R. Ishmael who said that according to the Torah the assessment is made on the property of the claimant of damage;<a id="k48b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; we are then told here that to prevent abuses<a id="k48b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; we make the assessment on the property of the defendant. What statement of R. Ishmael is referred to? &mdash; As it has been taught: 'The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay': [that is to say,] the best of the field of the claimant and the best of the vineyard of the claimant.<a id="k48b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: The whole purpose of the text is to allow compensation for damage to be recovered from the best property [of the defendant]: and all the more so in the case of the Sanctuary.<a id="k48b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now according to R. Ishmael,<a id="k48b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; if [a man's beast] ate the vegetables from a rich bed, he [naturally] repays the value of a rich bed, but if it ate from a poor bed is he to repay the value of a rich one? &mdash; R. Idi b. Abin said: We are dealing here with a case where it ate one bed out of a number and we do not know whether it was a rich one or a poor one; in this case he repays the value of the best. Said Raba. Seeing that if where we know that it ate a poor one he repays only the value of a poor one, here, where we do not know, is he to pay the value of a rich one? Does not the onus probandi fall on the claimant? &mdash; R. Aha b. Jacob therefore suggested
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k62a_1:" By giving her something without her husband's permission."
,k62a_2:" V. Deut. XXV, 4."
,k62a_3:" V. <i>supra</i> 55a."
,k62a_4:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 117, n. 6."
,k62a_5:" Since the priest relying on the haber may think that it is clean, whereas the whole of the dough has already become unclean in the hands of the 'am ha-arez."
,k62a_6:" Which does not become capable of ritual uncleanness till water has been poured on it, v. Lev. XI, 38."
,k62a_7:" I.e., a basket with a horizontal partition in the middle and open at both ends."
,k62a_8:" But not in the kind of receptacle ordinarily used for this purpose. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k62a_9:" I.e., it will be quite safe for the priest to eat it."
,k62a_10:" Lest the priest relying on them should think that they are clean, whereas they may have already become unclean through the touch of the 'am ha-arez."
,k62a_11:" Before they were passed through the vat and so were not yet capable of becoming unclean."
,k62a_12:" Produce from which the dues have not yet been separated. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k62a_13:" To have the <i>hallah</i> separated in such a way that it will be fit for the priest."
,k62a_14:" Being put in an exceptional kind of vessel, so that he is likely to remember our warning."
,k62a_15:" I.e., vessels which are not capable of receiving uncleanness."
,k62a_16:" I.e., 'Peace, Peace.'"
,k62a_17:" Lit., 'be strong.' or 'be assisted' &mdash; a gesture of encouragement."
,k62a_18:" Lit., 'firmness', 'strength'."
,k62a_19:" Lest he might take it a; a compliment to his god."
,k62a_20:" V. <i>supra</i>. p. 7, where it is stated that Geniba used always to annoy Mar 'Ukba."
,k62a_21:" Lit., 'son of the law'."
,k62a_22:" I.e., the Torah."
,k62a_23:" Prov. VIII, 15."
,k62a_24:" I Chron. XII, 19. The verse continues, Peace, peace be upon thee."
,k62a_25:" Deut. XI, 15. "
}

txt:
<p>
is likely to give her something which she may put in her mouth.' Seeing now that she [the wife of the 'am ha-arez] is capable of stealing,<a id="k62a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; will she not also exchange? &mdash; R. Joseph said; There too she finds an excuse [for stealing] by saying, The ox eats of his threshing.<a id="k62a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam testified<a id="k62a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of R. Johanan his brother who had it from R. Eleazar b. Hisma, that a <i>hallah</i><a id="k62a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is not to be set aside [by a baker haber] for an 'am ha-arez in ritual purity,<a id="k62a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but [the baker] can make his ordinary dough<a id="k62a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in ritual purity and take from it enough for a <i>hallah</i> and put it in a double basket<a id="k62a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or on a tray,<a id="k62a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and when the am ha-arez comes he can take both and [the baker] need not be afraid [that any harm will ensue].<a id="k62a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, [olive pressers who are kaberim] should not set aside <i>terumah</i> from his olives in ritual purity,<a id="k62a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but they can prepare his olives in ritual purity<a id="k62a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and take from them sufficient for <i>terumah</i>, and put it in the vessels of a haber, and when the am ha-arez comes he can take both of them, and the others need not fear [lest harm should ensue]. Now what is the reason [for these concessions]? &mdash; R. Johanan said; To enable the baker and the olive presser to earn a livelihood. And both statements were necessary. For if I had been given only the one about the baker, I might have said that the reason [why the concession was made in his case] is because he does not earn much, and that this does not apply to an olive presser who gets a good wage. And again, if I had been given only the statement about the olive presser. I might have said that the reason is because he has not constant employment, and that this does not apply to a baker who has constant employment. Hence both were necessary.
</p><p>
	The Master said above: 'He takes from it enough for a <i>hallah</i> and puts it in an inverted basket or on a tray. and when the 'am ha-arez comes he can take both and the other need not be afraid.' But he surely ought to be afraid that he has touched it? &mdash; We suppose that we say to him, Mind you don't touch it or it will become <i>tebel</i><a id="k62a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; again. But he must be afraid that he will not listen to him? &mdash; Seeing that his whole object is to keep it right,<a id="k62a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; will he not then listen to him?
</p><p>
	The Master said above; 'He can take from it sufficient for <i>terumah</i> and put it in the vessels of a haber, and when the 'am ha-arez comes, he can take both, and the other need not fear.' But surely he ought to be afraid lest he has touched it? In the other case, it is true, [we can find a reason why he should not], because it has some distinguishing mark,<a id="k62a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but here what distinguishing mark is there? &mdash; That he puts it in a vessel made of baked ordure, of stone, or of earth. If that is so, why does it say. 'in vessels of a haber'? Those of an 'am ha-arez would do as well? &mdash; That in fact is what is meant; vessels of an 'am ha-arez which a haber can also use.<a id="k62a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ASSISTANCE MAY BE GIVEN TO HEATHENS IN THE SABBATICAL YEAR. Assistance may be given to them? Has not R. Dimi b. Shishna said in the name of Rab; It is not right to hoe with heathens in the Sabbatical year nor to give a double greeting<a id="k62a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; to heathens? &mdash; It is quite correct; what is meant is, just to say to them, Ahzuku!<a id="k62a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus R. Judah used to say to them, Ahzuku! R. Shesheth used to say to them, Asharta!<a id="k62a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Nor to give double greeting to heathens.' R. Hisda used to give them greeting first. R. Kahana used to say; Peace [to you,] sir. GREETING MAY BE GIVEN TO THEM, IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. Seeing that we may encourage them at their work, do we need to be told that we may give them greeting? &mdash; R. Yeba said; The rule had to be stated only for their feast days. For it has been taught; 'A man should not enter the house of a heathen on his feast day, nor give him greeting.<a id="k62a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Should he meet him in the street, he should greet him in a mumbling tone and with downcast head.' As R. Huna and R. Hisda were once sitting together. Geniba<a id="k62a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; began to pass by. Said one to the other, Let us rise before him, since he is a learned man.<a id="k62a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; The other replied; Shall we rise before one who is quarrelsome? At this point he came up to them and said, Peace to you, kings, peace to you, kings. They said to him; Whence do you learn that the Rabbis are called kings? He replied; Because it is written, By me [wisdom]<a id="k62a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; kings reign.<a id="k62a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; They then said; And whence do you learn that double greeting is to be given to kings? He replied; From what Rab Judah said in the name of Rab; 'How do we know that double greeting should be given to a king? Because it says, Then the spirit came upon Amasai who was chief of the thirty etc.<a id="k62a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; They said to him; Would you care for a bite with us? He replied; Thus said Rab Judah in the name of Rab; It is forbidden to a man to taste anything until he has given food to his beast, as it says [first]. And I will give grass in thy field for thy cattle, and then, Thou shalt eat and be full.<a id="k62a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k62b_1:" The woman becomes divorced as soon as the Get came into the hands of her agent."
,k62b_2:" In the latter case if he wants to retain the possibility of retracting."
,k62b_3:" Because now he is no longer the wife's agent but his agent."
,k62b_4:" Instead of 'receive for me'."
,k62b_5:" For otherwise, the Get would still belong to the husband and he could withdraw it so long as it had not reached the wife's hand, v. <i>supra</i> 14a."
,k62b_6:" And therefore the bearer is the husband's agent and not the wife's, and the husband may retract in any case."
,k62b_7:" From which we should naturally infer that the case dealt with is one where the wife did not make him her agent."
,k62b_8:" On the principle that a disadvantage cannot be imposed on a man without his consent."
,k62b_9:" And if he used the latter, this would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession of'."
,k62b_10:" In which case the bearer still remains the agent of the wife."
,k62b_11:"[H], instead of [H] 'take'. By saying 'here you are', he accepts the man as the agent of the wife."
,k62b_12:" And whatever a man may do his agent may do for him."
,k62b_13:" V. Keth. 46b."
,k62b_14:" <i>Supra</i> 24b."
,k62b_15:" Ibid. and 5a."
,k62b_16:" Because the wife had not made him an agent for receiving the Get and the husband had not made him an agent for taking the Get."
,k62b_17:" I.e., he really supposed the wife to have told the agent to receive the Get."
,k62b_18:" That is to say, if he had allowed for the possibility of his wife having told the agent to bring the Get, and had accordingly made him his agent for conveying it. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vi">CHAPTER VI</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SAYS [TO ANOTHER], RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE, OR, CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT [BEFORE THE WIFE RECEIVES IT] HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS [TO A MAN], RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, [AND HE DOES SO]. IF [THE HUSBAND] DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO.<a id="k62b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; CONSEQUENTLY [WHAT IS THE HUSBAND TO DO?]<a id="k62b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO.<a id="k62b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN IF THE WIFE SAYS [MERELY]. TAKE FOR ME,<a id="k62b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [AND HE DOES SO]. HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Aha the son of R. 'Awia said to R. Ashi: The reason why [in the first case the husband may retract] is because she [the wife] did not make [the man] her agent for receiving [the Get], from which we infer that if she had made him the agent for receiving [the Get], the husband would not be at liberty to retract. This would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession of' [would it not]?<a id="k62b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; I may still maintain that 'convey' is not equivalent to 'take possession',<a id="k62b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and nevertheless it was necessary to specify the case where the husband said, Receive this Get on behalf of my wife.<a id="k62b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; For I might have argued that since the husband is not competent to make him an agent for receiving the Get,<a id="k62b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore even if the Get reached her hand it would not be valid, and we are therefore told that in saying 'receive' he also implied 'and convey'.
</p><p>
	We learnt: IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE A GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO. Does not this apply equally whether the husband [on handing the Get] used the expression of 'receiving' or of 'conveying'?<a id="k62b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; only if he said 'receive'.<a id="k62b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT HERE, CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. The reason is, is it not, that he Says. 'I am not agreeable', but if he does not say, 'I am not agreeable'. then if he desires to retract he may not do so, which would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession'? &mdash; Perhaps we should read, Here you are.<a id="k62b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It goes without saying that a man may be an agent for conveying the Get, seeing that a husband may himself convey a Get to his wife.<a id="k62b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; A woman may [similarly] be an agent for receiving, seeing that a woman receives a Get from the hand of her husband. What of a man becoming agent for receiving and a woman agent for conveying? &mdash; 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 MY GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY NOT DO SO. Does not this mean, where there is the same agent for both, which would show that the one who is qualified for conveying is also qualified for receiving? &mdash; No; we speak of two agents.
</p><p>
	Come and hear; CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. Now here he says this to the same agent [as she appointed], and this shows that he is qualified to receive as to convey. We can conclude from this that a man is qualified to receive, [as is also natural,] since a father may receive a Get on behalf of his minor daughter.<a id="k62b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Whether a woman may become an agent for conveying is still a question. R. Mari said: Come and hear: 'Even the women whose word cannot be taken if they report her husband to be dead can be trusted to bring her her Get;<a id="k62b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'and there they are agents for conveying. R. Ashi said: We could infer the same from the last clause [of that Mishnah], which runs, 'A woman herself may bring her Get, only she is required to declare, in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed;' and we explained this to mean that she conveyed it.<a id="k62b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: '[If a woman says to her agent]. Bring me my Get, and [he says to the husband]. Your wife said to me, Receive my Get on my behalf, and the husband said, Here you are as she said,' in such a case R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu, who had it from Rab, that even when the Get reached her hand it would not be valid.<a id="k62b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; From this we should conclude that the husband was relying on his [the agent's] word,<a id="k62b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; since if he was relying on the wife's word,<a id="k62b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; she would at any rate be divorced when the Get reached her hand. Said R. Ashi: Is that so?
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k67a_1:" He appointed special witnesses for the signature. This proves that the view that the scribe may witness the Get is not compatible with the view that the husband can say to the agent, Tell the scribe."
,k67a_2:" <i>Infra</i>."
,k67a_3:" 'Tell the scribe to write and So-and-so etc., to sign.'"
,k67a_4:" And therefore R. Jose would not make provision against so remote a danger."
,k67a_5:" And therefore this also is unusual."
,k67a_6:" That the Get is invalid whether he told three persons to write and they told a scribe to write, or whether he told two persons to tell a scribe to write and two persons to sign, and they did so."
,k67a_7:" [Samuel agreed that if he did not say 'tell the scribe' the Get is invalid, since oral instructions cannot he committed to an agent, but he held that if he did say so the Get would he valid. Hence, as regards the query sent to Samuel, if the word 'write' meant only the signature, they would he able to tell the scribe to write. And it was with reference to this that Samuel required the matter to he studied further.]"
,k67a_8:" Lit., 'his depth is with him', or 'his nomikon (logic)'."
,k67a_9:" This was his profession. V. Sotah, 20."
,k67a_10:" I.e., when he was not too hasty, he could be even wiser than R. Meir (Tosaf.)."
,k67a_11:" When he was asked a question, his instances came out like a heap of nuts toppling over one another."
,k67a_12:" Where it is not necessary to keep the customer waiting while the article required is brought from outside."
,k67a_13:" All his learning being classified under various heads Scripture, <i>Halachah</i>, <i>Aggadah</i>, etc. like different kinds of corn in a storehouse."
,k67a_14:" Apparently this indicates that while his knowledge was well arranged like that of R. Akiba, it was not so well unified and correlated."
,k67a_15:" Apparently, less in quantity than R. Johanan's."
,k67a_16:" Lit., 'a <i>kab</i> and fine'. So that wherever he gives an opinion, the <i>halachah</i> follows him."
,k67a_17:" I.e., those statements which were not followed by the <i>halachah</i>."
,k67a_18:" Lit., 'measures'."
,k67a_19:" Lit., 'the <i>terumah</i> of the terumah'."
,k67a_20:" To say this to the scribe and the witnesses in the name of her husband."
,k67a_21:" E.g., sign their own names. "
}

txt:
<p>
Tell the scribe to write and So-and-so and So-and-so to sign, and out of fear of offending the scribe they will agree that one of them should sign and the scribe with him, which is not what the husband said?<a id="k67a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since a Master has said<a id="k67a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [that a Get of this kind<a id="k67a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is] valid but this should not be done in Israel, it is not usual.<a id="k67a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But is there not the possibility that he may say to two persons, Tell the scribe to write and do you sign, and they will go and in order not to offend the scribe let the scribe sign along with one of them, which is not what the husband said? &mdash; We say here also: Such a Get is valid, but this should not be done in Israel.<a id="k67a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; This is a sufficient answer for one who holds that it is valid but should not be done, but to one who holds that it is valid and may be done what are we to say? &mdash; The truth is that R. Jose laid down two [disqualifications],<a id="k67a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel concurred with him in regard to one and differed from him in regard to the other.<a id="k67a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The text above [states]: '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 an agent'. R. Simeon son of Rabbi said to him: Seeing that R. Hanina of Ono and R. Meir take a different view from R. Jose, what was Rabbi's reason for saying that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose? &mdash; He replied: Say nothing, my son, say nothing; you have never seen R. Jose. Had you seen him, [you would know] that he always had good ground for his views.<a id="k67a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; For so it has been taught: Issi b. Judah used to specify the distinctive merits of the various Sages. R. Meir [he said], was wise and a scribe.<a id="k67a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah was wise when he desired to be.<a id="k67a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Tarfon was a heap of nuts.<a id="k67a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ishmael was a well-stocked shop.<a id="k67a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba was a storehouse with compartments.<a id="k67a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan b. Nuri was a basket of fancy goods.<a id="k67a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar b. Azariah was a basket of spices.<a id="k67a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The Mishnah of R. Eliezer b. Jacob [the Elder] was little and good.<a id="k67a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose always had his reasons. R. Simeon used to grind much and let out little. A Tanna [explained this to mean that] he used to forget little, and what he let go from his mind was only the bran.<a id="k67a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; So too said R. Simeon to his disciples: My sons, learn my rules,<a id="k67a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; since my rules are the cream of the cream<a id="k67a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Akiba's. 
</p><p>
	The text above [states]. 'If a man said to two persons, Tell the scribe to write and So-and-so and So-and-so to sign, R. Huna said in the name of Rab that [the Get is] valid, but this should not be done in Israel.' Said 'Ulla to R. Nahman (or, according to others, R. Nahman said to 'Ulla): Seeing that [the Get is] valid, why should this not be done in Israel? &mdash; He replied: We are afraid lest she might suborn witnesses.<a id="k67a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But do we entertain any such fear? Has it not been taught: Once the witnesses have signed to a deed of purchase of a field or the Get of a woman, the Sages entertain no doubts about their reliability? They would not do anything wrong,<a id="k67a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but they might say something.
</p><p>
	If a man said to two persons, Tell the scribe to write and do you sign, R. Hisda said [that the Get would be] valid but this should not be done; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said that it is valid and this may be done; R. Nahman said it is valid and this may not be done; R. Shesheth said it is valid and this may be done; Rabbah said it is valid and this may not be done; R. Joseph said it is valid and this may be done.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k67b_1:" [In the neighbourhood of Zepphoris. V. Klein, NB p. 22.]"
,k67b_2:" Some say that if he enumerated all of them this is equivalent to saying 'all of you'. whereas if he enumerated only some, this shows that he abandoned his intention of making all of them responsible, and it is sufficient if any two of those enumerated sign. Others explain that if he enumerated some, this shows that he was particular that all these should sign, whereas if he enumerated all without saying 'all of you,' this shows that he desired any two to sign, but in the presence of the rest."
,k67b_3:" To provide against the possibility that the husband may insist that he meant that it should be signed by all."
,k67b_4:" Should one of them be absent at the writing or fail to sign the Get."
,k67b_5:" Omitting 'all of you'."
,k67b_6:" A kind of delirium in which he does not know exactly what he is saying. V. <i>Infra</i>. Apparently = [G], which, however, is not found in this sense. Goldschmidt derives it from [G]."
,k67b_7:" Lit., 'three times', to see if he is still compos mentis."
,k67b_8:" Lit., 'bitten'."
,k67b_9:" I.e.. without much fat. "
,k67b_10:" V. Kid. 31b."
,k67b_11:" Lit., 'snow'."
,k67b_12:" Because he used to vex them with his numerous restrictions."
,k67b_13:" The daughter of the Exilarch and wife of R. Nahman."
,k67b_14:" From the perspiration."
,k67b_15:" Lit., 'to make warm its master'."
,k67b_16:" Lit., 'who will say'."
,k67b_17:" According to another reading 'in the presence of your servant,' as R. Shesheth was blind."
,k67b_18:" Lit., 'the portion which chokes the mother-in-law'. According to Rashi, this was a part above the hind leg containing a very small bone. "
}

txt:
<p>
Some reverse [the names in] the last two statements.
</p><p>
	IF HE SAID TO TEN PERSONS, WRITE A GET. Our Rabbis taught: If he says to ten persons, Write a Get and give it to my wife, one writes on behalf of all of them. [If he says,] All of you write, one writes In the presence of all of them. If he says [to ten], Take a Get to my wife, one takes it on behalf of all of them. If he says, All of you take it, one takes it in the company of the rest. The question was raised: If he enumerated them [one by one], what is the law? &mdash; R. Huna said: Enumeration is not the same as saying 'all of you'; R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eleazar from Ruma<a id="k67b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; that enumeration is the same as saying 'all of you'. R. Papa said: They are not in conflict: the one speaks of where he enumerated all of them and the other of where he enumerated only some of them. Some explain this in one way and some explain it in the opposite way.<a id="k67b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah made a regulation that in a Get [which the husband had ordered with the word] 'all of you' [they should insert<a id="k67b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the words, He said to us], Write either all of you or any one of you; Sign either all of you or any two of you; Convey all of you or any one of you.<a id="k67b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Sometimes a man cuts his words short and says 'all of you' without adding, 'any one of you,' and he can afterwards come and declare the Get invalid. Raba therefore said that [they should insert the words], Write any one of you, Sign any two of you, Convey any one of you.<a id="k67b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>



    </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="E205"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/205.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 205<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">




      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vii">CHAPTER VII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN IS SEIZED WITH A KORDIAKOS<a id="k67b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SAYS, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. IF HE SAYS, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, AND IS THEN SEIZED WITH A KORDIAKOS AND THEN SAYS, DO NOT WRITE IT, HIS LATER WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. IF HE 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.<a id="k67b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE SIGNIFIES 'NO' AND 'YES' PROPERLY EACH TIME, THEN THE GET SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND GIVEN FOR HIM.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is <I>kordiakos</I>? &mdash; Samuel said: Being overcome<a id="k67b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; by new wine from the vat. Then why does it not Say. If one is overcome by new wine? &mdash; The mode of expression teaches us that <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">this spirit [which causes the dizziness] is called <I>kordiakos</I>.</font> Of what use is this [knowledge]? &mdash; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">For a charm.</font> What is the remedy for it? Red<a id="k67b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; meat broiled on the coals, and wine highly diluted.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: My mother<a id="k67b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; told me that <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">for a sun-stroke [fever]</font> the remedy is on the first day to take a jug of water, [if it lasts] two days to <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">let blood</font>, [if] three days to take red meat broiled on the coals and highly diluted wine. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">For a chronic heat stroke, he should bring a black hen and tear it lengthwise</font> and crosswise and <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">shave the middle of his head and put the bird on it and leave it there till it sticks fast, and then he should</font> go down [to the river] and <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">stand in water up to his neck till he is quite faint</font>, and then he should <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">swim out and sit down</font>. If he cannot do this, he should eat leeks and go down and stand in water up to his neck till he is faint and then swim out and sit down. For sunstroke one should eat red meat broiled on the coals with wine much diluted. For a chill<a id="k67b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; one should eat fat meat broiled on the coals with undiluted wine. When the household of the Exilarch wanted to annoy R. Amram the Pious,<a id="k67b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; they made him lie down in the snow. On the next day they said, What would your honour like us to bring you? He knew that whatever he told them they would do the reverse, so he said to them, Lean meat broiled on the coals and wine much diluted. They brought him fat meat broiled on the coals and undiluted wine. Yaltha<a id="k67b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; heard and took him in to the bath, and they kept him there till the water turned to the colour of blood<a id="k67b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and his flesh was covered with bright spots. R. Joseph used to cure the shivers by working at the mill, R. Shesheth by carrying heavy beams. He said: Work is a splendid thing to make one warm.<a id="k67b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Exilarch once said to R. Shesheth, Why will your honour not dine with us? He replied: Because your servants are not reliable, being suspected of taking a limb from a living animal. You don't say so,<a id="k67b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; said the Exilarch. He replied, I will just show you. He then told his attendant to steal a leg from an animal and bring it. When he brought it to him he said [to the Servants of the Exilarch], place the pieces of the animal before me. They brought three legs and placed them before him. He said to them, This must have been a three-legged animal. They then cut a leg off an animal and brought it. He then said to his attendant, Now produce yours. He did so, and he then said to them, This must have been a five-legged animal. The Exilarch said to him, That being the case, let them prepare the food in your presence<a id="k67b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and then you can eat it. Very good, he replied. They brought up a table and placed meat before him, and set in front of him a portion with a dangerous bone.<a id="k67b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; He felt it and took and wrapped it in his scarf. When he had finished they said to him,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k77a_1:" And therefore of no effect."
,k77a_2:" R. Judah the Prince."
,k77a_3:" And therefore in the case of the Mishnah, where he said 'IF I DO NOT RETURN', if he died within the twelve months the Get takes effect retrospectively."
,k77a_4:" The Tanna of our Mishnah."
,k77a_5:" Where the Get is not valid (v. <i>supra</i> 72a), and similarly in the case of the Mishnah, the Get takes effect only after twelve months and should he die in the meantime the Get is no Get."
,k77a_6:" To allow for the 'after'."
,k77a_7:" Sabbath in Hebrew denotes either week or Sabbath."
,k77a_8:" Lit., 'it was praised'. Because he reported this ruling as the opinion of one individual which need not be accepted."
,k77a_9:" For reporting a non-recognised teaching in the name of many."
,k77a_10:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 77 and notes."
,k77a_11:" I.e., the so-called 'property of plucking' (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mulug</i>) of which the husband has the usufruct while the wife retains the ownership."
,k77a_12:" [G]."
,k77a_13:" Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k77a_14:" For notes v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 58."
,k77a_15:" Ex. XXII, 3."
,k77a_16:" For notes v. <i>op. cit</i>. p. 56."
,k77a_17:" And therefore her courtyard serves the purpose equally with her hand."
,k77a_18:" Hence, if, for instance, an animal entered his courtyard and he locked it in without touching it, I might think that he would not be liable."
,k77a_19:" To repay double. Ex. <i>loc. cit</i>. This would indicate that the law was in general more severe with him."
,k77a_20:" Cf. B.B. 43a."
,k77a_21:" [Unless and until he makes it over as a gift.]"
,k77a_22:" I.e., not his father, or next-of-kin according to the Torah. "
}

txt:
<p>
he means that [the Get is to take effect only] when the sun does come out, and if he dies in the night it would be a Get after death.<a id="k77a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If, again, he says, 'On condition that the sun issues from its sheath,' he means it to take effect as from now, since R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi, The formula 'on condition' Is equivalent to 'as from now'. Where opinions differ is when he says 'if it shall issue', One authority<a id="k77a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; adopts the view of R. Jose who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication, so that his words are analogous to 'from to-day if I die, from now if I die,'<a id="k77a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other<a id="k77a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; did not accept the view of R. Jose, and his words are analogous to the bare 'if I die'.<a id="k77a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IF THEY WROTE etc. Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: May we conclude from this that in R. Jose's opinion, if one writes a Get subject to a certain condition [even if the condition is not fulfilled] the document is a valid one? &mdash; No; I may still hold that it is not valid, and R. Jose has a special reason here, because he ought to have said 'If I do not come, write and deliver', and he actually said, 'Write and deliver if I do not come', and [we presume him] therefore to have meant, Write from now and deliver if I do not come. The Rabbis, however, do not differentiate between the two forms.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If he says, 'This is your Get if I do not return] till after the septennate,' we wait an extra year;<a id="k77a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'till after a year', we wait a month; 'till after a month', we wait a week. If he Says, 'till after the Sabbath',<a id="k77a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; what [do we do]? &mdash; When R. Zera was once sitting before R. Assi, or, as others report, when R. Assi was sitting before R. Johanan, he said: The first day of the week and the second and third are called 'after the Sabbath'; the fourth and fifth days and the eve of Sabbath are called 'before the Sabbath.'
</p><p>
	It has been taught: [If he says] 'Till after the festival', we wait thirty days. R. Hiyya went forth and preached this in the name of Rabbi, and he was commended [for doing so].<a id="k77a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He then preached it in the name of the majority and was not commended.<a id="k77a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows that the law is not as laid down by him.<a id="k77a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_viii">CHAPTER VIII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN THROWS A GET TO HIS WIFE WHILE SHE IS IN HER HOUSE OR IN HER COURTYARD,<a id="k77a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED. IF HE THROWS IT TO HER INTO HIS HOUSE OR INTO HIS COURTYARD, EVEN THOUGH HE IS WITH HER ON THE SAME BED, SHE IS NOT THEREBY DIVORCED. IF HE THROWS IT INTO HER LAP OR INTO HER WORK-BASKET,<a id="k77a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the Scriptural warrant for this rule? &mdash; As our Rabbis taught: 'And give it in her hand:<a id="k77a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; this only tells me that [the Get may be placed] in 'her hand'. Whence do I learn that [it may also be placed] on her roof, or in her courtyard or enclosure? The text says significantly. 'And he shall give', which means, in any manner.<a id="k77a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught in a similar manner regarding a thief: His hand:<a id="k77a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; this tells me on]y that [he is liable if the theft is found] in his hand. Whence do I learn that [he is equally liable if it is found] on his roof, or in his courtyard or his enclosure? From the significant words, 'If it be found at all', which means, under all circumstances.<a id="k77a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And [both expositions are] necessary. For had I only the one regarding the Get, I should have said that the reason is because [she is divorced] against her will,<a id="k77a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but [that this rule does] not apply to a thief who cannot become such against his will.<a id="k77a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And had I been given the rule in regard to the thief only, I should have said [that it applied to him] because the All-Merciful imposed a fine upon him,<a id="k77a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to a Get. Hence both were necessary.
</p><p>
	It says]. HER COURTYARD. [How can this be, Seeing that] whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband? &mdash; R. Eleazar said: We presume him to have given her a written statement that he has no claim on her property. But suppose he did do so, what difference does it make, seeing that it has been taught.<a id="k77a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a man says to another [a partner.] I have no claim on this field, I have no concern in it, I entirely dissociate myself from it, his words are of no effect'?<a id="k77a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The school of R. Jannai explained: We suppose him to have given her this written statement while she was still betrothed, and we adopt [at the same time] the maxim of R. Kahana; for R. Kahana said that a man may stipulate beforehand that he will not take up a prospective inheritance from an outside source.<a id="k77a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; This too is based on a ruling of Raba, who said: If one says.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k77b_1:" The regulation having been made for her benefit, she is not bound to avail herself of it. So too in the case of an heir-at-law outside those mentioned in the Torah, v. B.K. 8b."
,k77b_2:" That he had to give a special reason for legalising it."
,k77b_3:" Kid. 22."
,k77b_4:" Lit., 'the world was heavy for him'. And he was anxious to divorce her so that she should not become subject to the levirate law, but he could not give her the Get, as it was not allowed to be carried on Sabbath."
,k77b_5:" B.B. 42a."
,k77b_6:" [And by obtaining possession of the courtyard the Get automatically passes into her possession on the principle that movable property may be acquired along with immovable property; v. Kid. 26a (Rashi).]"
,k77b_7:" That to the husband belongs whatever the woman acquires."
,k77b_8:" Why then was he nonplussed?"
,k77b_9:" 'Ulla and R. Oshaia."
,k77b_10:" And therefore she may be at any distance from it; v. <i>supra</i> 21a and B.M. 10b."
,k77b_11:" Which would include her slave. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k77b_12:" In either case she is divorced."
,k77b_13:" In either case she is not divorced."
,k77b_14:" [Therefore where the block was four cubits by four it forms a separate domain and is not one with the courtyard lent to her.] "
}

txt:
<p>
I do not care to avail myself of the regulation of the Sages, in a case like this he is allowed to have his way. What did he mean by 'in a case like this'? &mdash; He was referring to the case mentioned by R. Huna in the name of Rab; for R. Huna said in the name of Rab, A woman is at liberty to say to her husband, You need not maintain me and I will not work for you.<a id="k77b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: Does not her hand also belong to her husband? The fact is that her hand and her Get become hers simultaneously. So also her courtyard and her Get become hers simultaneously. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Can Raba have found any difficulty about the woman's hand?<a id="k77b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Granted that the husband owns the labour of her hands, does he own the hand itself? &mdash; He replied: Raba's difficulty was [really] with the hand of a slave. For on the view of the authority who holds that a slave may acquire his freedom by means of a document which he receives himself,<a id="k77b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [we may ask,] how can this be, seeing that the hand of the slave is like that of the master? Only we must suppose that his hand and his deed of emancipation become his simultaneously. So here, her Get and her courtyard become hers simultaneously.
</p><p>
	A certain man who was lying very ill wrote a Get for his wife on the eve of the Sabbath and had not time to give it to her [before Sabbath]. On the next day his condition became critical.<a id="k77b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba was consulted, and he said: Go and tell him to make over to her the place where the Get is, and let her go and close and open a door there and so take formal possession of it, as we have learnt:<a id="k77b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If one does anything in the way of locking up or fencing or breaking open, this constitutes formal occupation.'<a id="k77b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. 'Ilish to Raba: But whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband? &mdash; He was nonplussed. Eventually it transpired that she was only betrothed. Thereupon Raba said: If this rule was laid down for a married woman,<a id="k77b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is it to apply to a betrothed woman? Later Raba corrected himself and said: No matter whether she is married or betrothed, her Get and her courtyard become hers simultaneously. But this is just what Raba said?<a id="k77b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; When he did say it first, it was in connection with this incident.
</p><p>
	WHILE SHE IS IN HER HOUSE. 'Ulla said: That is so, provided she is standing by the side of her house or by the side of her courtyard. R. Oshaia said: She may even be in Tiberias and her courtyard in Sepphoris or she may be in Sepphoris and her courtyard in Tiberias; she is still divorced. But it says. WHILE SHE IS IN HER HOUSE OR IN HER COURTYARD? &mdash; What it means is, While she is virtually in her own house or in her own courtyard on account of the fact that the courtyard is being kept [for her] with her knowledge and consent, and therefore she is divorced.
</p><p>
	May we say that the point at issue between them<a id="k77b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is this, that the one authority ['Ulla] holds that [the rule about] a courtyard is derived from 'her hand', and the other from its being regarded as analogous to her agent?<a id="k77b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; both are agreed that the [rule about] a courtyard is derived from 'her hand'. One, however, interprets the analogy thus: just as her hand is close to her, so her courtyard must be close to her. And the other? &mdash; He will rejoin: Since her hand is attached to her, has her courtyard also to be attached to her? But [you must say] it is like her hand in this sense. Just as her hand is kept for her with her knowledge, so her courtyard must be kept for her with her knowledge, and what we exclude therefore is a courtyard which is kept for her [even] without her knowledge.<a id="k77b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man threw a Get to his wife as she was standing in a courtyard and it went and fell on a block of wood. R. Joseph thereupon said: We have to see. If the block was four cubits by four, it forms a separate domain, but if not, it is one with the courtyard. What case are we dealing with? Are we to say that the courtyard is hers? If so, what does it matter if the block is four cubits by four?<a id="k77b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Is the courtyard his? Then if it is not four by four what does it matter?<a id="k77b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [R. Joseph's ruling] applies where he lent her the place, since men will usually lend one place but not two places.<a id="k77b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Further, we do not say [that it is one with the court] save only if it is not ten handbreadths high; but if it is ten handbreadths high, we do not say so, even if it is not four cubits by four. Nor even so do we say that it is included save only if it has no
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k82a_1:" The Baraitha does not instance the case where the folds are more in number than the witnesses by two."
,k82a_2:" I.e., in such a way that two competent ones should always be together."
,k82a_3:" Because there would now be no danger that out of any three signatures two might be those of relatives."
,k82a_4:" With a 'bald' Get, all the witnesses who had signed still being present."
,k82a_5:" Thus showing that the <i>halachah</i> followed Ben Nannos."
,k82a_6:" This reservation is discussed <i>infra</i>."
,k82a_7:" In not making her free to marry any man."
,k82a_8:" And the Get is effective at once, while the condition has to be fulfilled later. V. <i>supra</i> 74a."
,k82a_9:" Because this condition is held to be on a par with other conditions."
,k82a_10:" Neg. XII, 1."
,k82a_11:" Lev. XIV, 34. "
}

txt:
<p>
by the fact that it goes by steps from one number to the next,<a id="k82a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; which shows [that it is as R. Johanan said]. Abaye said: It also shows that the relative may sign where he pleases, at the beginning or in the middle or at the end; we gather this from the fact that no fixed place is assigned to him. It also shows that the Get can be confirmed on the strength of any three signatures and we do not require three next to one another, for if you should suppose that we do require them to be together, a place could be assigned to the relative before or between or after every two competent ones,<a id="k82a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and several [relatives] should be allowed.<a id="k82a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When a party came before R. Ammi,<a id="k82a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; she said, Go and complete it with the signature of a slave from the street.<a id="k82a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ix">CHAPTER IX</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN ON DIVORCING HIS WIFE SAYS TO HER, YOU ARE HEREBY FREE TO MARRY ANY MAN BUT SO-AND-SO, R. ELIEZER PERMITS HER [TO MARRY ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS GET], BUT THE RABBIS FORBID HER. WHAT MUST HE DO? HE MUST TAKE IT BACK FROM HER AND GIVE IT TO HER AGAIN SAYING, YOU ARE HEREBY FREE TO MARRY ANY MAN. IF HE WROTE IT<a id="k82a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE GET, EVEN THOUGH HE SUBSEQUENTLY ERASED IT, IT IS INVALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The question was raised: Has the word BUT here the force of 'except' or of 'on condition'? Shall we say it means 'except', and it is where he said 'except [So-and-so]' that the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer, on the ground that he has left an omission in the Get,<a id="k82a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but that where he says 'on condition [that you do not marry So-and-so]' they agree with R. Eliezer, placing this condition on a par with any other?<a id="k82a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Or should we say perhaps that [BUT here] means 'on condition', and it is where he says 'on condition' that R. Eliezer differs from the Rabbis,<a id="k82a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but where he says except' he agrees with them, on the ground that he has left an omission in the Get? &mdash; Rabina replied: Come and hear: 'All houses are defiled by strokes of leprosy but those of heathen'.<a id="k82a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you say that it means 'on condition', are we to understand that it is only on condition that the houses of heathens are not defiled that the houses of Israelites are defiled, which would imply that if the houses of heathens are defiled the houses of Israelites are not defiled? And besides, can the houses of heathens be defiled, seeing that it has been taught: 'And I put the plague of leprosy. in a house of the land of your possession:<a id="k82a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [this implies] that the land of your possession is defiled by plague of leprosy, but houses of heathens are not defiled by plague of leprosy'? &mdash; We must understand therefore that 'but' means 'except'; and this may be taken as proved.
</p><p>
	The Mishnah is not in agreement with the Tanna of the following [passage]. where it is taught: R. Jose said in the name of R. Judah: R. Eliezer and the Rabbis were agreed that if a man on divorcing his wife said to her, You are hereby permitted to any man except So-and-so, she is not divorced. Where they differed was if a man on divorcing his wife said to her, You are hereby permitted to marry any man on condition that you do not marry So-and-so,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k82b_1:" Deut. XXIV, 2."
,k82b_2:" Lev. XXI, 7."
,k82b_3:" Hence if he permits her to one man only, she is divorced."
,k82b_4:" Being subject to numerous regulations, and therefore we cannot argue from it to a Get in general."
,k82b_5:" I.e., 'Be betrothed to me so as to be forbidden to any man except So-and-so.'"
,k82b_6:" In the phraseology of the Mishnah, a woman is 'acquired' by means of betrothal. Kid. ad. init."
,k82b_7:" Deut. XXIV, 2. On the strength of this analogy, whatever applies to divorce applies also to betrothal."
,k82b_8:" V. Deut. l.c. and <i>supra</i> p. 83."
,k82b_9:" If a man makes the formal declaration to marry his deceased childless brother's wife, and dies before doing so, she is called 'the wife of two dead', and must not marry a second brother but must give him <i>halizah</i>. v. Yeb. 31b."
,k82b_10:" Because when he forbade her to all the world except Reuben, the condition was null, as she was already forbidden to all the world by her betrothal with Reuben."
,k82b_11:" In similar circumstances."
,k82b_12:" And so whichever of them has died first, the other has promised to marry her."
,k82b_13:" I.e., he means, You are permitted to Reuben and Simeon also."
,k82b_14:" I.e., he means now, You are permitted only to Reuben and Simeon. "
}

txt:
<p>
in which case R. Eliezer allowed her to marry anyone except that man and the Rabbis forbade her [to marry at all on the strength of that Get]. What is R. Eliezer's reason? &mdash; He puts the condition on the same footing as any other condition. And the Rabbis? &mdash; They say that any other condition does not involve an omission in the Get, but this one involves an omission in the Get.
</p><p>
	And in the Mishnah, where, as we have decided, he means 'except', what is the reason of R. Eliezer? &mdash; R. Jannai answered in the name of a certain elder: Because the text says. She shall depart from his house and go and be another man's wife,<a id="k82b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies that if he permitted her to marry only one other man she is divorced. And the Rabbis? &mdash; The word 'man' here means any other man. R. Johanan, however, says that R. Eliezer derived his reason from this verse: Neither shall they [the priests] take a woman put away from her husband.<a id="k82b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This shows that even though she is only divorced from her husband [without being permitted to any other man], she is disqualified from the privileges of priesthood, which shows that the Get is valid.<a id="k82b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Rabbis? &mdash; The prohibition of priestly privileges is on a different footing.<a id="k82b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba raised the question: What is the rule [if a man uses these words] in betrothing?<a id="k82b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; The answer is not self-evident whether we adopt the view of R. Eliezer or that of the Rabbis. If we adopt R. Eliezer's view, are we to say that R. Eliezer ruled as he did here [in the case of divorce] only because this is indicated in the Scripture, but in the case of betrothal we require an effective acquisition?<a id="k82b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Or shall we say that R. Eliezer applies the principle of she shall depart and be [married]?<a id="k82b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, if we adopt the view of the Rabbis, are we to say that the Rabbis ruled as they did here [in the case of divorce] only because we require a 'cutting off',<a id="k82b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the other case any kind of acquisition is sufficient, or shall we say that they apply the analogy of 'she shall depart and be'? &mdash; After stating the problem he himself solved it, saying: Whether we adopt the view of R. Eliezer or that of the Rabbis, we require that the analogy of 'she shall depart and be' should hold good.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: If we can assume that the answer of R. Abba was sound, then if Reuben came and betrothed a woman with a reservation in favour of [his brother] Simeon, and then Simeon came and betrothed her with a reservation in favour of Reuben, and both of them died, she contracts a levirate marriage with Levi, [the third brother] and I do not call her 'the wife of two dead',<a id="k82b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the reason being that the betrothal of Reuben was effective but the betrothal of Simeon was not effective.<a id="k82b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And in what circumstances would she be the wife of two dead?<a id="k82b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If, for instance, Reuben came and betrothed her with a reservation in favour of Simeon and then Simeon came and betrothed her without any reservation, in which case the betrothal of Reuben availed to make her forbidden to all other men and the betrothal of Simeon to make her forbidden to Reuben.<a id="k82b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye raised the question: If he said to her, 'You are hereby permitted to any man except Reuben and Simeon', and then said 'to Reuben and Simeon' what is to be done? Do we say that [by these words] he permits what he had forbidden,<a id="k82b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or are we to say that he both permits what he had forbidden and forbids what he had permitted?<a id="k82b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And assuming the answer to be
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k3a_1:" To enable her to remarry."
,k3a_2:" Finding some flaw in the drafting or procedure."
,k3a_3:" <i>Infra</i> 5b."
,k3a_4:" [Lit., 'do injury' to himself (i.e., to his reputation). He realises that no attack against the validity of the Get is likely to be admitted merely on his own word so as to reverse the decision of the two or three before whom it had been presented. V. Rashi and Adreth, Hiddushim a.l., and <i>infra</i> p. 14, n. 2.]"
,k3a_5:" I.e., relating to money matters."
,k3a_6:" If he says 'In my presence it was written in her name' which in Hebrew is expressed in three words."
,k3a_7:" The formula in the Mishnah is expressed in two Hebrew words."
,k3a_8:" The case of a Get and the case of documents in general."
,k3a_9:" From attesting."
,k3a_10:" V. <i>infra</i> 23b."
,k3a_11:" The party claiming on the document."
,k3a_12:" Because a woman may act as bearer of her own Get. <i>Infra</i> 23b."
,k3a_13:" If he says only, 'In my presence it was signed'. "
}

txt:
<p>
on account of the danger of the woman becoming a 'deserted wife', those [same] Rabbis made a concession<a id="k3a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [by allowing one bearer to suffice]. You call this a concession? It is rather a hardship. since if you require that the Get should be brought by two [bearers], there is no danger of the husband coming and challenging it<a id="k3a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and getting it declared invalid; but if only one is required, he will be able to do so? &mdash; No. You know what a Master has told us:<a id="k3a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; ['On the question] how many persons must be present when he [the bearer] gives [the writ] to her [the wife], there was a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Haninah, one holding that [at least] two were required, and the other that [at least] three.' This being so, [the bearer] will make sure [of the husband's intentions] from the first, and [the husband] will not come [and invalidate the Get] and bring himself into trouble later.<a id="k3a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
Since Raba's reason is that it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, why does not he also require two [bearers]. so as to bring this document into line with all others [which may require such confirmation]? &mdash; One witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition. But presumably the rule that one witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition applies for instance to the case of a piece of fat of which we do not know whether it is permitted or forbidden, there being no prima facie ground for declaring it prohibited. Here, however, since there is prima facie ground for assuming the prohibition regarding a married woman, the question becomes one of prohibited sex relationship, and for disproving such a relationship the evidence of two witnesses is required? &mdash; By rights no witnesses should be required for confirming [the signature on] other documents<a id="k3a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; either, as may be inferred from the dictum of Resh Lakish, that signatures of witnesses to a document are just as reliable as if their evidence had been sifted in the <i>Beth din</i>. It is the Rabbis who on their own authority insisted [on two witnesses for this], and here on account of the danger of the woman becoming a 'deserted wife', these [same] Rabbis made a concession. You call this a concession? It is rather a hardship, since if you require that the Get should be brought by two bearers, there is no danger of the husband coming and challenging it and getting it declared invalid; but if only one is required, he will be able to do so? &mdash; No. You know what a certain Master has told us: ['On the question] how many persons must be present when he gives her the Get, there was a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Haninah, one holding that [at least] two were required and the other [at least] three.' This being so, the bearer will make sure of the husband's intentions, and [the husband] will not come [and invalidate the Get] and bring himself into trouble later.
</p><p>
	Why did not Raba give the same reason that Rabbah gave? &mdash; He will tell you: Does the Mishnah then require him to declare, 'In my presence it was written in her name, in my presence it was signed in her name'? And Rabbah? &mdash; He might retort that by rights the formula ought to run thus, and the reason why it does not is because if you give the bearer too many words to say, he will leave out some. As it is he may leave something out? &mdash; He might omit one word out of three,<a id="k3a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he will hardly omit one word from two.<a id="k3a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Why did not Rabbah give the reason which Raba gave? &mdash; He will tell you: If this were the reason the Mishnah should require the bearer to declare simply, 'In my presence it was signed' and no more, the fact that he has also to say, 'In my presence it was written' shows that 'Special intention' is required. And Raba? &mdash; He might retort that by rights the formula should run thus, but if it did the impression might be created that the confirmation of signatures to documents in general requires only one witness. And Rabbah? &mdash; He might rejoin that the two cases<a id="k3a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; are not similar. There the formula is, 'We know [this to be So-and-so's signature],' here it is, 'In my presence etc.'; there a woman is debarred,<a id="k3a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; here a woman is not debarred;<a id="k3a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; there the party concerned<a id="k3a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is debarred, here the party concerned is not debarred.<a id="k3a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And Raba? &mdash; He could rejoin that here also if [the bearer] says 'I know etc.' his word is accepted, and since this is so there is a danger<a id="k3a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; of creating the impression that confirmation of signatures to documents in general requires only one witness.
</p><p>
	According to Rabbah, as we have seen, the reason [for requiring the declaration] is that [Jews outside the Land of Israel] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention'. [Assuming that this is so,] who is the authority that requires the Get to be both written
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k3b_1:" <i>Infra</i> 21b."
,k3b_2:" Which shows that if the signing is in order, the writing does not matter."
,k3b_3:" Because according to R. Eleazar, it is not necessary that the Get should be signed at all."
,k3b_4:" V. <i>infra</i> 86a."
,k3b_5:" This shows that R. Eleazar does not require the Get to be signed with 'special intention'. "
}

txt:
<p>
and signed with special reference to that woman? It cannot be R. Meir, for he requires only that it should be signed, but not that it should be written with this intention, as we learn:<a id="k3b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A Get must not be written on something still attached to the soil. If it was written on something still attached to the soil, then torn off, signed and given to the woman, it is valid.'<a id="k3b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Nor again can it be R. Eleazar, for [as we know] R. Eleazar requires that it should be written but not necessarily that it should be signed with 'special intention'.<a id="k3b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Nor can you maintain that after all it is R. Eleazar, and that in saying that 'special intention' is not required, he means 'not required by the Torah', but he admits that it is required by the Rabbis. This cannot be; for there are three kinds of Get [which the Rabbis have declared invalid, though they are not invalid according to the Torah], and R. Eleazar does not include among them one which has not been signed with 'special intention', as appears from the following Mishnah:<a id="k3b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Three kinds of Get are invalid, but if a woman marries on the strength of one of them, the child 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 kinds of Get are invalid, but if the woman remarries on the strength of one of them, the child is legitimate. R. Eleazar 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, and on the strength of it she may recover her <i>kethubah</i> from mortgaged property, since signatures of witnesses are required to a Get only as a safeguard.<a id="k3b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Are we to say then that after all R. Meir is the authority, and that he dispenses with 'special intention' only as a requirement of the Torah but not as a requirement of the Rabbis? How can this be, in view of what we have been told by R. Nahman, that R. Meir used to rule that even if the husband found a Get ready written on a rubbish heap
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k4a_1:" E.g., a wrong date, a wrong signature, etc."
,k4a_2:" <i>Infra</i> 21b."
,k4a_3:" V. Sanh. 86a."
,k4a_4:" I.e., Rekem and Hegar."
,k4a_5:" Lit., 'swallowed in'."
,k4a_6:" I.e., Kefar Ludim. This place, though outside the boundary, would lie within a straight line drawn between two other places on the boundary, and so is said to be 'swallowed' in the Land of Israel."
,k4a_7:" From Kefar Ludim to Lud."
,k4a_8:" The authority for the first clause in the Mishnah."
,k4a_9:" The first Tanna and R. Gamaliel."
,k4a_10:" Being in the neighbourhood of Palestine."
,k4a_11:" R. Eleazar."
,k4a_12:" Because there is no commercial intercourse between the two places. (Rashi). "
}

txt:
<p>
and signed it and gave it to her, it is valid? Nor can you say that this ruling means 'valid as far as the Torah is concerned,' for in that case R. Nahman should have said not, 'R. Meir used to rule,' but 'It is a rule of the Torah'? &mdash; After all, we come back to the opinion that R. Eleazar was the authority, and [we say that] where he dispenses with the requirement of 'special intention' is in the case where there are no witnesses at all, but if [the Get] is signed, it must be signed with such intention. This accords with the statement of R. Abba, that R. Eleazar admitted that a Get which contains a flaw in itself<a id="k4a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is invalid.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: Shall I tell you who the authority [of the Mishnah] is? It is R. Judah, as shown by the following Mishnah: R. Judah declares the Get invalid unless it has been both written and signed on something not attached to the soil.<a id="k4a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did we not at the outset declare R. Judah to be the authority? &mdash; We tried if possible [to base ourselves on the authority of] R. Meir because, where a Mishnah is stated anonymously [its author is] R. Meir.<a id="k4a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; We also try if possible [to base ourselves on the authority of] R. Eleazar, because it is generally agreed that his ruling is decisive in questions of writs of divorce.
</p><p>
	Our Mishnah says: RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS, THE DECLARATION MUST ALSO BE MADE BY ONE WHO BRINGS A GET FROM REKEM AND FROM HEGAR. R. ELEAZAR SAYS, EVEN IF HE BRINGS IT FROM KEFAR LUDIM TO LUD. [Commenting on this passage,] Abaye said that it refers to places adjoining<a id="k4a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the Land of Israel and to places within the ambit of<a id="k4a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the Land of Israel.<a id="k4a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: I have myself seen that placed and am able to state that the distance<a id="k4a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is the same as from Be Kubi to Pumbeditha. Now [from the words of the Mishnah just quoted] we infer that the first Tanna<a id="k4a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; was of opinion that in these cases the declaration was not necessary. May we assume that the point of divergence between them is that one authority<a id="k4a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that the reason why the declaration is required is because [Jews outside of the Land of Israel] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', and he excepts [the Jews of] these places because they are familiar,<a id="k4a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas the other authority<a id="k4a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that the reason [why the declaration is required] is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and he [includes the Jews of] these places because here too it is not easy?<a id="k4a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. Rabbah can account for the difference in his way and Raba in his way. Rabbah can account for it thus: All the authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because of the unfamiliarity [of the Jews outside Eretz Israel] with the rule of 'special intention', and the point of divergence between them is that the first Tanna is of opinion that in these places on account of their proximity to Eretz Israel the Jews are familiar with the rule, whereas Rabban Gamaliel held that this was so only in the case of places which lay within the ambit of Eretz Israel but not in those which merely adjoined it, and R. Eleazar would not allow it to be so even in the case of places which lay within the ambit, no distinction being made among places which belong to 'foreign parts'. Raba accounts for the difference thus: All the authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and the point of divergence between them is that the first Tanna is of opinion that in these places, on account of their proximity to the Land of Israel, it is easy to find witnesses, whereas Rabban Gamaliel held that this was so only in places which lie within the ambit of Eretz Israel, but not in those which only adjoin it, and R. Eleazar would not allow it to be so even in places lying within the ambit, as no distinction is to be made among places which belong to 'foreign parts'.
</p><p>
	Our Mishnah says: [THE SAGES SAY] THE DECLARATION, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED IS REQUIRED ONLY FROM ONE WHO BRINGS A GET FROM FOREIGN PARTS AND FROM ONE WHO TAKES IT THERE. We infer from this that in the opinion of the first Tanna the bearer [of a bill of divorce] to foreign parts is not required to make the declaration. May we assume that the point of divergence between the two authorities is that one holds that the reason why the declaration is required is because [Jews in foreign parts] are not familiar with the rule of 'Special intention',
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k4b_1:" And yet this does not conflict with the view of Raba."
,k4b_2:" [Horowitz, I. Palestine p. 63 identifies it with Essa, east of the Lake Kinnereth, which was in his view divided into two governorships, Essa and Gerasa.]"
,k4b_3:" So that there was no intercourse between them."
,k4b_4:" So that Rabbah requires the declaration to be made in all cases in which Raba requires it, but not vice versa."
,k4b_5:" In both of which cases Rabbah requires the declaration to be made but Raba does not."
,k4b_6:" <i>Infra</i> 9a. "
}

txt:
<p>
and he excepts the bearer of a Get from Eretz Israel because there they are familiar, whereas the other authority held the reason to be because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and this applies to 'foreign parts' also? &mdash; No. Rabbah can account for the difference in his way and Raba in his way. Rabbah explains thus: Both authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because of the unfamiliarity [of the Jews outside Eretz Israel] with the rule of 'special intention', and where they diverge is on the question whether we extend the obligation properly meant for the bearer from foreign parts to the bearer to foreign parts, one holding that we do make this extension, the other that we do not. Raba explains thus: Both authorities agree that the reason for requiring the declaration is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and the Rabbis mentioned in the second clause merely made explicit what was in the mind of the first Tanna.
</p><p>
	Our Mishnah says: THE BEARER OF A GET FROM ONE PROVINCE TO ANOTHER IN FOREIGN PARTS IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED'; from which we infer that if he takes it from one place to another in the same province 'in foreign parts'. he need not make the declaration. This conforms with the view of Raba but conflicts with that of Rabbah, [does it not]? &mdash; No. You must not infer [that if the Get is taken] from one place to another in the same province 'in foreign parts', the declaration is not required. What you have to infer is that if it is taken from one province to another in the Land of Israel the declaration is not required. But this is stated distinctly in the following clause of the Mishnah: THE BEARER OF A GET [FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER] IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS NOT REQUIRED TO DECLARE, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED'! &mdash; If I had only that to go by I should say that while this omission does not invalidate the Get retroactively. It is not permissible in the first instance; now I know that this is also the case.
</p><p>
	The objection here raised is also stated in the following form: I infer that the bearer of a Get from one province to another in the Land of Israel is not required to make the declaration. This is in conformity [is it not] with the view of Rabbah but conflicts with that of Raba? &mdash; You must not infer that [if it is taken] from one province to another in the Land of Israel the declaration is not required. The proper inference to draw is that it is not required from the bearer from one part to another of the same country in foreign parts. What then? From the bearer from one province to another in the Land of Israel it is required? Then it would be sufficient for the Mishnah to say, 'The bearer of a Get from one province to another' [without mentioning 'foreign parts']? &mdash; The fact is that it is not necessary for the bearer from one province to another in the Land of Israel either,<a id="k4b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; since on account of the festival pilgrimages [to Jerusalem] it is always possible to find witnesses. This may have been a good reason so long as the Temple was standing, but what of the time when there is no Temple? &mdash; Since there are [Jewish law] courts regularly established, witnesses can always be found.
</p><p>
	We have learnt: Our Mishnah says: RABBAN SIMEON BEN GAMALIEL SAYS, EVEN THE BEARER FROM ONE GOVERNORSHIP TO ANOTHER, and commenting on this R. Isaac said that there was a certain city in Eretz Israel, 'Assasioth by name,<a id="k4b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in which were two Governors at variance with each other,<a id="k4b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and that is why the Mishnah had to put in the clause 'from governorship to governorship'. Now this ruling conforms with the view of Raba, [does it not,] but conflicts with that of Rabbah? &mdash; Rabbah accepts Raba's reason also.<a id="k4b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Where then does a difference arise between them in practice? &mdash; If the Get was brought by two bearers, or if it was brought from one place to another in the Same province in a 'foreign country'.<a id="k4b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learnt: Where the bearer of a Get from foreign parts is not able to declare, 'in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed', if the Get has been signed by witnesses, its validity can be established through the signatures.<a id="k4b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; We were perplexed by the expression, 'is unable to say'.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k5a_1:" [For according to Rabbah even if the signatures are authenticated it does not follow that the Get was written with 'special intention'.]"
,k5a_2:" <i>Infra</i> 23b."
,k5a_3:" It saves the trouble of securing a witness to attest the signatures."
,k5a_4:" And her disregard of the precaution does not warrant the enforcement of a separation. "
}

txt:
<p>
Shall we say it refers to a deaf-mute? But can a deaf-mute be the bearer of a Get, seeing that we learn, 'All persons are qualified to be bearers of a Get except a deaf-mute, a lunatic, and a minor'? And this difficulty was solved by R. Joseph, who said that we are dealing here with a case in which he gave the woman the Get while he was still in possession of his faculties, but before he could say the formula was struck deaf and dumb. Now this conforms with the view of Raba, [does it not,] but conflicts with that of Rabbah?<a id="k5a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This Mishnah was formulated] after the rule [of 'special intention'] had become generally known. If that is the case, even if the bearer is able to repeat the formula, [what need is there for him to do so]? &mdash; This was a precaution in case there is a return of the abuse. If that is the case, even if the bearer is not able to repeat the formula [it should still be required]? &mdash; For a man to be suddenly struck dumb is an exceptional occurrence, and the Rabbis did not take precautions against such exceptional cases. [Is that so?] For a woman to be the bearer of her own Get is very exceptional, and yet we learn:<a id="k5a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; The wife can act as bearer of her own Get [to a specified <i>Beth din</i>], and she is equally required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'? &mdash; The reason for this is to avoid making any distinction between bearer and bearer. If that is so, the same rule [should apply to the] husband; why then has it been taught: If the husband brings the Get personally, he is not required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'? &mdash; The reason why the Rabbis insisted on this declaration in the first instance was to provide against the danger of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate the Get. In this case, seeing that he brings it himself, is it conceivable that he should raise objections against it?
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Samuel put the following question to R. Huna: If a Get is brought from foreign parts by two bearers, are they required to declare, 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed', or are they not? And [R. Huna] answered that they are not required, because should they declare, 'In our presence he divorced her,' would their word not be accepted? This conforms, [does it not,] with the view of Raba and conflicts with that of Rabbah? &mdash; This Mishnah was formulated after the rule [of 'special intention'] had become generally known. If that is so, even if there is only one bearer, [the declaration should not be required]? &mdash; This was a precaution in case there is a recurrence of the abuse. If that is so, the same precaution should be taken when there are two bearers? &mdash; For a Get to be brought by two persons is exceptional, and the Rabbis did not take precautions against exceptional cases. [Is this so?] For a woman to be the bearer of her own Get is very exceptional, and yet we learn: The wife can act as bearer of her own Get, but she is equally required to declare, 'In my presence, etc.'? &mdash; The reason for this is to avoid making any distinction between bearer and bearer. If that is so, the same rule should apply to the husband; why then is it taught, If the husband brings the Get personally, he is not required to declare, 'In my presence, etc.'? &mdash; The reason why the Rabbis insisted on this declaration in the first instance was to provide against the danger of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate the Get. In this case, seeing that he brings it himself, is it conceivable that he should raise objections against it?
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If the bearer of a Get from foreign parts gave it to the wife but did not declare, 'In my presence etc.', if the genuineness of the signatures [attached to the Get] can be established, it is valid, and if not it is invalid. From this we deduce that the purpose of requiring this declaration is to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult.<a id="k5a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; This conforms, [does it not,] with the opinion of Raba and conflicts with that of Rabbah? &mdash; This Mishnah was formulated after the rule [of 'special intention'] became generally known. But you yourself have maintained that it is necessary to take precautions in case there is a recurrence of the abuse? &mdash; We are dealing here with the case where the woman has remarried.<a id="k5a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, how can you say, 'From this we deduce that this requirement is intended to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult'? The reason why we allow the validity of the Get to be established through its signatures is because she has remarried? &mdash; We must read the passage thus: '[The Get is valid if the signatures can be confirmed.] And should you think that if she has remarried we should be more strict and force [her husband] to put her away, we must bear in mind that the purpose of requiring this declaration is to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult. The whole reason
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k5b_1:" Two Amoraim of an earlier generation than Rabbah and Raba."
,k5b_2:" And therefore Raba's reason did not apply."
,k5b_3:" And therefore it is sufficient if two can testify to the delivery of the Get, after having heard the bearer make, in their presence, the proper declaration."
,k5b_4:" And therefore we require three persons to be available (in case the husband comes and challenges the Get), since the confirmation of signatures must take place in the presence of three, constituting a kind of <i>Beth din</i>; (v. Keth. 21b)."
,k5b_5:" And therefore the bearer of the Get may join with the two witnesses of the delivery to form a <i>Beth din</i>."
,k5b_6:" Under which category comes the confirmation of signatures. V. Keth. l.c."
,k5b_7:" To form a third or to enable us to dispense with a third."
,k5b_8:" The product of an incestuous union. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k5b_9:" From Babylon to Palestine."
,k5b_10:" An expert officer was appointed to see that the procedure was in conformity with all the regulations. (Rashi)."
,k5b_11:" The bearers of which were not so particular."
,k5b_12:" See p. 15 n. 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
why it is required is as a precaution against the risk of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate [the Get]. Seeing that here the [first] husband is raising no objection, shall we go out of our way to do so?'
</p><p>
	[An identical] difference of opinion [had already been recorded] between R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi,<a id="k5b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; one of whom held that the reason [for requiring the declaration] was because the Jews outside the Land of Israel were not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', and the other that it was because witnesses could not easily be found to confirm the signatures. We may conclude that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who gave the reason, 'because they are not familiar with the rule of "special intention",' from the following incident. R. Simeon b. Abba once brought a Get before R. Joshua b. Levi, and said to him: Am I required to declare, 'I was present when it was written and present when it was signed'? and he replied: You need not make the declaration. It was only required in former generations, when the rule of 'special intention' was not generally known, but not in these times when the rule is known. We may therefore conclude [that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who gave this reason]. [Was this a good ruling,] seeing that Rabbah accepts Raba's reason also, and further that, as we have said, precaution should be taken in case there is a recurrence of the abuse? &mdash; There was another man with him,<a id="k5b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; although he is not mentioned [in the passage quoted] out of respect for R. Simeon.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: [On the question] how many persons must be present when the bearer of the Get gives it to the wife there was a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Haninah, one holding that a minimum of two were required and the other a minimum of three. It may be concluded that it was R. Johanan who held that two were sufficient, [from the following incident]. Rabin son of R. Hisda brought a Get before R. Johanan, and the latter said to him: Go and give it to her in the presence of two persons, and say to them, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.' We may therefore conclude [that R. Johanan held two to be sufficient]. May we assume that the point on which R. Johanan and R. Haninah diverge is that the one who held two persons to be sufficient considered the reason for requiring the declaration to be the general ignorance of the rule of 'special intention',<a id="k5b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; while the one who insisted on three considered the reason to be the difficulty of finding witnesses?<a id="k5b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Can this be so?] We have found that it is R. Joshua who assigns as the reason ignorance of the rule of 'special intention', and so it must be R. Johanan who assigns as the reason the difficulty of finding witnesses. How then can it be R. Johanan who here says that two persons are sufficient? Moreover [is it not a fact] that Rabbah also accepts Raba's reason? No. [The reason of the declaration is because] we need witnesses who should be available to validate the Get, and the point at issue here is whether it is permitted to an agent to act as a witness and a witness as a judge. The authority who says that two persons are sufficient holds that an agent may act as witness and a witness may act as judge,<a id="k5b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas the one who insists on three holds that while an agent may act as witness, a witness may not act as judge. But has it not been laid down that in the case of evidence required only by the Rabbis<a id="k5b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [but not by the Torah] a witness may act as judge? No. The real point at issue is this, that one authority held that since a woman is qualified to bring the Get there is a danger [if only two persons are required] that we may rely upon her,<a id="k5b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other held that everyone knows that a woman is not qualified [to complete a <i>Beth din</i>], and therefore there is no danger.
</p><p>
	It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: If the bearer of a Get from foreign parts gave it to the wife without declaring, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,' if she marries again the second husband must put her away and a child born from the union is a mamzer.<a id="k5b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Rabbis say that the child is not a mamzer. What should be done [to rectify matters?] The bearer should take the Get back from the woman, and then present it to her in the presence of two persons, declaring at the same time, In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed. [Are we to suppose then that] according to R. Meir, because the bearer failed [in the first instance] to make this declaration, the second husband has to put away the woman, and the child is a mamzer? &mdash; Yes: R. Meir in this is quite consistent; for so R. Hamnuna has told us in the name of 'Ulla, that R. Meir used to affirm: If any variation whatever is made in the procedure laid down by the Sages for writs of divorce, the second husband has to put the woman away and the child is a mamzer.
</p><p>
	Bar Hadaya once desired to act as bearer of a Get.<a id="k5b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Before doing so he consulted R. Ahi, who was a supervisor of writs of divorce.<a id="k5b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ahi to him: You must watch the writing of every letter of the document. He then consulted R. Ammi and R. Assi, who said to him: This is not necessary, and if you think to be on the safe side, you must consider that by doing so you will be discrediting previous writs of divorce.<a id="k5b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabba b. Bar Hanah once acted as bearer of a Get<a id="k5b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; of which half had been written in his presence and half not. He consulted R. Eleazar, who told him that even if only one line of it had been written with 'special intention' that was sufficient. R. Ashi said:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k6a_1:" Aliter 'the sound of the pen and the paper as they were being prepared'."
,k6a_2:" [It is assumed that where the bearer is upstairs he can see the scribe who is working downstairs. V. Trani, who preserves a reading to this effect.]"
,k6a_3:" And this is deemed to be sufficient."
,k6a_4:" And therefore the Get was not written expressly for the woman to whom the bearer is intended to take it."
,k6a_5:" [H] lit., 'outside the Land'."
,k6a_6:" As students and other people are always going from various places to the colleges."
,k6a_7:" And therefore the students there do not recognise the signatures."
,k6a_8:" In the year 219 C.E. [He founded, after his return the second time from Palestine, the school of Sura to which there flocked students from all parts. This gave an impetus to the study of the Law and made Babylonia a centre of learning for centuries (Rashi). Tosaf.: Since Rab came and insisted that Babylonia never ceased to be a centre of Torah study, since the days of the exile of Jehoiachin with the flower of Judea. V. II Kings XXIV, 14. Obermeyer. Die Landschaft Babylonien. p. 306, points out that the name 'Babylon' stands here, as in other places in the Talmud, for Sura which was in the neighbourhood of the old great city, Babylon, and in contradistinction to Nehardea, where he had his former seat.]"
,k6a_9:" Jer. I, 14."
,k6a_10:" [Tosaf. appeals to this question in support of its interpretation cited n. 3.]"
,k6a_11:" The Jews of Babylonia being reputed to have preserved their racial purity more strictly than the Jews of any other part. v. Kid. 72a."
,k6a_12:" [Over the Euphrates north of Samosata, v. Berliner, A., Beitrage p. 21; v. also Kid. 72a.]"
,k6a_13:" [Two neighbouring places, the former on the eastern, the latter on the western bank of the Tigris. Ktesifon was the larger place of the two, and a marketing centre for the neighbouring towns. V. Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. pp. 164ff.]"
,k6a_14:" Because the Be-Ardashir people often buy their goods on credit against promissory notes which they leave with the Ktesifon merchants."
,k6a_15:" Where Raba had his seminary."
,k6a_16:" [To sell their merchandise which was brought along the Tigris and Euphrates and caravan routes to Mahuzah which was a great trading centre. V. Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. p. 173.] "
}

txt:
<p>
Even if he only heard the scratching of the pen and the rustling of the sheet,<a id="k6a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is sufficient. It has been taught in agreement with R. Ashi: 'If a Get is brought from foreign parts, even if the bearer was downstairs while the scribe was upstairs, or upstairs while the scribe was downstairs, the Get is valid, or even if he was going in and out all day, the Get is valid.' [Now in the case where] he is downstairs and the scribe is upstairs [you may ask, how can this be,] seeing that the bearer cannot have seen him [while writing]?<a id="k6a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Obviously [what is meant is] that he, for instance, heard the scratching of the pen and the rustling of the sheet.<a id="k6a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'Even if he was going in and out all day the Get is valid'. Who is referred to by 'he'? Shall I say it is the bearer? Hardly; for if the Get is valid even when he was in a different room and so did not see it at all, is there any question that it is valid when he simply was going in and out [of the same room]? [Shall I say] then it is the scribe? Surely this is self-evident. Because he leaves the room sometimes [in the middle of writing]. is that any ground for declaring the Get invalid? &mdash; It is not [so self-evident]. It is necessary to state the case where he went out into the street and returned. You might say that another man [of the same name] has come across him and commissioned him to write a Get.<a id="k6a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Now we know [that this objection is not maintained].
</p><p>
	It has been stated: Babylonia has been declared by Rab to be in the same category with the Land of Israel in respect of writs of divorce, and by Samuel to be in the same category with foreign parts.<a id="k6a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; May we assume their point of divergence to be this, that one of them held the reason for requiring the declaration to be that [Jews outside the Land of Israel] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', so that [the Babylonians,] being familiar, [are in the same category with the Palestinians], whereas the other held the reason to be the difficulty of finding witnesses to confirm [the signatures], and the same difficulty is found [in Babylonia]? &mdash; Can you really presume this, seeing that Rabbah also accepts Raba's reason? No. Both [Rab and Samuel] agree that the Get requires confirmation. Rab, however, is of opinion that since there are Talmudical Colleges in Babylonia witnesses can always be found,<a id="k6a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; while Samuel is of opinion that the Colleges are taken up with their studies.<a id="k6a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; It has also been stated that R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna: 'In Babylonia we have put ourselves on the same level as Eretz Israel in respect of bills of divorce from the time when Rab came to Babylon.'<a id="k6a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah raised an objection: R. JUDAH SAYS, FOREIGN PARTS EXTEND FROM REKEM EASTWARDS, REKEM BEING INCLUDED; FROM ASKELON SOUTHWARD, ASKELON BEING INCLUDED: AND FROM ACCO NORTHWARDS, ACCO BEING INCLUDED. Now Babylon is north of Eretz Israel, as we learn from the verse of the Scripture, And the Lord said to me, Out of the north the evil shall break forth.<a id="k6a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; It is true, the Mishnah continues: R. MEIR SAYS, ACCO COUNTS AS PART OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL IN THE MATTER OF BILLS OF DIVORCE; but even R. Meir only excepted Acco, which is close to Eretz Israel, but not Babylon, which is remote!<a id="k6a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jeremiah asked the question and he himself answered [by saying that] 'Babylon is an exception.
</p><p>
	How far does Babylon extend? &mdash; R. Papa says: On this question there is the same difference of opinion in respect of bills of divorce as there is in respect of family descent.<a id="k6a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph, however, says that the difference of opinion exists only in respect of family descent, but in respect of bills of divorce all parties are agreed that Babylonia extends to the second boat of the [floating] bridge.<a id="k6a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda required [the declaration to be made by the bearer of a Get] from Ktesifon to Be-Ardashir, but not [by one who brought it] from Be-Ardashir to Ktesifon.<a id="k6a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; May we presume that he considered the reason [for requiring the declaration to be that Jews in foreign parts] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', and that the people of Be-Ardashir are familiar? &mdash; How can you presume this, seeing that Rabbah accepts Raba's reason also? But in point of fact all authorities are agreed that confirmation [of the Get] is required, and the reason of R. Hisda is that as the people of Be-Ardashir go to Ktesifon to market, the inhabitants of the latter are familiar with their signatures,<a id="k6a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but not vice versa, because the Be-Ardashir [buyers] are busy with their marketing. Rabba b. Abbuha required [the declaration to be made if the Get was brought] from one side of the street to the other; R. Shesheth if it was brought from one block [of buildings] to another; and Raba even [from one house to another] within the same block. But was it not Raba who said that the reason was because it was not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures? &mdash; The people of Mahuzah<a id="k6a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; are different, because they are always on the move.<a id="k6a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanin related the following: R. Kahana brought a Get either from Sura to Nehardea or from Nehardea to Sura, I do not know which, and consulted Rab as to whether he was required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.' Rab said to him: You are not required,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k6b_1:" Once the declaration was made."
,k6b_2:" Or Simai, identified with Kefar Sumeija, N.W. of Kefar Hananiah ('Anan); v. Kaftor wa-Ferah, p. 270, and Klein, S., Beitrage, p. 29, n. 4."
,k6b_3:" Hence the declaration should not be required."
,k6b_4:" [The bracketed sentence is not in the Tosef. Git. I. whence this passage is quoted.]"
,k6b_5:" Joel IV, 3. [He disapproved of the practice of Babylonian students marrying before graduation and then betaking themselves to the Palestinian schools for the completion of their studies, leaving their wives and children in utter destitution. (V. Nashi and Tosaf.)]"
,k6b_6:" As this would show R. Abiathar to be deficient in logical acumen."
,k6b_7:" [The whole regulation requiring Biblical passages to be underlined is based on an ancient oral tradition going back to Moses at Sinai; v. Soferim I.]"
,k6b_8:" God Himself."
,k6b_9:" Judg. XIX, 2."
,k6b_10:" By having intercourse with his wife when she is unclean, because she is afraid to tell him."
,k6b_11:" Because the members of his household run away from him and meet with fatal accidents."
,k6b_12:" Because his wife through fear of him lights the lamp after dark."
,k6b_13:" V. Shah. 34a. "
}

txt:
<p>
but if you have done so, so much the better. What [did Rab] mean by these last words? &mdash; [He meant] that if the husband came and raised objections against the Get, they would pay no attention to him;<a id="k6b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; as it has been taught: A man once brought a Get before R. Ishmael, and asked him whether he was required to declare, 'In my presence etc. Said R. Ishmael to him: My son, from where are you? He replied: Rabbi, I am from Kefar Sisai. Whereupon R. Ishmael said to him: It is necessary for you to declare that It was written and signed in your presence, so that the woman should not require witnesses [in case the husband raises objections]. After the man left, R. Ila'i came in to R. Ishmael and said to him: Is not Kefar Sisai<a id="k6b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; within the ambit of the border-line of Eretz Israel, and is it not nearer to Sepphoris than Acco is, and does not the Mishnah tell us that R. MEIR HELD THAT ACCO COUNTS AS ERETZ ISRAEL IN MATTERS OF BILLS OF DIVORCE,<a id="k6b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [and even the Rabbis differ from R. Meir only in regard to Acco, which is some distance away, but not in regard to Kefar Sisai which is near?]<a id="k6b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ishmael said to him: Say nothing, my son, say nothing; now that the thing has been declared permissible, let it remain so. [Why should R. Ila'i have thought otherwise], seeing that [R. Ishmael] also gave as a reason 'that the woman should not require witnesses'? &mdash; [R. Ila'i] had not been told of these concluding words.
</p><p>
	R. Abiathar sent to R. Hisda [the following instruction:] [The bearers of] writs of divorce from there [Babylon] to here [Eretz Israel] are not required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.' May we presume that he was of opinion that the reason for requiring the declaration is because the [Jews outside Palestine] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', while these [the Babylonians] are familiar? &mdash; Can you really presume this, seeing that Rabbah accepts Raba's reason? No. All agree that [the reason is] because we require someone who can confirm the signatures if necessary, and in this case, as there are always people going to and fro between Babylon and Eretz Israel, witnesses can easily be found.
</p><p>
	Said R. Joseph: Can it be maintained that R. Abiathar is an authority who can be relied upon? [Have we not] moreover evidence to the contrary? For it was he who sent a statement to Rab Judah, [running,] 'Jews who come from there [Babylon] to here [Eretz Israel] fulfil in their own persons the words of the Scripture: They have given a boy for a harlot and sold a girl for wine and have drunk,<a id="k6b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and he wrote the words from Scripture without ruling lines under them, although R. Isaac has said that a quotation of two words [from Scripture] may be written without lines but not of three (in a Baraitha it was taught that three may be written without lines but not four)? &mdash; Said Abaye to him: Because a man does not know this rule of R. Isaac, is he therefore not to be counted a great scholar? If it were a rule established by logical deduction, we might think so.<a id="k6b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is purely a tradition,<a id="k6b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is a tradition which R. Abiathar had not heard. Nay more, R. Abiathar is the authority whose view was confirmed by his Master,<a id="k6b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [in the following way]. Commenting on the text, And his concubine played the harlot against him,<a id="k6b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abiathar said that the Levite found a fly with her, and R. Jonathan said that he found a hair on her. R. Abiathar soon afterwards came across Elijah and said to him: 'What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing?' and he answered, 'He is discussing the question of the concubine in Gibea.' 'What does He say?' said Elijah: '[He says], My son Abiathar says So-and-so, and my son Jonathan says So-and-so,' Said R. Abiathar: 'Can there possibly be uncertainty in the mind of the Heavenly One?' He replied: Both [answers] are the word of the living God. He [the Levite] found a fly and excused it, he found a hair and did not excuse it. Rab Judah explained: He found a fly in his food and a hair in loco concubitus; the fly was merely disgusting, but the hair was dangerous. Some say, he found both in his food; the fly was not her fault, the hair was.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: A man should never terrorise his household. The concubine of Gibea was terrorised by her husband and she was the cause of many thousands being slaughtered in Israel. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If a man terrorises his household, he will eventually commit the three sins of unchastity,<a id="k6b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; blood-shedding,<a id="k6b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and desecration of the Sabbath.<a id="k6b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabba b. Bar Hanah said:' The three things which a man has to say to his household just before Sabbath commences, 'Have you set aside the tithe? Have you placed the 'Erub? Light the lamp,'<a id="k6b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k7a_1:" V. Hul. 7a. The story is told there of the ass of Phineas b. Yair which refused to touch untithed corn."
,k7a_2:" A piece of meat had been mislaid and the servant attempted to substitute for it flesh cut from a living animal."
,k7a_3:" [Mar 'Ukba II the Exilarch. On the great influence he wielded in government circles v. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien I pp. 106ff. and n. 4; and Halevy. Doroth, II, p. 248.]"
,k7a_4:" Ps. XXXIX, 2."
,k7a_5:" Ibid. XXXVII, 7."
,k7a_6:" Who was one of his antagonists."
,k7a_7:" [V. J. Git. VI, 5.]"
,k7a_8:" Hos. IX, 1."
,k7a_9:" Isa. XXIV, 9."
,k7a_10:" Josh. XV, 22."
,k7a_11:" [Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 144, locates it near Be Kathil, on the Tigris, N. of Bagdad; v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 465, n. 10.]"
,k7a_12:" Ibid. 31."
,k7a_13:" [The modern Khuzistan, province of S.W. Persia, Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 204ff.]"
,k7a_14:" [Mar 'Ukba II.]"
,k7a_15:" V. Sot. 49a."
,k7a_16:" He was R. Huna's disciple, and therefore did not like to answer in his presence."
,k7a_17:" Ezek. XXI, 31."
,k7a_18:" I.e., while the Temple is still standing."
,k7a_19:" I.e., garland."
,k7a_20:" E.V. 'This shall be no more the same', quoted above."
,k7a_21:" Thus showing their devotion to God. Ex. XXIV, 7."
,k7a_22:" E.V. 'cut down'."
,k7a_23:" E.V. 'pass away Nah. I, 12."
,k7a_24:" Translating, 'If they be&nbsp;&hellip; and all the more.' "
}

txt:
<p>
should be said by him gently, so that they should obey him readily. R. Ashi said: I was never taught that rule of Rabba b. Bar Hanah, but I observed it because my own sense told me to.
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu said: A man should never terrorise his household. For there was a certain great man who terrorised his household, and in consequence they fed him with a thing to eat which is a great sin. This was R. Hanina b. Gamaliel. Do you mean to say they actually fed him with it? Why, even the beasts of the righteous are not allowed by the Holy One, blessed be He, to offend;<a id="k7a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; how then shall the righteous themselves be allowed so to sin? &mdash; Say, they wanted to feed him. And what was it they set before him? A piece of flesh cut from an animal still living.<a id="k7a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar 'Ukba<a id="k7a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; sent for advice to R. Eleazar, saying: Certain men are annoying me, and I am able to get them into trouble with the government; shall I do so? He traced lines on which he wrote [quoting], I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue, I will keep a curb upon my mouth while the wicked is before me;<a id="k7a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [that is,] he added, although the wicked is before me, I will keep a curb on my mouth. Mar 'Ukba again sent to him saying: They are worrying me very much, and I cannot stand them. He replied [with the quotation], Resign thyself unto the Lord, and wait patiently [hitholel] for him;<a id="k7a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [that is to say,] he added, wait for the Lord, and He will cast them down prostrate [halalim] before thee; go to the Beth-Hamidrash early morning and evening and there will soon be an end of them. R. Eleazar had hardly spoken the words when Geniba<a id="k7a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; was placed in chains [for execution].<a id="k7a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An inquiry was once addressed to Mar 'Ukba: Where does Scripture tell us that it is forbidden [in these times] to sing [at carousals]? He sent back [the following quotation] written on lines: Rejoice not, O Israel, unto exultation like the peoples, for thou hast gone astray from thy God.<a id="k7a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Should he not rather have sent the following: They shall not drink wine with music, strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it?<a id="k7a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From this verse I should conclude that only musical instruments are forbidden, but not song; this I learn [from the other verse].
</p><p>
	R. Huna b. Nathan asked R. Ashi: What is the point of the verse, Kinah and Dimonah and Adadah?<a id="k7a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: [The text] is enumerating towns in the Land of Israel. Said the other: Do I not know that the text is enumerating towns in the Land of Israel? But I want to tell you that R. Gebihah from [Be]Argiza<a id="k7a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; learnt a lesson from these names: 'Whoever has cause for indignation [kinah] against his neighbour and yet holds his peace [domem], He that abides for all eternity ['ade 'ad] shall espouse his cause; said the other: If that is so, the verse Ziklag and Madmanah and Sansanah<a id="k7a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; should also convey a lesson? &mdash; He replied: If R. Gebihah from [Be] Argiza were here, he would derive a lesson from it. R. Aha from Be Hozae<a id="k7a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; expounded [it as follows]: 'If a man has just cause of complaint against his neighbour for taking away his livelihood [<i>za'akath legima</i>] and yet holds his peace [<i>domem</i>], He that abides in the bush [<i>shokni sneh</i>] will espouse his cause.
</p><p>
	The Exilarch<a id="k7a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; said to R. Huna: On what ground is based the prohibition of garlands? &mdash; He replied: This was imposed by the Rabbis on their own authority. For so we have learnt: At the time of the invasion of Vespasian they prohibited the wearing of garlands by bridegrooms and the [beating of] drums [at weddings].<a id="k7a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna then got up to leave the room. R. Hisda<a id="k7a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; thereupon said to him [the Exilarch]: There is scriptural warrant for it: Thus saith the Lord God, The mitre shall be removed and the crown taken off this shall be no more the same; that which is low shall be exalted and that which is high abased,<a id="k7a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [It may be asked, he continued] what the mitre has to do with the crown. It is to teach that when the mitre is worn by the High priest,<a id="k7a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; ordinary persons can wear the crown,<a id="k7a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but when the mitre has been removed from the head of the High priest, the crown must be removed from the head of ordinary persons. At this point R. Huna returned, and found them still discussing the matter. He said: I swear to you that the prohibition was made by the Rabbis on their own authority, but as your name is Hisda [favour], so do your words find favour. Rabina found Mar son of R. Ashi weaving a garland for his daughter. He said to him: Sir, do you not hold with the interpretation given above of 'Remove the mitre and take off the crown'? &mdash; He replied: The men [have to follow] the example of the High Priest, but not the women.
</p><p>
	What is the meaning of the words in this passage, 'This not this'?<a id="k7a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. 'Awira gave the following exposition, sometimes in the name of R. Ammi and sometimes in the name of R. Assi: When God said to Israel, 'Remove the mitre and take off the crown', the ministering angels said, Sovereign of the Universe, is 'this' for Israel who at Mount Sinai said 'we will do' before 'we will hear'?<a id="k7a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Should not 'this' be for Israel, replied the Holy One, blessed be He, who have made low that which should be exalted and exalted that which should be low, and placed an image in the sanctuary? R. 'Awira also gave the following exposition, sometimes in the name of R. Ammi and sometimes in the name of R. Assi; What is the meaning of the verse, Thus saith the Lord, though they be in full strength and likewise many, even so shall they be sheared off<a id="k7a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and he shall cross etc.?<a id="k7a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man sees that his livelihood is barely sufficient for him, he should give charity from it, and all the more so if it is plentiful.<a id="k7a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of the words, 'Even so they shall be sheared and he shall cross'? &mdash; In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: Whoever shears off part of his possessions and dispenses it in charity is delivered from the punishment of Gehenna. Picture two sheep crossing a river, one shorn and the other not shorn; the shorn one gets across, the unshorn one does not.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k7b_1:" Ibid."
,k7b_2:" Ibid."
,k7b_3:" [The Biblical Achzib, between Acre and Tyre. Josh. XIX, 29.]"
,k7b_4:" Those parts of Palestine of which the population was preponderatingly Samaritan or non-Jewish, and on which a Jew could not set foot without becoming ritually unclean. V. <i>Nazir</i>, (Sonc. ed.) p. 204, n. 1."
,k7b_5:" Because the territory is known to belong to Eretz Israel."
,k7b_6:" (V. Tosef. Oh. XVIII and J. Sheh. where the reading is reversed: '.&nbsp;&hellip; East of the road does not partake of the uncleanness; west of the road does partake etc.' This reading, as the Wilna Gaon points out, is to be given preference, since Acco is situated on the West of Palestine, whereas our reading assumes that it is on the Eastern border; v. also Schwarz, J. <i>Tebuoth ha-'Arez</i> (ed. Luncz) p. 8, n. 1.]"
,k7b_7:" [Tosef. <i>loc. cit</i>. Kalabu; neither names are definitely identified; v. Neubauer p. 233, who locates the former on the outskirts of Acco, the latter east of Tyre.] This shows that the extreme northern point is Chezih or Lablabu and not Acco."
,k7b_8:" [Though Acco is on the extreme North, the narrow strip of territory jutting out beyond Acco leading to Chezib belongs to Eretz Israel (Rashi); Kaftor wa-Ferach p. 276, in name of Maimonides, reverses: Eretz Israel stretches to Chezib which is in the extreme north, but a strip of territory belonging to the land of the Gentiles juts out from Chezib to Acco; v. also Tosaf. Yom Tob, Sheb. VI, 1.]"
,k7b_9:" So Nashi. Tosaf., however, renders: 'Is a road so important that the Tanna in speaking of \"east\" and \"west\" had to refer to it?' which seems to suit the context better."
,k7b_10:" Jud. XXI, 19."
,k7b_11:" [The text might be taken to mean that Shiloh is on the N.E. of Bethel; v. Strashun a.l.]"
,k7b_12:" It is assumed that it was written on the boat in Eretz Israel waters."
,k7b_13:" The river being reckoned an integral part of Eretz Israel."
,k7b_14:" The river not being reckoned an integral part of Eretz Israel."
,k7b_15:" Hal. II, 2. The laws of tithing and Sabbatical year apply only to Palestinian grown products."
,k7b_16:" Who says that the Get is in the same category as one brought from place to place in foreign parts."
,k7b_17:" I.e., the question whether the plant in it is subject to tithe, seeing that it does not touch the ground. "
}

txt:
<p>
And though I have afflicted thee:<a id="k7b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar Zutra said: Even a poor man who himself subsists on charity should give charity. I will afflict thee no more:<a id="k7b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph learnt: If he does that, [Heaven] will not again inflict poverty upon him.
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAYS, FROM REKEM EASTWARDS etc. This would seem to imply that Acco is at the [extreme] north of Eretz Israel. Does not this conflict with the following: '[Suppose a traveller] follows the road from Acco to Chezib.<a id="k7b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Then all the country on his right, east of the road, partakes of the uncleanness of the "land of the Gentiles",<a id="k7b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the obligations of tithe and sabbatical year do not apply to it, save where it is definitely known to be liable.<a id="k7b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; The country on his left hand, west of the road, does not partake of the uncleanness of the "land of the Gentiles", and is subject to the rules of tithe and sabbatical year, save where [the reverse] that it is exempt, is definitely known.<a id="k7b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Up to what point [does this hold good]? As far as Chezib. R. Ishmael the son of R. Jose says in the name of his father, As far as Lablabu.'<a id="k7b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: A narrow strip does in fact jut out [beyond Acco].<a id="k7b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And is this important enough for the Tanna to define it so precisely?<a id="k7b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is, for the Scripture also gives indications in the same way, in the following passage: And they said, Behold there is the feast of the Lord from year to year in Shiloh. which is on the north of Bethel, on the east side the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah;<a id="k7b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Papa pointed out, that it means 'the east side of the highway.'<a id="k7b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	One [Baraitha] teaches: 'If a man brings a Get by boat<a id="k7b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he is in the same category as if he brought it [from place to place] in Eretz Israel;'<a id="k7b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and another [Baraitha] teaches that he is in the same category with one who brings it [from place to place] in foreign parts.<a id="k7b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Jeremiah: The contradiction can easily be explained: the latter view is based on the ruling of R. Judah, the former on that of the Rabbis, as we have learnt: [Plants grown in] earth from foreign parts which is carried in a boat in Eretz Israel are subject to the obligations of tithe and Sabbatical year. R. Judah says: This is the case only if the boat touches bottom, but if not, the obligations do not apply.<a id="k7b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye says that both [authorities] follow R. Judah, and there is no contradiction between them, the one<a id="k7b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; referring to a boat which does not touch bottom and the other to one which does.
</p><p>
	Said R. Ze'ira: The case of a plant pot with a hole in the bottom resting on a stand<a id="k7b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; may be variously decided according as we follow R. Judah or the Rabbis [in this case]. Said Rabba: This is open to question. Possibly R. Judah would say [that actual contact with the soil was necessary to make the plant liable to tithe] only in the case of a boat,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k8a_1:" All agreeing that a river in Eretz Israel is an integral part of the land."
,k8a_2:" Lit., 'Whatever slopes down.'"
,k8a_3:" The Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan, of 'Hor the mountain', the northern boundary of Eretz Israel, Num. XXXIV, 7. [This is not to be confused with Mount Hor by the border of the land of Edom which is in the South East. Mount Ammanon is in the N.W. of Syria and is generally identified with Mount Amanus, the modern Giaour Dagh.]"
,k8a_4:" [Identified by Saadia with the Wady-el-Arish, twenty miles South of Gaza; v. Schwarz, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 27, and Rosenbaum-Silbermann's Rashi. Deut. p. 211.]"
,k8a_5:" Num. XXXIV, 6."
,k8a_6:" I.e., due west of the coast beyond the southern and northern extremities of the border of Palestine."
,k8a_7:" At the northern extremity of Mount Hor. [The place is not identified. V. Neubauer, pp. 8ff. and 433.]"
,k8a_8:" The Atlantic Ocean."
,k8a_9:" Immediately fronting the coast."
,k8a_10:" And the words 'and for the border' include the more distant islands."
,k8a_11:" The Biblical Aram Zoba which was conquered by David and added by him to Eretz Israel (II Sam. VIII)."
,k8a_12:" Lit., 'Cloud, Pit, Empty'. Key-words to aid the memory made up of Hebrew initials of the rulings that follow. "
}

txt:
<p>
which is usually on the move, but in the case of a pot which is motionless it is not necessary. And again, perhaps the Rabbis would say that only in the boat [is there this obligation even if it is not touching bottom], since there is no air in between [the boat and the bottom], the water being reckoned as earth for purposes of contact, but not in the case of the pot where the air underneath breaks its contact with the earth. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: In regard to a boat on a river in Eretz Israel there is no difference of opinion between the authorities.<a id="k8a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Where the difference arises is in the case of a boat in the open sea, as may be seen from the following: What do we reckon as Eretz Israel and what do we reckon as foreign parts? From the top<a id="k8a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of the Mountains of Ammanon<a id="k8a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; inwards is 'Eretz Israel', and from the top of the Mountains of Ammanon outwards is 'foreign parts'. [For determining the status of] the islands in the sea, we imagine a line drawn from the Mountains of Ammanon to the Brook of Egypt.<a id="k8a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; All within the line belongs to Eretz Israel and all outside the line to foreign parts. R. Judah, however, holds that all islands fronting the coast of Eretz Israel are reckoned as Eretz Israel, according to the verse of Scripture, And for the western border, ye shall have the Great Sea for a border; this shall be your west border.<a id="k8a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [To determine the status of] the islands on the border line,<a id="k8a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; we imagine a line drawn [due west] from Kapluria<a id="k8a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; to the Ocean<a id="k8a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and another from the Brook of Egypt to the Ocean. All within these lines belong to Eretz Israel and all outside to foreign parts. How do the Rabbis expound the superfluous words, 'and for the border'? They say it is required to [bring in] the islands.<a id="k8a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Judah? &mdash; He will rejoin that for the inclusion of the islands no special indication is required.<a id="k8a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. MEIR SAYS: ACCO IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS ERETZ ISRAEL etc. The following inquiry was propounded to R. Hiyya b. Abba: If a man sells his slave into Syria,<a id="k8a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is he reckoned as selling him into foreign parts or not? &mdash; He replied: You have learnt it: R. MEIR SAYS: ACCO IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS ERETZ ISRAEL IN RESPECT OF BILLS OF DIVORCE; in respect of bills of divorce, that is, but not in respect of slaves. And if this is the case with Acco, how much more so with Syria, which is much further from Eretz Israel.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: 'In three respects Syria is in the same category as Eretz Israel and in three others in the same category as foreign parts.' (Mnemonic: <i>'AB BoR ReK</i>).<a id="k8a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Its earth is unclean like that of foreign parts, and to sell a slave to Syria is like selling him to foreign parts, and a Get brought from Syria is reckoned as one brought front foreign parts. [On the other hand,] it is in three respects like Eretz Israel: It is subject to the obligations of tithe and Sabbatical year like the Land of Israel, it is permissible for an Israelite to enter it in a state of ritual purity, and a field bought in Syria
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k8b_1:" Tosef Kelim B. K. I."
,k8b_2:" King David, as opposed to the national conquest in the time of Joshua."
,k8b_3:" I.e., the land acquired becomes an integral part of Eretz Israel."
,k8b_4:" V. <i>Nazir</i> 55a."
,k8b_5:" [H]. Lit., 'rest', an occupation prohibited by the Rabbis on Sabbath and Festivals as being inconsistent with the spirit of the celebration of the day."
,k8b_6:" Lit., 'his Get'."
,k8b_7:" Because if he says, 'It was written in my presence', his word is taken and no witnesses are required to confirm the validity of the Get."
,k8b_8:" Because for this purpose witnesses are required to confirm the validity of the Get."
,k8b_9:" This is taken to include his own person since he is part of the property."
,k8b_10:" And we do not give the statement two diverse applications, one in respect of himself and one in respect of the property."
,k8b_11:" Because we say that since he excepts the land he excepts the slave also. "
}

txt:
<p>
is like one bought on the outskirts of Jerusalem.'<a id="k8b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Our authority says that Syria] 'is subject to the obligations of tithe and Sabbatical year': [obviously] he is of opinion that the conquest of an individual<a id="k8b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is a valid conquest.<a id="k8b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [He further says that] 'it is permissible to enter Syria in a state of ritual purity.' How can this be, seeing that you say that its earth is unclean? &mdash; What is meant is that he may enter it in a box, chest, or portable turret, as has been taught: If one enters the land of the Gentiles in a box, chest, or portable turret, Rabbi declares him to be unclean, but R. Jose son of R. Judah does not. And even Rabbi makes this rule only for the land of the Gentiles, the soil and the air of which were proclaimed unclean by the Rabbis, but in regard to Syria they proclaimed only the soil unclean but not the air.<a id="k8b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Our authority further says that] 'a field bought in Syria is like one bought on the outskirts of Jerusalem'. What rule of conduct can be based on this? &mdash; R. Shesheth Says: It means that a contract for selling it [to a Jew] can be drawn up even on Sabbath. What? On Sabbath? &mdash; You know the dictum of Raba, 'He tells a non-Jew to do it.' So here, he tells a non-Jew to draw up the contract. And although there is a Rabbinical prohibition<a id="k8b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; against telling a non-Jew to do things on Sabbath [which we may not do ourselves], where it was a question of furthering the [Jewish] settlement of Eretz Israel the Rabbis did not apply the prohibition.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: If a slave brings before the <i>Beth din</i> his deed of manumission<a id="k8b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in which is written, 'Your own person and my property are made over to you', he becomes [ipso facto] his own master<a id="k8b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but not owner of the property.<a id="k8b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was propounded: [Suppose the document ran:] 'All my property is made over to you',<a id="k8b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the ruling? &mdash; Abaye said: Since the document makes him his own master, it makes him owner of the property also.<a id="k8b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: I agree that he becomes his own master, because [in respect of himself his document] is on a par with the Get of a wife. But he must not become owner of the property, because [in respect of the property his Get] requires confirmation like any other document. Abaye then corrected himself and said: Since he does not become by means of his document the owner of the property, he does not become his own master either. Said Raba to him: I agree that he should not become owner of the property, because in respect of the property [his document] requires confirmation like any other document; but he should become his own master, because [in respect of himself, his document] is on a par with the Get of a wife. The fact of the matter is, continued Raba, that both with the one [wording] and the other, he becomes his own master but not owner of the property.
</p><p>
	Said R. Abba b. Mattena to Raba: This ruling accords with the principle laid down by R. Simeon, that a single statement may receive two diverse applications, for we have learnt: If a man assigns all his property to his slave, the latter becomes ipso facto free, but if he excepted a piece of land, however small, he does not become free.<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon, however, holds
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k9a_1:" Since this seems to be the plain intention of the document."
,k9a_2:" Because this part may include the slave, v. B.B. 149b."
,k9a_3:" R. Simeon's disputant and the anonymous first Tanna of the Mishnah, that the slave should not go free."
,k9a_4:" Prov. XXIV, 26."
,k9a_5:" That we do not give two diverse applications to a single statement."
,k9a_6:" Which can be nullified by the dying man on recovery. v. B.B. 146b."
,k9a_7:" Thus R. Nahman applies the instruction diversely to the slave and to the property."
,k9a_8:" Since the grant of the slave's freedom was not specifically mentioned in the document, and we require such severance, because a Get of emancipation is on the same footing as a Get of divorce, which is termed in the Scripture 'a document of severance' or 'cutting off' (Deut. XXIV, 1)."
,k9a_9:" [Seeing that R. Meir denies the slave his freedom even if the property specifically excepted was land, his view being that since the master limited the scope of this document by excluding 'some thing', whatever it may be, the Get is no longer effective as an instrument of complete severance (Rashi).]"
,k9a_10:" Lit., or 'he who brings it'."
,k9a_11:" <i>Infra</i> 23a."
,k9a_12:" The bearer in both cases being required to declare, 'In my presence etc.'"
,k9a_13:" A Samaritan. "
}

txt:
<p>
that in any case the slave becomes free<a id="k9a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; unless he declares [in writing] 'All my property is left to So-and-so my slave except one ten-thousandth part thereof.'<a id="k9a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [But can Raba then rule thus, Seeing that] R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: Although R. Jose commended R. Simeon, the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Meir.<a id="k9a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; For it has been taught: When the discussion was reported to R. Jose, he applied to him [R. Meir] the Scriptural words, He shall be kissed upon the lips that giveth a right answer.<a id="k9a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But was this R. Nahman's opinion?<a id="k9a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Has not R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: If a man lying dangerously ill assigned all his possessions to his slave and then recovered, he may retract the grant of the property but not the grant of freedom. He may retract the grant of the property because it is a gift made on a death bed.<a id="k9a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; He may not retract the grant of the freedom because the slave has already become known as a free man!<a id="k9a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact, said R. Ashi, [R. Nahman's reason] in the former case [where he said that in practice R. Meir was to be followed] was because the document did not expressly sever the connection between the slave and his master,<a id="k9a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [and not because the same statement cannot receive two applications].<a id="k9a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
IF ITS VALIDITY IS CHALLENGED, IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE SIGNATURES. Challenged by how many? Shall I say by one person? Has not R. Johanan laid down that a challenge must come from two at least? Shall I say then two? In that case there are two on each side, and why should you give credence to one set rather than to the other? &mdash; The challenge meant is that of the husband.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHERE THE BEARER OF A GET FROM FOREIGN PARTS IS NOT ABLE TO DECLARE 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED, IF THE GET HAS BEEN SIGNED BY WITNESSES, ITS VALIDITY CAN BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH ITS SIGNATORIES. WRITS OF DIVORCE AND WRITS OF EMANCIPATION ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES WHEN TAKEN [FROM THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO FOREIGN PARTS] OR VICE VERSA,<a id="k9a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS BEING ONE OF THE POINTS IN WHICH WRITS OF DIVORCE ARE ON A PAR WITH WRITS OF EMANCIPATION.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the meaning of the expression, 'IS NOT ABLE TO DECLARE'? Shall I say it means that the bearer is a deaf-mute? Can a deaf-mute then be the bearer of a Get, seeing that we have learnt:<a id="k9a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 'All persons are qualified to be bearers of a Get except a deaf-mute, a lunatic, and a minor?' &mdash; R. Joseph said: Here we are dealing with a case in which he gave the woman the Get while he was still in possession of his faculties, but before he could utter the formula was struck deaf and dumb.
</p><p>
	WRITS OF DIVORCE AND WRITS OF EMANCIPATION etc. Our Rabbis taught: 'In three points writs of divorce are on a par with writs of emancipation. One is in the matter of being taken [from Eretz Israel to foreign parts] or vice versa.<a id="k9a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [Secondly,] any document witnessed by a Cuthean<a id="k9a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is invalid, except writs of divorce and emancipation. [Thirdly,] all documents
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k9b_1:" V. <i>infra</i> 11b."
,k9b_2:" V. <i>infra</i> 13a."
,k9b_3:" I.e., where the points of resemblance are limited to writs of divorce or emancipation."
,k9b_4:" [Heb. Golah denoting, at that time, Nehardea; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 571, n. 7.]"
,k9b_5:" Rab."
,k9b_6:" V. B.B. 152a. Just as in the case of writs of divorce and emancipation."
,k9b_7:" Since according to Rabbah the declaration was required only because of the general ignorance of the rule regarding 'special intention'."
,k9b_8:" Lit., 'attached (to the soil)', viz., that both the writ of emancipation and the writ of divorce must be written on something not attached to the soil."
,k9b_9:" [The requirement of the declaration 'in my presence it was written etc.' is Rabbinical and so is the disqualification of a Samaritan for evidence purposes in case of other documents likewise only Rabbinical.]"
,k9b_10:" Lit., 'who cut asunder'. And therefore the fact of its originating in a heathen court is a flaw only according to the Rabbis and, not the Torah."
,k9b_11:" In the Mishnah dealing with documents drawn up in heathen courts, <i>infra</i> 10b."
,k9b_12:" In that Mishnah who says that these are not valid."
,k9b_13:" That the witnesses to delivery make the Get effective, and therefore a non-Jewish signature is a flaw according to the Torah. "
}

txt:
<p>
entered in heathen courts, even if the signatures in them are those of heathens, are valid, except writs of divorce and of emancipation. According to R. Meir there are four points [the fourth being this]: If a man says, Give this Get to my wife and this writ of emancipation to my slave, he is at liberty, if he wishes, to retract from both. So says R. Meir'.<a id="k9b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; We can understand the Rabbis [specifying the number] three, [because they desired] to except the point stated by R. Meir. But what did R. Meir desire to except by specifying the number [four]? &mdash; [He desired] to except the following case which has been taught: If the witnesses are not able to sign their names, we make dents on the sheet and they fill them in with ink. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: This applies only to writs of divorce. With writs of emancipation and all other documents, if the witnesses are able to read and to sign their names, they sign, and if not, they do not sign. How does 'reading' come in here? &mdash; There is something omitted, and the passage should run thus: 'If the witnesses cannot read, the document is read to them and they then sign, and if they are unable to sign, dents are made for them.'
</p><p>
	Are there no more points [of resemblance]? Is there not [for example this one]: 'If a man says, Give this Get to my wife and this writ of emancipation to my slave and he dies [before they were given], they should not be given after his death. If, however, he said, Give a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, it should be given after his death'?<a id="k9b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The passage above was] dealing only with points which do not apply to documents in general,<a id="k9b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; not with such as apply to all documents. [And this is such a point;] for Rabin sent [the following message] in the name of R. Abbahu: 'Be it known to you that R. Eleazar sent to the Diaspora<a id="k9b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in the name of Our Master<a id="k9b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the following instruction: If a dying man said, Write down and give a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, and then died, his words are not committed to writing nor is the gift made, since perhaps he intended only to make the gift through the instrumentality of the document, and a document does not confer possession after the death [of the author].'<a id="k9b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But is there not the point of 'special intention' [in which writs of divorce and of emancipation are on a par]? For Rabbah, indeed, this raises no difficulty, since it is identical with the point of bringing to and from [Eretz Israel],<a id="k9b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but for Raba it does raise a difficulty. And again, whether we accept Rabbah's view or Raba's, there is the law of mehubar?<a id="k9b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The passage above] reckoned only the flaws laid down by the Rabbis<a id="k9b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [on their own authority], not those deriving from the Torah. But [the fact of originating in] a Gentile court is a flaw [in the Get] according to the Torah, and yet this point is also reckoned above? &mdash; [We are dealing there with the case where there are] witnesses to the delivery [of the document], and the passage follows the opinion of R. Eleazar, who said that it is the witnesses to the delivery [of the Get] who really make it effective.<a id="k9b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is that so?] It says later in the passage:<a id="k9b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon says that these also [writs of divorce signed by non-Jews] are valid; and [commenting on this] R. Zera said that R. Simeon was here following the view of R. Eleazar, who said that the witnesses to the delivery [of the Get] make it effective; from which we gather that the first Tanna<a id="k9b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; was not [of this opinion]?<a id="k9b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k10a_1:" R. Simeon holding that no danger can arise from this of heathens also being asked to witness the delivery of the Get, while the Rabbis held that there was such a danger."
,k10a_2:" [The law of 'special intention' and in regard to mehubar applies to writs of betrothals equally with writs of divorce, whereas the declaration, 'In my presence it was written, etc.' is limited to Get as explained <i>supra</i> 2b-3a. Similarly the validity of the signature of a Samaritan witness is limited to Get (v. <i>infra</i> 10b); nor would the Rabbis invalidate a writ of betrothal originating in a heathen court, provided Jewish witnesses were present at the delivery.]"
,k10a_3:" I.e., if a man gives a written agreement of betrothal to a bearer, he can withdraw it so long as it has not been delivered."
,k10a_4:" Samaritan."
,k10a_5:" Because they were looked upon as untruthful."
,k10a_6:" [Identified with Kefr Kud (Capar Cotani) on the border of Galilee and Samaria. V. Klein, Beitrage p. 29, n. 2.]"
,k10a_7:" That the unleavened bread eaten on the first night should be expressly prepared for it in accordance with the words, And ye shall watch the unleavened bread (Ex. XII, 17)."
,k10a_8:" I.e., if both witnesses were Samaritan and neither an Israelite."
,k10a_9:" After the Samaritan. "
}

txt:
<p>
Where he and the first Tanna differed was in the case where the names are obviously heathen.<a id="k10a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of the point about retracting, which [invalidates the Get even] according to the Torah, and yet is reckoned in this passage? &mdash; The proper answer [to the original question] is that only those points are reckoned which did not apply to betrothals, but not such as are found in connection with betrothals also.<a id="k10a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But this very point of retracting applies to betrothals also?<a id="k10a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are dealing here with a case where the whole commission is to be carried out without the consent of the recipient; this is possible in the case of divorces but not of betrothals.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. NO DOCUMENT ATTESTED BY THE SIGNATURE OF A CUTHEAN<a id="k10a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; IS VALID,<a id="k10a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; UNLESS IT IS A WRIT OF DIVORCE OR A WRIT OF EMANCIPATION. IT IS RELATED THAT A WRIT OF DIVORCE WAS ONCE BROUGHT BEFORE RABBAN GAMALIEL AT KEFAR 'UTHNAI<a id="k10a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ITS WITNESSES WERE CUTHEANS, AND HE DECLARED IT VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Who is [the Tanna] of our Mishnah? For it cannot be either the first Tanna, or R. Eleazar or Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel [in the following Baraitha]: For it has been taught: 'It is permissible to eat [on Passover] unleavened bread made by a Cuthean, and the eating of such bread satisfies the requirement of the Passover.<a id="k10a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar forbids [the eating of such bread], because [the Samaritans] are not familiar with the minutiae of the precepts. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that in all the precepts which the Cutheans do observe they are much more particular than the Jews themselves.' Whom now does our Mishnah follow? Shall I say the first Tanna? In that case other documents also should be valid [if attested by a Cuthean]. Shall I say R. Eleazar? In that case a writ of divorce should also be invalid. Shall I say Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? In that case, if they observe [the regulations of documents], then other documents attested by them should also be valid, and if they do not observe [these regulations], then even a writ of divorce attested by them should not he valid. And should you reply that in fact Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is the authority and that our Mishnah holds that the Cutheans observe the regulations concerning writs of divorce and emancipation but not concerning other documents &mdash; in that case why [does the Mishnah] speak of one [Cuthean witness only]? [The Get should be equally valid] even if there were two;<a id="k10a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and if that were so, why has R. Eleazar said [that a Get of this kind] has been declared valid only if there is not more than one Cuthean signature to it? &mdash; The authority followed by our Mishnah is in fact R. Eleazar, and it speaks of the case where an Israelite signs last,<a id="k10a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k10b_1:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> In which case R. Eleazar's objection does not apply."
,k10b_2:" The Jew signed first below thinking that another Jew would sign above, but the lender got the signature of a Samaritan instead."
,k10b_3:" So that it is impossible for us to say that the husband brought a Samaritan to sign without the knowledge of the Jewish witness."
,k10b_4:" That if he said to ten persons, 'All of you write', one writes and all the rest sign in one another's presence, otherwise the Get is not valid; <i>infra</i>, 66b."
,k10b_5:" [H], [G], 'office' 'registry'."
,k10b_6:" The non-Jewish judges'."
,k10b_7:" Lit., 'do injury to themselves (to their reputation)'."
,k10b_8:" Assuming a deed originating in a non-Jewish court does not constitute an instrument of acquisition, why should the deed be deemed valid? "
,k10b_9:" V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 222, n. 6."
,k10b_10:" I.e., all which in themselves make the transaction effective, such as the record of a gift."
,k10b_11:" Lit., 'cutting', Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k10b_12:" And the signature of witnesses who are not competent to sign would be counted by R. Eleazar as a flaw because it might give the impression that these were competent as witnesses to the delivery. "
}

txt:
<p>
for we assume in that case that if the Cuthean were not a Haber,<a id="k10b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the Israelite would not let him sign before him. In that case, why are not other documents also valid? Consequently the truth is that we say, 'he left room for someone senior to himself.'<a id="k10b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But if that be so cannot we say here too that he left room for someone senior to himself? &mdash; Said R. Papa: This proves that the witnesses to a Get do not sign save in one another's presence.<a id="k10b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason for this? &mdash; R. Ashi says that it is to prevent any infringement of the rule concerning 'all of you'.<a id="k10b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The text above [states]: 'R. Eleazar said [that a Get of this kind] has been declared valid only if there is not more than one Cuthean signature to it.' What does he teach us by this statement? Has not the Mishnah already told us that NO DOCUMENT ATTESTED BY THE SIGNATURE OF A SAMARITAN etc.? &mdash; If I had only the Mishnah to go by, I should say that even with two [Cuthean signatures the Get is valid], and that the reason why one [only is mentioned] is to show that other documents are rendered invalid even by one Samaritan signature; hence [R. Eleazar's statement] is necessary. But [is a Get] with two [Cuthean signatures] invalid? Does not the Mishnah say: IT IS RELATED THAT A WRIT OF DIVORCE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE RABBAN GAMALIEL [AT KEFAR 'UTHNAI] AND ITS WITNESSES WERE CUTHEANS, AND HE DECLARED IT VALID? &mdash; Abaye says: Read 'its witness Raba says: It is quite correct that there were two, and the fact is that Rabban Gamaliel differs [from the first authority], and there is an omission [in the Mishnah, which should] read as follows: 'Rabban Gamaliel declares [a Get] valid with two [Cuthean signatures], and it is actually related that a Get was brought before Rabban Gamaliel at Kefar 'Uthnai and its witnesses were Cutheans and he declared it valid.'
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ACCEPTED IN HEATHEN COURTS,<a id="k10b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; EVEN IF THEY THAT SIGNED THEM WERE GENTILES, ARE VALID [FOR JEWISH COURTS] EXCEPT WRITS OF DIVORCE AND OF EMANCIPATION. R. SIMEON SAYS: THESE ALSO ARE VALID; THEY WERE ONLY PRONOUNCED [TO BE INVALID] WHEN DRAWN UP BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [Our Mishnah] lays down a comprehensive rule in which no distinction is made between a sale and a gift. We can understand that the rule should apply to a sale, because the purchaser acquires the object of sale from the moment when he hands over the money in their<a id="k10b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; presence, and the document is a mere corroboration; for if he did not hand over the money in their presence, they would not take the risk<a id="k10b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; of drawing up a document of sale for him. But with a gift [it is different]. Through what [does the recipient] obtain possession? Through this document, [is it not]? And this document is a mere piece of clay?<a id="k10b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Samuel: The law of the Government is law.<a id="k10b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Or if you prefer, I can reply: Instead of 'except writs of divorce' in the Mishnah, read, 'except [documents] like writs of divorce.'<a id="k10b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON SAYS: THESE ALSO ARE VALID etc. How can this be, seeing that to heathens the act of 'severance'<a id="k10b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is not applicable? &mdash; Said R. Zera: R. Simeon here accepts the view of R. Eleazar, who said that the separation is actually effected by the witnesses to the delivery [of the document]. But has not R. Abba said that R. Eleazar used to admit [that a Get] which in itself contained a flaw was invalid?<a id="k10b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are dealing here
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k11a_1:" In which case there is no danger that their witnessing to the Get would create a wrong impression as to their competence."
,k11a_2:" Where there is no danger that the witnesses who signed the Get will be deemed competent to attest delivery."
,k11a_3:" I.e., not an official body."
,k11a_4:" V. <i>infra</i> 19b."
,k11a_5:" So that the ink cannot be erased."
,k11a_6:" E.g., 'I have received from So-and-so all the sums mentioned above'. This was not the custom with Persian documents."
,k11a_7:" Lit., 'it has no voice'. Since there are no Jewish witnesses to the deed to give publicity to the transaction, thus keeping off prospective buyers from the property; v. <i>infra</i> 19b. And therefore the creditor from the first never expected to recover from such property. "
}

txt:
<p>
with signatures which are obviously those of heathens.<a id="k11a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Can you give some examples of names which are obviously those of heathens? &mdash; Said R. Papa: For instance, Hannez and Abudina, Bar Shibthai, Bar Kidri, Batti and Nakim and Una. What then if the signatures are not obviously those of heathens? [The document, you will say,] is invalid? If so, instead of going on to say, 'THEY WERE ONLY PRONOUNCED TO BE INVALID WHEN DRAWN UP BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS, R. Simeon should draw a distinction between [the signatures] themselves, and should continue thus: 'when I say [they are valid, I mean] when the names are obviously [heathen], but otherwise they are invalid!' &mdash; This in fact is what he does mean, viz.: 'When I say [they are valid I mean] when the names are obviously [heathen], but where they are not so, the document is on a par with one drawn up by unauthorised persons and is invalid.' Or if you like I can reply that the last clause [of the Mishnah] refers to monetary documents, and the meaning is as follows: 'Monetary documents were not pronounced to be invalid save when they were drawn up by unauthorised persons.' It has been taught: R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Jose: Thus did R. Simeon say to the Rabbis in Sidon: R. Akiba and the Sages were agreed in reference to all documents entered in heathen courts that even if those that signed them were heathens they are valid, including also writs of divorce and of emancipation. They differed only in the case where they were drawn up by unauthorised persons, R. Akiba declaring all such documents to be valid and the Sages declaring them all invalid, save only writs of divorce and of emancipation. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that these too are valid only in places where Jews are not allowed to sign documents,<a id="k11a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but where Jews are allowed to sign documents they are not valid. Why does not Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel declare them invalid even in places where Jews are allowed to sign, for fear lest they should come to be deemed valid even in places where they are not? &mdash; Names may be confused but not places. Rabina had a mind to declare valid a document which had been drawn up in a gathering<a id="k11a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; of Arameans. Said Rafram to him: 'We learnt [distinctly] "COURTS".'
</p><p>
	Raba said:<a id="k11a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; A document drawn up in Persian which has been handed over in the presence of Jewish witnesses is sufficient warrant for recovering from property on which there is no previous lien. But the witnesses to the transfer cannot read it? &mdash; We speak of the case where they can. But we require writing which cannot be erased? &mdash; We speak of a case where the sheet has been dressed with gall-nut juice.<a id="k11a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But we require the rule [to be observed] that the gist of the document must be summarised in the last line?<a id="k11a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We speak of a case where this has been done. If so, why not recover from mortgaged property also? &mdash; [The contents of a document of this kind] do not become generally known.<a id="k11a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish put the following question to R. Johanan:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k11b_1:" Coming from Palestine."
,k11b_2:" I.e., I relied upon the witnesses to delivery."
,k11b_3:" Lucius and Gaius (Jast.)."
,k11b_4:" Because in that case the witnesses, even if Gentiles, might be presumed to be competent."
,k11b_5:" This apparently contradicts R. Johanan."
,k11b_6:" Hence it is safe to presume that the witness with a Gentile name is a Jew, but this is not the case in Palestine."
,k11b_7:" Viz., 'What is the rule about writs of divorce brought from foreign parts with heathen signatures.'"
,k11b_8:" Viz., 'they are valid etc.'"
,k11b_9:" Because this is a disability for both of them, and the agent does not become possessed of the bills, on the principle that 'a disability may not be inflicted on a man save in his presence.'"
,k11b_10:" Hence emancipation involves no disability for the slave."
,k11b_11:" Vid. Lev. XXII, 11; Num. XVIII, 11. So that emancipation does involve a disability for the slave even as divorce for the wife."
,k11b_12:" Tosaf. points out that this is not the R. Huna usually mentioned in the Talmud, who was much senior to R. Jeremiah."
,k11b_13:" For the creditor and the owner cannot recover from him any more than he can withdraw the bill of emancipation from the agent."
,k11b_14:" I.e., if the man had other creditors also."
,k11b_15:" Which seems to say that he does become legal possessor."
,k11b_16:" For notes v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 49 ff. "
}

txt:
<p>
'If a Get<a id="k11b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is attested by witnesses with heathen names, how do we proceed?' &mdash; He replied: 'The only [heathen names] that have come before us in this way were Lucus and Lus, and in both cases we declared [the Get] valid.'<a id="k11b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This ruling applies strictly to names like Lucus and Lus<a id="k11b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; which are never borne by Israelites, but not to heathen names which are also borne by Israelites.<a id="k11b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; He [thereupon] raised an objection [from the following]: 'Writs of divorce brought from foreign parts and attested by signatures, even if the names are like those of heathens, are valid, because most Jews in foreign parts bear heathen names!'<a id="k11b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There the reason is as given, because most Jews in foreign parts bear heathen names.<a id="k11b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; According to another version, Resh Lakish put the question to R. Johanan on the lines of the Baraitha [just quoted],<a id="k11b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and he answered him by quoting [the second] clause of the Baraitha.<a id="k11b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SAYS: GIVE THIS WRIT OF DIVORCE TO MY WIFE AND THIS BILL OF EMANCIPATION TO MY SLAVE, HE IS AT LIBERTY IF HE PLEASES TO COUNTERMAND BOTH INSTRUCTIONS.<a id="k11b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS THE RULING OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY THAT HE MAY COUNTERMAND IN THE CASE OF THE GET BUT NOT IN THAT OF THE WRIT OF EMANCIPATION, ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT A BENEFIT MAY BE CONFERRED ON A MAN IN HIS ABSENCE BUT A DISABILITY MAY BE IMPOSED ON HIM ONLY IN HIS PRESENCE; FOR IF HE DOES NOT WANT TO MAINTAIN HIS SLAVE HE IS NOT BOUND TO DO SO,<a id="k11b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF HE DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE MAINTENANCE TO HIS WIFE HE IS STILL ROUND TO DO SO. SAID R. MEIR TO THEM: DOES HE NOT DISQUALIFY HIS SLAVE FROM EATING THE PRIESTLY HEAVE-OFFERING [BY EMANCIPAT<a id="k11b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; NG HIM] IN THE SAME WAY AS HE DISQUALIFIES HIS WIFE [BY DIVORCING HER]?<a id="k11b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; THEY REPLIED: [THE SLAVE IS DISQUALIFIED] BECAUSE HE IS THE PRIEST'S PROPERTY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Huna<a id="k11b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Isaac b. Joseph were sitting [studying] before R. Jeremiah whilst R. Jeremiah was sitting and dozing, when R. Huna remarked that we learn from the ruling of the Rabbis [in our Mishnah] that if a man seizes the goods [of a third party] on behalf of a creditor, he acquires [them].<a id="k11b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Isaac b. Joseph to him: Even if by doing so he causes loss to others?<a id="k11b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: Yes. At this point R. Jeremiah woke up [and overheard them]. He said: Youngsters, this is what R. Johanan said: If a man seizes goods on behalf of a creditor when by so doing he causes loss to others, he does not acquire. If you ask [how this can be reconciled with] our Mishnah,<a id="k11b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [the answer is that] for a man to say 'give' is equivalent to saying 'acquire on behalf of'.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda says: [The case of the man] who seizes goods on behalf of a creditor and by so doing causes loss to others admits of the same difference of opinion as we find between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. For we learnt:<a id="k11b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man garners the corner [of his field], and said: This is for such-and-such a poor man, he acquires it on his behalf. The Sages, however, say that he must give it to the first poor man that comes along. Said Amemar (others say it was R. Papa:)
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k12a_1:" Lev. XXIII, 22. [They join 'for the poor man' with 'Thou shalt not gleam on the principle of Siddur she-nehelak, mentioned in the Mishnah of H. Eliezer b. Jose the Galilean, that a context which has been disrupted by a disjunctive accent is reconnected for exegetical purposes.]"
,k12a_2:" He must leave gleanings in his own field."
,k12a_3:" Mentioned in our Mishnah."
,k12a_4:" Having killed someone by accident."
,k12a_5:" To the rule that the master may take the slave's earnings."
,k12a_6:" Deut. IV. 42."
,k12a_7:" In respect of allowing the slave the excess of his earnings over and above his keep."
,k12a_8:" Which proves that a master can say to a slave 'work for me but I will not support you'."
,k12a_9:" That the husband has still to keep her."
,k12a_10:" Ps. XLV, 14."
,k12a_11:" And both authorities hold that the master may not say, 'Work for me etc.'"
,k12a_12:" And therefore there is no need to let him go free."
,k12a_13:" Lit., 'sanctifies'; cf. Lev. XXVII."
,k12a_14:" Cf. p. 44, nn. 1-2. "
}

txt:
<p>
Perhaps the two cases are not on all fours. R. Eliezer's reason there [for allowing the owner of the field to acquire on behalf of the poor man] may be only because if he desires he can declare his field public property and so become himself a poor man and entitled to [the gleanings], and since he can acquire it for himself [we concede that] he can acquire it for his fellow; whereas [this reasoning] does not apply to our present case. And the Rabbis' reason in the case of the poor man may be only that in the text it is written thou shalt not glean, for the poor man,<a id="k12a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'thou shalt not glean for the poor man', but here they would not [apply the same principle]. What lesson then does R. Eliezer derive from these words, 'thou shalt not glean, for the poor'? &mdash; He sees in them an admonition to a poor man [who himself owns a field] in regard to his own gleanings.<a id="k12a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FOR IF HE CHOOSES NOT TO MAINTAIN HIS SLAVE, etc. We understand from this, [do we not,] that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not support you! &mdash; [No!] Here we deal with the case in which the master says: Keep what you can earn as the equivalent of your maintenance. Similarly in the case of the woman<a id="k12a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; we likewise must suppose that the husband says to her: Keep what you can earn as the equivalent of your maintenance. [But if this is so] why, in the case of the wife should he not [be permitted to refuse to maintain her]? &mdash; Because she cannot earn enough [for her keep]. But a slave too may not be able to earn enough for his keep? &mdash; If a slave's [work] is not worth the food he eats, what do his master and mistress want him for!
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a slave has fled to one of the cities of refuge,<a id="k12a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; his master is under no obligation to support him; and moreover whatever he earns belongs to his master. We understand from this, do we not, that a master can say to a slave, 'Work for me, but I will not support you'? &mdash; We are dealing here with the case in which the master said to him, 'You may keep what you earn as the equivalent of your maintenance'. In that case why does it say that what he earns belongs to the master? &mdash; This applies to what he earns over and above his keep. There is surely no need to tell us that? &mdash; [There is, because otherwise] you might think that, since the master does not give him anything when he does not earn, he should not take anything from him when he does earn; but now you know [that this is not so]. But why should this rule apply specially to cities of refuge? &mdash; I might think [that cities of refuge are an exception],<a id="k12a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; because the words 'that he might live' [used in connection with them<a id="k12a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; are interpreted to mean that] special provision must be made [for one who is exiled there]; but now I know [that they are no exception].<a id="k12a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But now look at the continuation [of the passage quoted]: But if a woman is exiled to a city of refuge, her husband is under obligation to maintain her. Obviously this speaks of a case where the husband did not say to her, ['You may keep your earnings etc.',] because if he did, why should he have to support her? And since that is the case here, then we presume that the first part of the passage also deals with the case in which the master did not say to the slave, ['Keep your earnings' etc.]?<a id="k12a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. [The cases considered are those in which the master or husband] did say so, and the reason In the case of the wife<a id="k12a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is because she cannot keep herself. But look at the further continuation [of the passage]: If he says to her, I allow you to keep your earnings in place of your maintenance, he is within his rights. This shows, does it not, that the preceding clause deals with the case where he did not say so? &mdash; We interpret [the last clause] thus: If she can earn sufficient [for a living] and he said to her: Keep your earnings in place of your maintenance, he is within his rights. What is the point of bringing in the case where she can earn sufficient [for a living]? &mdash; You might think that even so she should not go about to earn a living because, as Scripture says, the honour of the king's daughter [i.e. the Jewish woman] lies it privacy;<a id="k12a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but now you know [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	May we say that the same difference of opinion is found between the Tannaim [mentioned in the following passage]? [For it was taught:] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: A slave can say to his master in a year of scarcity, 'Either maintain me or let me go free'; whereas the Sages say that the master can do as he pleases. Shall we say that the point at issue between them is this, that the one authority holds that a master can say to his slave, 'Work for me but I will not support you', and the other holds that he cannot? &mdash; Do you really think so? In that case why does it say, 'either maintain me or let me go free'? It should Say, 'either maintain me or let me keep my earnings in place of my maintenance'. And besides, why should the rule apply specially to years of scarcity? The fact is that the case put is one in which the master has said to the slave, 'Keep your earnings as the equivalent of your maintenance',<a id="k12a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and in a year of scarcity he cannot earn enough. [In that case] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that the slave can say to the master, 'Either maintain me or let me go free, so that people may see me and have pity on me', whereas the Rabbis hold the view that those who pity free men pity also slaves.<a id="k12a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Rab said: If a man dedicates to the Sanctuary<a id="k12a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the hands of his slave, that slave may borrow money, eat, work and repay [his loan with his earnings].<a id="k12a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; We may conclude from this, [may we not,] that the master can say to the slave, 'Work for me, but I will not maintain you'? &mdash; [No.] The case contemplated here is one in which the master provides the slave with his keep. If so, why
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k12b_1:" I.e., as the property of the Sanctuary, it must not be touched by outsiders."
,k12b_2:" Because a sum less than a <i>perutah</i> cannot become sanctified."
,k12b_3:" As much as to say: Let him starve!"
,k12b_4:" V. Ex. XXI, 19 and B.K. 83b."
,k12b_5:" From the fact that the master takes the money he is capable of earning even in his maimed condition, while he is living on charity."
,k12b_6:" And what does he lose therefore by being emancipated?"
,k12b_7:" I.e., refuses him his conjugal rights."
,k12b_8:" Tosef. Git. I."
,k12b_9:" I.e., I admit that the slave does not necessarily lose maintenance by being emancipated."
,k12b_10:" And as he is still a priest's slave, lie can still eat the priestly dues. "
}

txt:
<p>
does he borrow for his food? &mdash; He borrows for extras. But the Sanctuary can say to him, 'Just as you could do without extras hitherto, so you can do without extras now'? &mdash; The Sanctuary itself prefers this, so that its slave should be in good condition. You say that he works and pays from his earnings. How can he do this, seeing that every penny as he earns it becomes sanctified?<a id="k12b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [He keeps on paying his earnings] before they amount to a <i>perutah</i>.<a id="k12b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This view [that Rab's dictum refers to the case where the master provides the slave's keep] is borne out by this other dictum of Rab: If a man sanctifies the hands of his slave, that same slave can go on working for his keep, for if he does not work, who will look after him? If you say that the first dictum refers to the case where the master provides [the slave's keep], and that in consequence a master is not at liberty [to say to his slave, 'Work for me, but I shall not maintain you'], and that the latter dictum refers to a case where he does not provide for him, all is plain; but if you say that the first dictum refers to the case where the master does tot provide the slave's keep, and [so we rule that] he can say [to the slave, 'You must work for me etc.', what is the sense of saying [in the second dictum], 'if he does not work who will look after him?' Let anyone who will look after him!<a id="k12b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; We conclude therefore that the ruling is that a master cannot say [to his slave, 'Work for me, but I shall not support you.']
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. Johanan says that if a man cuts off the hand of another man's slave, he must make good to his master his 'loss of time'<a id="k12b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the cost of his medical attendance, and the slave must live on charity. We understand from this,<a id="k12b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [do we not,] that the master can say to the slave, 'Work for me, but I shall not maintain you'? &mdash; No. Here we are dealing with a case in which the master does provide the slave's keep. If that is so, why [does it say that] he must live on charity? &mdash; This refers to extras. If that is so, it should say not 'live on' but 'be supported by'? We therefore conclude that the master can say [to the slave, 'You must work for me etc.']. This proves it.
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'He must make good to his master "loss of time" and the cost of his medical attendance'. [What need is there to tell me this in] the case of the 'loss of time', which is obvious? &mdash; The 'loss of time' is mentioned because the medical costs [had to be mentioned]. Surely the medical costs go to the slave, for he needs them for his cure? &mdash; This must be stated in view of a case where it was calculated that he requires five days [treatment] and by the application of a painful remedy he was cured in three. You might think that in this case [the whole of the estimated medical cost goes to the slave since] the extra pain is his; but now know [that it does not].
</p><p>
	It has been taught R. Eliezer said: We said to R. Meir, Is it not a benefit for the slave to obtain his liberty? &mdash; He replied, It is a disability for him, since if he was the slave of a priest he can no longer eat of the <i>terumah</i>. We said to him: If the priest chooses not to give him his keep, is he not at liberty to do so?<a id="k12b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: If the slave of a priest runs away, or if the wife of a priest flouts her husband,<a id="k12b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; they can still eat of the <i>terumah</i>, but this one cannot. For a woman, however, certainly it is a disadvantage [to be divorced] since she becomes disqualified to eat the <i>terumah</i> [if she was married to a priest] and forfeits her maintenance [in any case].<a id="k12b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; What did they mean by their question and what was the point of [R. Meir's] remark, [If a priest's slave runs away etc.]? &mdash; What he said in effect was this: 'You have refuted me in the matter of maintenance,<a id="k12b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but what answer can you give in the matter of the <i>terumah</i>? For if you should say that, if the master likes, he can throw the writ of emancipation to the slave and so disqualify him [and therefore giving the writ to a bearer is not a disadvantage to the slave], [I answer that] the slave can [prevent this by] leaving him and running away.<a id="k12b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k13a_1:" Lit., 'heaped up in a corner'."
,k13a_2:" <i>Meshikah</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Until this has been performed, the donor can retract, as also his heir."
,k13a_3:" V. B.B. 151a."
,k13a_4:" Lit., 'in the presence of these three'."
,k13a_5:" [V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 616, nn. 15-16. This principle known as Ma'amad shlashtan which provides for the transfer of claims to a third party is assumed by R. Zebid to apply only to deposits because they are considered to be in the legal possession of the owner wherever they may be at the time. Similarly in the Mishnah it is necessary for the money to be specially set aside.] "
}

txt:
<p>
Seeing then that a priest's slave who runs away and a priest's wife who flouts her husband can still eat of the <i>terumah</i> while this one [who is emancipated] cannot, [is it not a disadvantage to him to be emancipated]?' This was a good rejoinder, [was it not]? &mdash; Said Raba: That is the point of the answer of the Rabbis [recorded] in the Mishnah, 'BECAUSE HE IS HIS PROPERTY,' [by which they meant to say] that if the master wants he can take four <i>zuz</i> from a non-priestly Israelite [as the price of the slave], and so disqualify him wherever he is. Let us grant that R. Meir has made out his case with regard to the slave of a priest; how does he make it out with regard to the slave of an ordinary Israelite? &mdash; Said R. Samuel son of R. Isaac: [Emancipation is a disadvantage to the slave] because it disqualifies him from marrying a Gentile bondwoman. [On the contrary it is a benefit] because it qualifies him to marry a free woman? &mdash; A slave prefers a common woman; she allows him to take liberties, she is at his beck and call, she is not coy with him.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SAYS, GIVE THIS GET TO MY WIFE, THIS DEED OF EMANCIPATION TO MY SLAVE, AND DIES [BEFORE THEY ARE GIVEN], THEY ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. [IF HE SAID], GIVE A <I>MANEH</I> TO SO-AND-SO AND DIED, THE MONEY SHOULD BE GIVEN AFTER HIS DEATH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rab: [This money is] only [to be given] if it has actually been put aside in a special place.<a id="k13a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; With what case are we dealing here? Shall I say the man was in health [when he gave the instruction]? What difference does it make that the money is available, seeing that the recipient has not yet performed the act of 'pulling'?<a id="k13a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; And if he was on his death bed, why must the money have been put on one side? Even if it has not been put on one side, it is to be given, because the instruction of a man on his death bed has the same force as a written document formally handed over!<a id="k13a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zebid said: We are in fact [dealing here] with the case of a man in health, and [our Mishnah is] in agreement with [the following dictum enunciated by] R. Huna in the name of Rab: [If a man says], You owe me a <i>maneh</i>, give it to So-and-so, [if he said this] in the presence of the third party,<a id="k13a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [the last named] becomes legally entitled to it.<a id="k13a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said that we are indeed dealing here with the case of a man on his death bed, and [the Mishnah is] in agreement with another dictum of Rab, Viz.: 'If a man on his death bed says, Give a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so out of my belongings, if he said, give this <i>maneh</i>, it is to be given, but if he said simply a <i>maneh</i> it is not to be given, because perhaps he was thinking of a buried <i>maneh</i>. The law is, however, that we do not suspect that anything is buried. Why did not R. Papa take the same view as R. Zebid?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k13b_1:" [Though it cannot be regarded as being in the possession of the creditor, since the debtor is entitled to spend it. Consequently where a transfer is made by means of ma'amad shlashtan there would be no need for the money in question to be specially set aside.]"
,k13b_2:" That they would have to be given if he continued alive."
,k13b_3:" Even had he lived."
,k13b_4:" V. <i>infra</i> 65b."
,k13b_5:" And therefore in the case of the dying man also the rule applies only in the case where he said 'give'."
,k13b_6:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 47. nn. 2 and 3."
,k13b_7:" Because the borrower could not be considered to have pledged himself to repay them."
,k13b_8:" E.g., fruit that will grow on a tree hereafter, v. B.M. 33b. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; R. Papa was of opinion that Rab's dictum was meant to apply equally whether [the sum in question was] a loan<a id="k13b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; or a deposit. Why did not R. Zebid adopt the view of R. Papa? &mdash; Because [the language of] the Mishnah is not consistent with [the theory that it speaks of a man on his death bed]. How do we make this out? &mdash; Because it says: IF A MAN SAYS, GIVE THIS GET TO MY WIFE AND THIS DEED OF EMANCIPATION TO MY SLAVE, AND DIES BEFORE THEY WERE GIVEN, THEY ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. The reason is that he died; had he continued alive, they would have been given. And the reason why we say this<a id="k13b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is that he said 'Give' [and not merely 'write']; had he not said 'give', they would not have to be given,<a id="k13b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas in the case of a man on his death bed, although he did not use the word 'give', [the Get] is still to be given, as we learn [from the following Mishnah]: 'At first it was laid down that if a man was being led out in fetters [to execution] and said, "Write a Get for my wife", [the Get] was to be written and delivered. Later they laid down that the same rule applied to one who was leaving for a sea journey or joining a caravan [across the desert]. R. Simeon Shezuri said: It also applies to a man lying dangerously ill.'<a id="k13b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; To this R. Ashi demurred: How do we know, he said, that our Mishnah adopts the View of R. Simeon Shezuri? Perhaps it adopts the view of the Rabbis.<a id="k13b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The text above stated: 'R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a man says, You owe me a <i>maneh</i>, give it to So-and-so, [if he said this] in the presence of the third party, [the last-named] becomes legally entitled to it.' [Commenting on this,] Raba said, This dictum of Rab appears to be sound where [the money in question] is a deposit but not where it is a loan.<a id="k13b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But, by God! Rab said that it applies even where it is a loan. It has also been stated that Samuel said in the name of Levi: If a man says. You owe me some money, give it to So-and-so, [if he said so] in the presence of the third party. [the last-named] becomes the legal owner. What is the reason? &mdash; Amemar said: [The borrower in such case] is regarded as having pledged himself at the time of borrowing the money to repay it either to the lender or to anyone coming on his behalf. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But on your showing, if the lender transferred the debt to children who had not yet been born when the loan was made, they would not acquire possession?<a id="k13b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; For even according to R. Meir, who said that it is possible to transfer possession of things that do not yet exist,<a id="k13b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [the transference must be] to something that is existing, not to something that does not yet exist: The truth is, said R. Ashi,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k14a_1:" Even if the latter had not yet been born at the time of the loan."
,k14a_2:" If the debt is transferred to them."
,k14a_3:" And not absolute owner."
,k14a_4:" For fuller notes v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 616 ff."
,k14a_5:" Made in the presence of the third party."
,k14a_6:" A silver stater = half a <i>zuz</i>."
,k14a_7:" [Trani adds: for ground-tax.]"
,k14a_8:" [So Trani. That is, they made him obligate himself by means of a <i>Kinyan</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) to carry out his undertaking: cur. edd. 'he' is evidently an error.]"
,k14a_9:" [That a transfer of claims made in the presence of the third party takes immediate effect.]"
,k14a_10:" [So cur. edd.]"
,k14a_11:" Nab."
,k14a_12:" For this reason he may not retract, though he still continues to he responsible, as the creditor did not give him the permission to entrust the money to the bearer."
,k14a_13:" Samuel."
,k14a_14:" That he is at liberty to retract: lit., 'that we say since'.'"
,k14a_15:" That he is still responsible."
,k14a_16:" Tosef. Git. I."
,k14a_17:" And therefore the recipient is satisfied that the money should be in the hands of the hearer."
,k14a_18:" Lit., 'let us obtain a <i>kinyan</i> from you', relieving us of all further responsibility."
,k14a_19:" In refusing to assume responsibility."
,k14a_20:" Prov. XXII, 7."
,k14a_21:" I.e., my debtors are still under obligation to me."
,k14a_22:" [ [G], v. Krauss. TA. II, 415.] "
}

txt:
<p>
that for the sake of the benefit which the borrower derives from the difference [in time of payment] between the old debt and the new one, he willingly pledges himself to the new creditor.<a id="k14a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Huna Mar the son of R. Nehemiah to R. Ashi: If that is so, what of people like those from the house of Bar Eliashib, who force their debtors to pay at once? Do they not acquire possession in such a case as this?<a id="k14a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you say they do, then you apply different standards to different people? &mdash; The truth is, said Mar Zutra, that there are three laws which the Rabbis have laid down arbitrarily without [giving] a reason. One is this one. A second is the one laid down by Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: If a [dying] man assigns in writing all his property to his wife, he only makes her a trustee for it.<a id="k14a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; The third is the one laid down by R. Hananiah: If a man celebrates the marriage of his son who is over age in a special house, the son becomes the owner of the house.<a id="k14a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab once said to R. Aha Bardala: You have a <i>kab</i> of saffron of mine, give it to So-and-so, and I am telling you in his presence that I do not mean to change my mind. Are we to understand from this that if he had desired to change his mind he could have done so? &mdash; What Rab meant was that instructions such as these<a id="k14a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be retracted. But this has already been laid down by Rab, since R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a man says to another, You have a <i>maneh</i> of mine in your possession, give it to So-and-so, if he says this in the presence of the third party, [the latter] becomes legal owner? &mdash; If I had only that dictum to go by, I should suppose that this rule applies only to a big gift, but that for a small one it is not necessary for the third party to be present: now I know [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	Some market gardeners [who were in partnership] once squared accounts with one another, and found that one had five staters<a id="k14a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; too much. Said the others to him in the presence of the owner of the land, 'Give it to the owner of the land',<a id="k14a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and they duly acquired' from him.<a id="k14a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Afterwards he reckoned up by himself, and found that he had nothing over. He went to consult R. Nahman. Said [the latter] to him: What can I do for you? For one thing, there is the rule laid down by R. Huna in the name of Rab,<a id="k14a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and for another thing, they<a id="k14a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; duly 'acquired' from you. Said Raba to him: Does this man say. I am unwilling to pay? What he pleads is, I do not owe the money. Whereupon R. Nahman said: If so, possession has been transferred in error, and in such a case the money must always be returned.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If a man says to another, 'Take to So-and-so the <i>maneh</i> which I owe him', Rab says. he continues to be responsible for it, and he is not at liberty to retract the commission, whereas Samuel says that since he is still responsible he is at liberty to retract. May we presume that the point at issue between them is this, that one authority<a id="k14a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; was of opinion that 'take' is equivalent to 'accept on behalf of',<a id="k14a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other<a id="k14a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; was of opinion that 'take' is not equivalent to 'accept on behalf of'? &mdash; No. Both are agreed that 'take' is equivalent to 'accept on behalf of', and the point at issue is this, that one was of opinion that we make one ruing<a id="k14a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; because of another,<a id="k14a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other was of opinion that we do not. It has been taught in agreement with Rab:<a id="k14a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man says to another, Take to So-and-so the <i>maneh</i> which I owe him, give So-and-so the <i>maneh</i> which I owe him, take to So-and-so the <i>maneh</i> which he has given me in trust, give So-and-so the <i>maneh</i> which he has given me in trust, he remains responsible for the money, yet if he wishes to retract the commission he is not at liberty to do so. Why should he not be able to retract in the case of trust money, on the plea that [the depositor] does not desire his money to be in the hand of another [party]? &mdash; R. Zera answered: We assume that [the sender in this case] is known as a man who denies [his obligations].<a id="k14a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth had some money owing to him in Mahuza for some cloaks [which he had sold there]. He said to R. Joseph b. Hama [who was going there]: When you come back from there, bring the money with you. [R. Joseph] went [to them] and they gave him the money. They said to him: 'Give us a quittance'.<a id="k14a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; At first he said, 'yes', but afterwards he excused himself. When he returned, R. Shesheth said to him: You acted quite rightly,<a id="k14a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; not to make yourself a borrower [who] is the slave of the lender.<a id="k14a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; According to another version he said to him: You acted quite rightly: 'a borrower is the slave of the lender.'<a id="k14a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ahi the son of R. Josiah had a silver cup<a id="k14a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; in Nehardea.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k14b_1:" Lit., 'they vexed him'."
,k14b_2:" Lit., 'the master'."
,k14b_3:" Al. 'He deserves his thrashing'."
,k14b_4:" Lit., 'they are a cubit and their hats are a cubit'."
,k14b_5:" Lit., 'they speak from their middles'."
,k14b_6:" [On this passage. and for an attempt to explain the names mentioned, v. Rappaport, Kerem Chemed VII p. 199.]"
,k14b_7:" Lit., 'have they horses and mules running before them'."
,k14b_8:" Whose verbal instructions have the character of a written deposition. v. <i>supra</i> 15a."
,k14b_9:" And his verbal instructions have not the force of a written deposition."
,k14b_10:" And it goes back to the sender."
,k14b_11:" (At which point the gift takes immediate effect because the carrying out of the wishes of the dead is deemed a religious obligation.]"
,k14b_12:" And the money now goes to the heirs of the recipient."
,k14b_13:" [This is quoted by Chajes in support of Sherira's view in his Epistle that Babylon was a centre of Torah studies from the earliest days, ever since the first deportation of Jews in 596 B.C.E. V. <i>supra</i> p. 17, n. 3 and Halevy, Doroth II, pp. 82ff.] "
}

txt:
<p>
He said to R. Dosethai the son of R. Jannai and to R. Jose b. Kifar [who were going there]: When you come back from there, bring it with you. They went and got it [from the people who had it]. They said to them: 'Give us a quittance'. They said, 'No'. 'Then give it back', they said. R. Dosethai the son of R. Jannai was willing, but R. Jose b. Kifar refused. They gave him a thrashing,<a id="k14b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and said to R. Dosethai: 'See what your friend<a id="k14b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is doing'. He replied: 'Thrash him well'.<a id="k14b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; When they returned to R. Ahi, R. Jose said: 'Look, sir, not only did he not assist me, but he said to them, "Thrash him well". 'He said to R. Dosethai: 'Why did you do so?' He replied: 'Those people are like posts, and their hats as long as themselves.<a id="k14b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Their voice comes from their boots,<a id="k14b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and their names are outlandish &mdash; Arda and Arta and Pili Baris.<a id="k14b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If they give the order to arrest, you are arrested; to kill, you are killed. If they had killed [poor] Dosethai, who would have given Jannai my father a son like me?' 'Have these men', he asked, 'influence with the Government?' 'Yes', he replied. 'Have they a retinue [mounted on] horses and mules?'<a id="k14b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Yes'. 'If that is so', he said, 'you acted rightly'.
</p><p>
	If a man said to another, Take a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, and he went and looked for him, but did not find him [alive], one [Baraitha] teaches he must return the money to the sender, and another [Baraitha] teaches he must give it to the heirs of the man to whom it was sent. Shall we say that the point at issue [between the two authorities] is that one is of opinion that 'take' is equivalent to accept on behalf of', and the other that it is not? &mdash; Said R. Abba b. Memel: No. Both are agreed that 'take' is not equivalent to accept on behalf of', and there is no difference of opinion between them, as the one speaks of a sender who is in health and the other of one who is on a death bed.<a id="k14b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zebid said: Both speak of a sender who is on a death bed, but the one [has in mind the case] where the recipient is alive at the time when the money was given [to the bearer], and the other [the case] where he was not alive at the time. R. Papa says: Both speak of a case where the sender was in health,<a id="k14b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but the one [had in mind the case] where the recipient died while the sender was still alive,<a id="k14b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other [the case] where the sender died<a id="k14b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; while the recipient was still alive.<a id="k14b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	May we assert that the question whether 'take' is equivalent to accept on behalf of' is one on which there was a difference of opinion among the Tannaim, as it has been taught: [If a man said to another,] Take a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, and he went and looked for him and did not find him [alive], he must return the money to the sender. If the sender has also died meanwhile, R. Nathan and R. Jacob say that he should return it to the heirs of the sender; or as some say, to the heirs of the person to whom the money was sent; R. Judah the Prince said in the name of R. Jacob, who said it in the name of R. Meir, that it is a religious duty to carry out the wishes of the deceased: The Sages say that the money should be divided: while here [in Babylon]<a id="k14b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; they say that the bearer should use his own discretion. R. Simeon the Prince said: I had to deal with a case of this kind, and it was decided that the money should be returned to the heirs of the sender. May we regard the point at issue here as being this, that the first Tanna was of opinion that 'take' is not equivalent to 'accept on behalf of', and that R. Nathan and R. Jacob were of the same opinion and also held that even where the sender has died in the meanwhile we do not in this case say that it is a religious duty to carry out the wishes of the deceased; that the 'some' [authorities] held that 'take' is equivalent to 'accept on behalf of'; that R. Judah the Prince speaking in the name of R. Jacob who again spoke in the name of R. Meir held that 'take' is not equivalent to 'accept on behalf of', only where the sender has died [in the meanwhile] we do say that it is a religious duty to carry out his wishes; that the Sages who say they should divide are in doubt [as to which principle to adopt], while here [in Babylon, other authorities] think that the bearer can best estimate for himself; and as for R. Simeon the Prince, he simply desired to give an illustration? &mdash; No. If the sender is in health, all authorities are agreed [that 'take' is not equivalent to 'accept on behalf of']. Here, however, we are dealing [with the case] where [the sender is] on a death bed, and the dispute here is analogous to the dispute between R. Eleazar and the Rabbis. For we learnt: If a man divides his property among his heirs by word of mouth, R. Eleazar says that whether he is in health or dangerously ill, immovable property can be transferred to the new owners only by money payment, by document, or by act of possession, and movable property only by 'pulling', whereas the Sages say that transference of ownership is effected in both cases by his mere word of mouth. Said [the Sages] to him: There is the case of the mother of the sons of Rokel who was ill and said, Let my brooch be given
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k16a_1:" I.e., if water is falling or dripping from a receptacle containing 'clean' water into one containing 'unclean' it does not thereby communicate the uncleanness of the lower to the upper."
,k16a_2:" [I.e., if a mikweh has less than 40 se'ahs, water dripping from another mikweh it cannot make up the deficiency; but v. Tosaf. s.v. [H.]"
,k16a_3:" Lit., 'enough to make wet'."
,k16a_4:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> And not to the washing of the hands."
,k16a_5:" [Because the first had taken away some water on the body and thus rendered the mikweh deficient from the minimum of 40 se'ahs.]"
,k16a_6:" [On the principle, [H} (lit., 'stretch and bring down') whereby a partition is supposed to be prolonged so as to reach down to the ground. Similarly here the first man is treated as forming part of the partition of the mikweh reaching down to the mikweh proper. This principle may be adopted even if that of [H] 'connection' is not.]"
,k16a_7:" Or any vessels. And not flowing in directly without any artificial intermediary."
,k16a_8:" For eating <i>terumah</i>. V. Shab. 14a. "
}

txt:
<p>
'A jet of water [from a jug] or water flowing down a slope, or dripping water, does not form a connection so as to make [the water] unclean<a id="k16a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; or clean?<a id="k16a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The question is still required for the case where the dripping is considerable.<a id="k16a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But regarding this also we have been taught that where the dripping is considerable, it does form a connection. &mdash; Perhaps this dictum refers only to a mikweh,<a id="k16a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and follows the opinion of R. Judah: For we learnt: 'If a mikweh contains exactly forty se'ahs of water and two persons bathe in it, if they both are in the water together they are both clean, but if one enters after the other has left, the first is clean but the second not'.<a id="k16a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said that if the feet of the first were still touching the water [when the second entered]. the second is also clean.<a id="k16a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah said: It has been laid down that if a person plunges the greater part of his body in water drawn [through a pipe],<a id="k16a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or if three logs of such water are poured over the greater part of the body of a clean person, he is unclean.<a id="k16a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah then propounded: Suppose he plunges half of his [body into such water] and three logs of it fall on the other half, is he unclean? This question was left unanswered. R. Papa said: It has been laid down that if a sick person had a seminal emission and nine <i>kabs</i> of water are thrown over him, he is clean. R. papa then asked: If he dips half his [body in water] and [water is] thrown over the other half, is he clean? This question was also left unanswered.
</p><p>
	IF ONE DECLARES, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE AND THE OTHER, etc.' R. Samuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Johanan: This rule applies only to the case where the Get was not brought by both as joint bearers, but if it is brought by both of them
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k16b_1:" Since the reason for this declaration (which is because there may not be witnesses available to attest the signatures, v. <i>supra</i> 2b) does not apply where there are two bearers."
,k16b_2:" And therefore where there are two bearers, they must make the whole declaration."
,k16b_3:" And therefore two bearers are not required."
,k16b_4:" According to which two bearers are not required."
,k16b_5:" If one says that it was written in his presence and one that it was signed in his presence. Since the bearers are two and he does not fear the reversion to their former ignorance."
,k16b_6:" By declaring the Get invalid if one declares that he has seen it written and one that he has seen it signed."
,k16b_7:" If one witness is allowed to confirm the signature to the Get."
,k16b_8:" In support of the second version of R. Johanan."
,k16b_9:" A member of the fanatical sect of fire-worshippers who became powerful in the Persian Empire in the fourth century. "
}

txt:
<p>
it is valid. We conclude that he was of opinion that if a Get was brought by two bearers from 'foreign parts', they are not required to declare 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed.'<a id="k16b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: Taking this view [as correct], let us look at the clause which follows: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE', AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT TO BE VALID. The reason, you say, why the Rabbis declare it invalid is because it was not brought by both of them as bearers. Are we to suppose then that if both of them did act as bearers, the Rabbis hold the Get to be valid? &mdash; He replied: That is so. In the case then where both do not act as bearers of the Get, what is the ground of the difference [between R. Judah and the Rabbis]? &mdash; One authority [the Rabbis] held that there is a risk of the procedure [in the case of a Get] being taken as an example for allowing one witness to confirm [signatures] of documents in general, and the other held that there is no such danger.
</p><p>
	Another version [of the above passage is as follows]. R. Samuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Johanan: Even if both witnesses have acted as bearers of the Get, it is invalid. We conclude that he was of opinion that if two persons act as joint bearers of a Get from 'foreign parts', they are required to declare, 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed'. Said Abaye to him: Accepting this view [as correct], let us look at the next clause: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE, AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID. R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. Then the Rabbis declare it invalid even if both have acted as bearers? &mdash; He replied: That is so. What is the point at issue between R. Judah and the Rabbis? &mdash; One authority [the Rabbis] was of opinion that the reason why the declaration is required is because [the Jews outside Palestine] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention',<a id="k16b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other [R. Judah], because witnesses cannot easily be found to attest the signatures.<a id="k16b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; May we infer from this that the dispute between Rabbah and Raba goes back to the Tannaim? &mdash; No. Raba adopts the first version of the passage just quoted.<a id="k16b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah, [adopting the second], can maintain that both authorities require the declaration on account of the rule of 'special intention', and here we are dealing with the period when this had become generally known, and the point at issue between R. Judah and the Rabbis is whether there is a danger of a reversion to the former ignorance, one [the Rabbis] holding that there was such a danger and it was necessary to take precautions against it, and the other that it was not. But according to this, R. Judah should join issue in the first clause<a id="k16b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; also? &mdash; This is in fact the case, as has been stated: 'Ulla said that R. Judah differed from the Rabbis in the first case also. R. Oshiah raised an objection to 'Ulla. [It has been taught:] R. Judah declares [the Get] valid in this case, and not in the other. Does he not mean by this, [he said,] to except the case where one says 'It was written in my presence' and one says 'it was signed in my presence'? &mdash; No. He means to except the case where one says, 'It was signed in my presence but not written in my presence'. I might think that since R. Judah does not think it necessary to guard against the danger of a recurrence of the ignorance,<a id="k16b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; so also he does not think it necessary to guard against the danger of confusing writs of divorce with other documents through allowing confirmation by one witness.<a id="k16b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Now I know [that this is not the case]. It has also been stated:<a id="k16b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said: In the matter of a Get which is brought by two bearers from 'foreign parts', we find a difference of opinion between R. Judah and the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah was once ill, and Rab Judah and Rabbah went to inquire how he was. While with him, they put to him the question: If two bearers' bring a Get from 'foreign parts', are they required to declare, 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed', or are they not required? &mdash; He replied: They are not required. For if they were to say, 'In our presence he divorced her', would we not take their word? At this point a Gueber<a id="k16b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; came in
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k17a_1:" Because it was some Gueber festival on which the lighting of fire was forbidden."
,k17a_2:" I.e., the Roman Empire."
,k17a_3:" Job XXVIII, 23."
,k17a_4:" Apparently this refers to the larger number of Jews inhabiting Babylon as compared with Palestine in the day of R. Hiyya."
,k17a_5:" [After 226 when Ardashir I, having defeated the last of the Parthian kings. Artaban V, established the Sassanid dynasty that held sway over Babylon for several centuries. The Sassanides, whose original home was Haber near Shiraz, S. Persia, (hence the name [H], Gueber) were ardent and zealous supporters of the Zoroastrian faith and very intolerant of the other faiths their antipathy to which found expression in persecution; v. Keth. 63b and Kid. 73a, Obermeyer <i>op. cit</i>. p. 262, and B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 699. n. 2 (where the date should be 226) and n. 3.]"
,k17a_6:" Because the bearer who makes the declaration is regarded as equivalent to two witnesses."
,k17a_7:" And not the witness to the writing."
,k17a_8:" I.e., you may take this as fixed and certain."
,k17a_9:" Which is still the same date, the Jewish day being from evening to evening."
,k17a_10:" Which is a different date."
,k17a_11:" Who is his wife. If she misconducted herself, he might, out of affection for his sister, say that it was after he had given her the divorce."
,k17a_12:" Lit., 'on account of the usufruct'. The so-called 'property of sucking' (<i>mulug</i>) which was settled on the wife at the time of marriage but of which the husband was to have the usufruct so long as they were married. (V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> and B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 206, n. 7). If the Get was undated, he might wrongfully assert that he had sold the increment before the divorce. "
}

txt:
<p>
and took away their lamp;<a id="k17a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; whereupon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah ejaculated: 'O All Merciful One! either in Thy shadow or in the shadow of the son of Esau!'<a id="k17a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This is as much as to say, [is it not,] that the Romans are better than the Persians? How does this square with what R. Hiyyah taught: 'What is the point of the verse, God understood her way and he knew her place?<a id="k17a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; It means that the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that Israel would not be able to endure the persecution of the Romans, so he drove them to Babylon'?<a id="k17a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction. One dictum refers to the period before the Guebers came to Babylon, the other to the period subsequent to their coming.<a id="k17a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF ONE SAYS, IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND TWO SAY IT WAS SIGNED IN OUR PRESENCE, IT IS VALID. R. Ammi said in the name of Johanan: This applies only to the case in which the Get is produced by the witness to the writing [as bearer]. since in that case there is the equivalent of two witnesses<a id="k17a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; to the writing and two to the signing. If, however, it is produced by the witnesses to the signing [as bearers], [the Get] is invalid. This would show, [would it not,] that he is of opinion that if two [bearers] bring a Get from 'foreign parts', they are required to declare, 'It was written in our presence and signed in our presence'? Said R. Assi to him: Accepting this view, look at the preceding clause: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE' AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID: R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. Do the Rabbis declare it invalid even if the Get is produced by both [as bearers]? &mdash; He replied: That is so. At another time R. Assi found R. Ammi poring [over the Mishnah] and saying that even if the Get [is produced] by the witnesses to the signing [as bearers],<a id="k17a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it is valid. This seemed to show that he was of opinion that if two [bearers jointly] brought a Get from foreign parts, they are not required to declare, 'It was written in our presence and signed in our presence'. Said R. Assi to him: If that is so, what of the preceding clause: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE' AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', THE GET IS INVALID; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. The reason why the Rabbis declare it invalid is because the Get is not produced by both [as bearers]. If then it is produced by both [as bearers], do the Rabbis declare it valid? &mdash; He replied: That is so. But, said R. Assi, at another time you told me differently? &mdash; He said: This is a peg which cannot be dislodged.<a id="k17a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF [A GET WAS] WRITTEN BY DAY AND SIGNED ON THE [SAME] DAY, WRITTEN BY NIGHT AND SIGNED ON THE [SAME] NIGHT, WRITTEN BY NIGHT AND SIGNED ON THE DAY [FOLLOWING],<a id="k17a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS VALID. IF IT WAS WRITTEN BY DAY AND SIGNED ON THE NIGHT [FOLLOWING],<a id="k17a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS INVALID. R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID, SINCE R. SIMEON USED TO SAY THAT ALL DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY DAY AND SIGNED ON THE [FOLLOWING] NIGHT ARE INVALID EXCEPT BILLS OF DIVORCE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It has been stated: Why did [the Rabbis] ordain that bills of divorce should be dated? &mdash; R. Johanan says: Lest [the husband] might shield his sister's daughter:<a id="k17a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Resh Lakish said: So that he should not sell the increment of his wife's property.<a id="k17a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did Resh Lakish not give the reason that R. Johanan gave? &mdash; He might argue
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k17b_1:" And therefore it was unnecessary to make a special regulation dealing with it."
,k17b_2:" Hence dating the Get would not help the wife to recover the increment from the purchasers as long as the woman could not produce evidence when she received the Get."
,k17b_3:" Because according to R. Simeon he loses his title to the increment when he decides to divorce her; v. <i>infra</i> 18b."
,k17b_4:" Seeing that it gives him an improper opportunity of shielding his sister's daughter."
,k17b_5:" That the Rabbis required the Get to be dated so that the husband should not shield the wife and R. Simeon so that he should not draw the increment."
,k17b_6:" On the question of a Get signed on the following night."
,k17b_7:" The Rabbis holding that the husband is entitled to it till the time of signing. Hence if it is dated the previous day he loses a day, and therefore the Get is invalid. For R. Simeon, however, who holds that the husband loses his title from the time he decided to divorce her, this objection does not apply."
,k17b_8:" One of them being an undated Get; <i>infra</i> 86a."
,k17b_9:" Because the scribes will be unwilling to write and the witnesses to sign a Get without a date."
,k17b_10:" The seven-year period between one Sabbatical year and the next."
,k17b_11:" E.g., if the alleged unchastity took place in the septennate before, or if the husband continued to draw the increment in the septennate after. "
}

txt:
<p>
that adultery is exceptional.<a id="k17b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And why did R. Johanan not give the reason that Resh Lakish gave? &mdash; He was of opinion that the increment of the wife's property belongs to the husband until the Get is actually delivered.<a id="k17b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; On the theory of Resh Lakish we can understand why R. Simeon should declare valid [a Get signed on the following night].<a id="k17b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the theory of R. Johanan, what is R. Simeon's reason for declaring such a Get valid?<a id="k17b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Johanan might answer that his theory is not meant to square with the view of R. Simeon but with the view of the Rabbis. On the theory of R. Johanan<a id="k17b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; we understand why R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ;<a id="k17b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but on the theory of Resh Lakish, why should there be any difference between them? &mdash; They differ with regard to the increment that accrues between the time of writing [the Get] and the time of signing it.<a id="k17b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But have we not been told just the opposite [with regard to R. Johanan and Resh Lakish]? For it has been stated: 'From what point of time can the divorced woman begin to draw the increment? R. Johanan says: From the time [when the Get] is written; Resh Lakish says: From the time when it is delivered'? &mdash; Reverse the names.
</p><p>
	Said Abaye to R. Joseph: [We have learnt that] three kinds of Get are invalid,<a id="k17b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but if a woman marries again on the strength of them [and bears a child], the child is legitimate. This being so, what good have the Rabbis done with their regulation [that the Get should be dated]? &mdash; They at least raise an initial bar against her marrying again.<a id="k17b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Suppose the husband cut off the date and gave it to her? &mdash; He replied: We do not take precautions against a fraud [of this kind]. Suppose it is dated only by the septennate,<a id="k17b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; by the year, by the month, by the week? &mdash; He replied: It is valid. What good then have the Rabbis done with their regulation? &mdash; It is of value [where a question arises] about the septennate before or the septennate after.<a id="k17b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; For if you say this is of no value, [I might retort,] even when the day is specified, do we know whether the morning or the evening is meant? What [it does is] to distinguish it from the day before and the day after. So here, [by specifying the septennate] we are enabled to distinguish it from the septennate before and the septennate after [should a question arise about them].
</p><p>
	Rabina said to Raba: If a man writes a Get
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k18a_1:" Lit., 'if he should pacify her, she would be appeased.'"
,k18a_2:" I.e., such a case is hardly likely to occur. Unless a man is intent on divorcing his wife he does not as a rule write a writ of divorce."
,k18a_3:" Because even with the date the husband will now find it easy to shelter the wife in case of misconduct, and, further, the date places at a disadvantage persons who in the interval between the writing and the giving of the Get have inadvertently bought the increment of the wife's property from the husband, as she can now recover this from them. V. Tosaf. s.v."
,k18a_4:" And know that the Get was given long after it was written, and in those cases, evidence as to the date of delivery is decisive."
,k18a_5:" A divorced woman was required to wait three months before remarrying to make sure she was not with child. V. Yeb. 42a."
,k18a_6:" Two wives of one man who gave them both writs of divorce on the same day before going abroad, but one Get bore an earlier date than the other."
,k18a_7:" Lit., 'For this one, her Get affords proofs, and for this one her Get etc.'"
,k18a_8:" If after writing a Get and before delivering it the husband has intercourse with his wife, such a Get is called an 'old Get' and is not valid; v. <i>infra</i> 76b."
,k18a_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k18a_10:" V. Deut. XV. The Sabbatical year brought release from the obligation to repay loans, but not the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k18a_11:" By drawing up a bond in which the balance is recorded as a loan."
,k18a_12:" V. Deut. XXIII, 28, 29."
,k18a_13:" Lit., 'fine'. V. Deut. XXIII, 13-19."
,k18a_14:" V. Ex. XXII, 15, 16."
,k18a_15:" As it is only a record of a decision arrived at by the court."
,k18a_16:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. (b). "
}

txt:
<p>
and puts it in his pocket, thinking that he may yet make friends with his wife<a id="k18a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [and eventually gives it to her], what is the ruling? &mdash; He replied: A man does not meet trouble half way.<a id="k18a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabina to R. Ashi: In the case of writs of divorce from 'foreign parts' which are written in Nisan and do not reach their destination till Tishri, what good have the Rabbis done with their regulation?<a id="k18a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: People hear of such documents.<a id="k18a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: From what point do we commence to count [the three months] from a divorce?<a id="k18a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab says: From the time [the Get] is delivered; Samuel says: From the time it is written. R. Nathan b. Hoshia strongly demurred to this opinion. According to Samuel, are people to say, [he asked,] here are two women in the same house,<a id="k18a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; one of whom may marry and the other may not? &mdash; Said Abaye to him: [That is so]: the one like the other must go by the date of her Get.<a id="k18a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught in accordance with Rab and it has been taught in accordance with Samuel. It has been taught in accordance with Rab: If a man sends a Get to his wife and the bearer lingers on the road three months, she has to wait three months from the time the Get is delivered to her, nor do we concern ourselves lest it should have become an 'old Get',<a id="k18a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; because the husband has not been alone with her in the interval. It has been taught in accordance with Samuel: If a man entrusts to a third party a Get for his wife, and says to him, 'Do not give it to her till three months have passed', she is at liberty to marry from the moment he has given it to her, nor do we concern ourselves lest it should have become an 'old Get', since he has not been alone with her in the interval.
</p><p>
	R. Kahana, R. Papi and R. Ashi acted on the principle that the Get is valid from the time of writing; R. Papi and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua that it is valid from the time of delivery. The law is that it is valid from the time of writing.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: From what point does a <i>Kethubah</i> [marriage settlement]<a id="k18a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; fall under the law of the Sabbatical year?<a id="k18a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab says: From the moment when the woman takes part payment and converts [the rest into a loan];<a id="k18a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel says: [From the moment when] she takes part payment even though she does not convert [the rest into a loan], or converts [the whole into a loan] without taking part payment. It has been taught in accordance with Rab and it has been taught in accordance with Samuel. It has been taught in accordance with Rab: From what point does a <i>Kethubah</i> fall under the law of the Sabbatical year? From the moment when the woman takes part payment and converts [the rest into a loan]; if she takes part payment and does not convert [the rest into a loan], or converts [it all into a loan] and does not take part payment, it does not fall under the law of the Sabbatical year; she must both take part payment and convert the rest into a loan. It has been taught in accordance with Samuel: ['The fines] for violation,<a id="k18a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; for wife-slander,<a id="k18a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and for seduction,<a id="k18a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and a wife's <i>Kethubah</i>, if converted into loans, are subject to the law of the Sabbatical year, but otherwise are not subject. From what point are they regarded as converted into loans? From the time [the case is] brought into court.' Samuel said: A <i>Kethubah</i> is on a par with a deed drawn up by the <i>Beth din</i>. Just as a deed drawn up by a <i>Beth din</i> may be written by day and signed on the following night,<a id="k18a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; so a <i>Kethubah</i> may be written by day and signed on the following night. The <i>Kethubah</i><a id="k18a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Hiyya b. Rab was written by day and signed the following night. Rab himself was present and made no objection. Are we to infer from this that he is of the same opinion as Samuel? &mdash; They were engaged on that matter during the whole of the interval; [and in such a case it is permissible], as it has been taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: This rule [not to sign documents on the following night] applies only where [the parties concerned] were not engaged on that matter during the whole of the interval; but if they were so engaged, the document so signed is valid.
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID. Raba said: What is R. Simeon's reason? &mdash; He was of opinion that so soon as the husband makes up his mind to divorce the wife, he is not entitled any more to the increment from her property. Resh Lakish said: R. Simeon declared [the Get] valid only if it was signed on [the night] immediately [following], but if it was not signed till ten days afterwards it is not valid.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k18b_1:" Cf. p. 66, n. 3."
,k18b_2:" The fulfilment of which he insisted upon, because it was his intention to shame her in the presence of all these people."
,k18b_3:" V. <i>infra</i> 66b."
,k18b_4:" Since all have in any case to sign."
,k18b_5:" According to Sanhedrin 9a, if there are a hundred witnesses and one of them is a relative or otherwise disqualified, the evidence is not accepted."
,k18b_6:" These words are not in the text, but, as Rashi points out, they are necessary for the sense, because if they were not used, according to all authorities it is necessary for only two to sign. "
}

txt:
<p>
since there is a possibility that he made it up with her [in the interval].<a id="k18b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, says that even if it was signed ten days later [it is valid, because] if he had made it up with her, people would have got to know.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If a man said to ten persons, 'Write a Get for my wife', according to R. Johanan, two of them sign as witnesses and the rest [simply] because he made it a condition,<a id="k18b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; while according to Resh Lakish, all of them sign as witnesses. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that he did not say to them 'all of you [write]'? [This cannot be] because we have learnt: If he says to ten persons, 'Write a Get for my wife' [without saying 'all of you'], one writes and [only] two sign!<a id="k18b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We suppose then that he used the words 'all of you'. What is the practical difference between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish?<a id="k18b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The practical difference arises where two of them signed on the same day and the rest ten days later. According to the authority [R. Johanan] who said [that the rest only sign] because he made it a condition, [the Get is] valid, but according to the authority who says [that they all sign] as witnesses, [the Get is] invalid. Or again [there is a difference] where, for example, one of the persons [who signed it] was found to be a relative or in some way disqualified [from acting as witness]. According to the authority who said [that the rest sign] because he made it a condition, [the Get is] valid, but according to the authority who says [that they all sign] as witnesses [it is] invalid.<a id="k18b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the relative or disqualified person] signs first, some say [that the Get is] valid and some that [it is] invalid. Some say [it is] valid because [the person thus signing may be regarded as fulfilling] the condition. Some say [it is] invalid because [otherwise] a precedent may be set for the signing of documents in general.
</p><p>
	A certain man said to ten persons, [All of you]<a id="k18b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; write a Get for my wife, and two signed on the same day and the rest ten days later. [The question of its validity] came before R. Joshua ben Levi. He said:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k19a_1:" That it may be written by day and signed by night."
,k19a_2:" Supposing the husband has gone away or she has married again."
,k19a_3:" And therefore it should he valid even according to the Rabbis."
,k19a_4:" 'Ink',"
,k19a_5:" 'Paint'."
,k19a_6:" Lit., 'red'."
,k19a_7:" [G], 'gum'."
,k19a_8:" Calcanthum, vitriol. These terms are explained <i>infra</i>."
,k19a_9:" [Chiefly made in Talmudic days of soot hardened into a tough pitchy substance by means of olive oil or balsam-gum, and finally dissolved in liquid before use; v. Blau, Buchwesen, pp. 153ff.]"
,k19a_10:" [Orpiment; v. Krauss, <i>op. cit</i>. III, pp. 150 and 511.]"
,k19a_11:" [H] meaning uncertain: either rain water or juice of some fruit.]"
,k19a_12:" [So Jast. Rashi 'with coal or blacking used by bootmakers'. Here too the Hebrew terms [H] and [H] are of uncertain meaning, but the Syriac 'Shekiro' for vitriol is in favour of Rashi; Krauss, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 311.]"
,k19a_13:" The effacement of writing on Sabbath is an offence if it is done with the purpose of writing afresh, otherwise not."
,k19a_14:" Because he neither writes nor effaces."
,k19a_15:" Lit., 'our master'."
,k19a_16:" When ink is written over red paint."
,k19a_17:" I.e., shall we go so far as to permit a doubtful action on Sabbath, or similarly count such a signature as valid in the case of a Get?"
,k19a_18:" [H], a leaf of white papyrus. v, however Krauss, <i>op. cit</i>. III, pp. 146ff.]"
,k19a_19:" And therefore lead counts as writing, and so if it is gone over in ink, we have writing on top of writing, which is not permissible."
,k19a_20:" [ [H] juice made from the rind of the ash-tree ([G]), a popular writing material prepared by the Romans, v. Kraus, <i>op. cit</i>. III, 148.]"
,k19a_21:" And therefore where the sheet has been prepared with gall-nut juice, it is permissible to make a copy with gall-nut water."
,k19a_22:" For which it is necessary to find witnesses who can sign their names. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Simeon's authority<a id="k19a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is good enough to follow in an emergency.<a id="k19a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But did not Resh Lakish say that R. Simeon declared [the Get] valid only if it was signed [the night] immediately [following] but not if it was signed ten days later? &mdash; On that point he [R. Joshua ben Levi] agreed with R. Johanan. But did not R. Johanan say that only two [of them sign] as witnesses and the rest [simply because he made it] a condition?<a id="k19a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; On that point he agreed with Resh Lakish.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE GET MAY BE WRITTEN WITH ANY MATERIAL, WITH DEYO,<a id="k19a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH SAM,<a id="k19a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH SIKRA,<a id="k19a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH KUMUS<a id="k19a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WITH KANKANTUM<a id="k19a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WITH ANYTHING WHICH IS LASTING. IT MAY NOT RE WRITTEN WITH LIQUIDS OR WITH FRUIT-JUICE OR WITH ANYTHING THAT IS NOT LASTING. [THE GET] MAY BE WRITTEN ON ANYTHING &mdash; ON AN OLIVE LEAF [ETC.] [HE MAY WRITE IT] ON THE HORN OF AN OX AND GIVE HER THE OX, OR ON THE HAND OF A SLAVE AND GIVE HER THE SLAVE. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS: [A GET IS] NOT [TO BE WRITTEN] ON ANYTHING LIVING OR ON FOODSTUFF.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. DEYO: this is ink.<a id="k19a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; SAM: this is paint.<a id="k19a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; SIKRA: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah says: Its name is dekarta [red paint]. KUMUS: this is gum. KANKANTUM: Rabbah b. Samuel says: This is blacking used by bootmakers. 
</p><p>
ANYTHING THAT IS LASTING. What do these words add [to the list]? &mdash; They add the content of the following [teaching] which R. Hanina learnt: If [the Get is] written with the juice of wine-lees<a id="k19a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or gall-nut [juice], it is valid.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya taught: If the Get is written with lead, with black pigment or with coal,<a id="k19a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it is valid.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If a man goes over red paint writing with ink on Sabbath, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both agree that he is punishable on two counts, one for writing and one for effacing.<a id="k19a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If he goes over ink with ink or red paint with red paint, he is not punishable.<a id="k19a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; If he goes over ink with red paint, some say he is punishable and some say he is not punishable. Some say he is punishable because he effaces [the previous writing], some say he is not punishable because he only spoils [the previous writing]. Resh Lakish inquired of R. Johanan: If witnesses are unable to sign their names, is it permissible to write the names for them in red paint and let them go over in ink? Does the upper writing count as writing or not? &mdash; He replied: It does not count as writing. But, said he, has not your honour<a id="k19a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; taught us that in respect of Sabbath observance the upper writing is counted as writing?<a id="k19a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: Because we have a certain idea, shall we base our practice upon it?<a id="k19a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If the witnesses are unable to sign their names, Rab says that incisions are made for them on the sheet<a id="k19a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; which they fill in with ink, and Samuel says that a copy is made with lead. 'With lead'? How can this be, seeing that R. Hiyya has taught that if the Get is written with lead, with black pigment or with coal it is valid?<a id="k19a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction; the one case speaks of lead, the other of water in which lead has been soaked. R. Abbahu said that the copy is made with water in which ground gall-nuts<a id="k19a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; have been soaked. But has not R. Hanina taught that if the Get is written with juice of wine-lees or of gall-nuts it is valid? &mdash; There is no contradiction: in the one case the sheet has been prepared with gall-nut juice, in the other not; gall-nut water does not show on gall-nut water.<a id="k19a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa says [that the copy may be made] with spittle, and so R. Papa actually showed Papa the cattle dealer. All this applies only to writs of divorce, but not to other documents;<a id="k19a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; for a man who actually did this with another document was ordered by R. Kahana to be flogged.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k19b_1:" Agunah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k19b_2:" Who allow all documents to be signed by witnesses who cannot write."
,k19b_3:" That provided they can sign their names, though they cannot read, they may still act as witnesses if the document is read to them."
,k19b_4:" Being nearly blind, owing to old age."
,k19b_5:" V. Nid. 20a."
,k19b_6:" And therefore could be relied upon to read correctly. R. Nahman was himself the chief judge in Nehardea, having been appointed by the Exilarch, who was his father-in-law, v. <i>infra</i> 67b."
,k19b_7:" Lit., 'talking, in his simplicity'."
,k19b_8:" As this was not insisted on in the Persian courts."
,k19b_9:" V. <i>supra</i> 11a."
,k19b_10:" <i>Infra</i> 87b."
,k19b_11:" I.e., in Greek script."
,k19b_12:" And the writing has faded."
,k19b_13:" Lit., 'persuasion', [H] (Cf. [G]). A bond which A gives B merely that the latter may make a show with it."
,k19b_14:" A bond given for money which has not yet been borrowed but may be borrowed later, v. Keth. 19b."
,k19b_15:" Tosef. Git. VI."
,k19b_16:" As otherwise it would have been stated above, 'If he said that there was no writing on it'. This refutes Samuel."
,k19b_17:" [H], decoction of the bark of the pomegranate tree. V. Jast. s.v [H]."
,k19b_18:" And when she was divorced there was no writing."
,k19b_19:" I.e., the divorce is only a doubtful one, sufficient to prohibit her to a priest, but not to allow her to remarry."
,k19b_20:" V. <i>supra</i> 5b."
,k19b_21:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k19b_22:" And therefore we presume that what he threw was a <i>mezuzah</i> and not a Get. "
}

txt:
<p>
It has been taught in accordance with Rab: If witnesses are unable to sign their names, incisions are made for them on the sheet which they fill in with ink. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: This applies only to writs of divorce; but in the case of writs of emancipation and other documents, if the witnesses are able to read and to sign, they sign, and if not they do not sign. How does 'reading' come in here? &mdash; There is an omission which is to be supplied as follows: 'If the witnesses are unable to read, the document is read to them and they sign, and if they are unable to sign etc.' Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: 'This refers only to writs of divorce; but in the case of writs of emancipation and other documents, if they are able to read and sign, they sign, and if not, they do not sign.' Said R. Eleazar: What is the reason of R. Simeon [for ruling so]? In order that the daughters of Israel may not become 'deserted'<a id="k19b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; wives. Raba said: The <i>halachah</i> is according to the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. R. Gamda, however, said in the name of Raba that the <i>halachah</i> is not according to his ruling. According to whose ruling then is it? According to that of the Rabbis?<a id="k19b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Was not a man who actually followed this course with regard to another document ordered to be flogged by R. Kahana? &mdash; Explain [that as referring to the rule] about reading,<a id="k19b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah used to exert himself<a id="k19b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; so as to read [a document submitted to him] and [only then] sign. Said 'Ulla to him: This is not necessary, for R. Eleazar, the Master of the Land of Israel,<a id="k19b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; used to have the document read to him and then sign. R. Nahman also had [the document] read to him by the scribes of the court judges and then signed. This procedure was correct for R. Nahman and the scribes of the court judges, because they were afraid [of him]<a id="k19b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but it would not be with R. Nahman and any other scribes, or with the scribes of the court judges and any other person.
</p><p>
	When R. Papa was called upon to deal with a Persian document drawn up in a heathen registry, he used to give it to two heathens to read, one without the other, without telling them what it was for,<a id="k19b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and [if they agreed] he would recover on [the strength of] it even from mortgaged property. R. Ashi said: R. Huna b. Nathan has told me that Amemar has laid down that a Persian document signed by Israelite witnesses is sufficient warrant for recovering even from mortgaged property. But they are not able to read it? &mdash; [We speak of the case] where they are able. But the writing has to be such that it cannot be altered [without leaving a mark], and here it is not so?<a id="k19b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [We speak of a sheet which has been treated] with gall-nuts. But the rule is that the gist of the document has to be repeated in the last line, and that is not the case here?<a id="k19b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [We speak of the case where] it is repeated. But when all is said and done, what does this statement teach us? That [a document] may be written in any language? This we have already learned:<a id="k19b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If a Get is written in Hebrew and signed in Greek,<a id="k19b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or written in Greek and signed in Hebrew, it is valid. &mdash; If I had only that to go by, I should say that this is the case only with writs of divorce, but not with other documents. Now I know [that this applies to other documents also].
</p><p>
	Samuel said: If a man gives his wife a blank sheet and says to her, 'This is thy Get', she is divorced, because we consider it possible that he may have written it with gall-nut water.<a id="k19b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was raised [from the following]: [If a man said to his wife], 'Here is your Get', and she took it and threw it into the sea or the fire or destroyed it in any other way, and if he then in turn said that it was a sham promissory note<a id="k19b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or an amanah,<a id="k19b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; she is none the less divorced, and he has no power to prevent her from remarrying.<a id="k19b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [Is not] the reason for this that there was some writing on the sheet, so that if there was no writing [she was] not [divorced]?<a id="k19b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; When Samuel said she is divorced, he meant, only after we have tested [the sheet] with violet water.<a id="k19b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; If the letters come to light, then obviously there was writing, and if not, then there is nothing in it. And if the letters do come to light, what of it? It is only now that they come to light?<a id="k19b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel also only said, 'we consider it possible.'<a id="k19b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina said: Amemar has told me that Meremar has laid down in the name of R. Dimi that the two persons in whose presence the Get is delivered<a id="k19b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; must read it. An objection was raised [from the following passage]: [If a man said to his wife] 'Here is your Get', and she took it and threw it into the sea or the fire or destroyed it in some other way, and if he then in turn said that it was a sham promissory note or an amanah, she is [none the less] divorced and he has no power to prevent her from remarrying. Now if you say that they [the witnesses to the delivery] are required to read it, can he possibly say this after they have read it? &mdash; The ruling is still necessary for the case in which after the witnesses have read it he takes it from them and puts it under his coat and takes it out again. It might be argued in that case that he has changed it [for some other document], but now I know [that this argument is of no avail].
</p><p>
	A certain man threw a document to his wife and it fell between the jars. Afterwards a <i>mezuzah</i><a id="k19b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; was found there. Said R. Nahman: A <i>mezuzah</i> is not usually found among the jars.<a id="k19b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; This reasoning holds good if only one was found, but if there were two or three we say that just as mezuzahs got there so a Get may have got there, and that the Get itself was removed by mice.
</p><p>
	A certain man went to the synagogue and took a scroll of the Law and gave it to his wife saying. 'Here is thy Get'. Said R. Joseph: Why should we take any notice of it? Shall we say that the Get was written in gall-nut water [on the outside of the scroll]? Gall-nut water does not make any mark on [a sheet treated with] gall-nut
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k20a_1:" At that time all parchment scrolls of the Law were treated in this way. Hence there was no proper writing from the outset, and consequently no Get."
,k20a_2:" Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k20a_3:" Lit., 'he shall write for her' (which means) 'in her name'."
,k20a_4:" Lit., 'a zuz'."
,k20a_5:" [his rendering omits the word [H] which is inserted in the text only inadvertently as a quotation from <i>infra</i> 80a; v. Rashi."
,k20a_6:" Seeing that all this is obvious."
,k20a_7:" The four letters Yod, He, <i>Waw</i>, He."
,k20a_8:" The five letters Yod, He, Daleth, <i>Waw</i>, He."
,k20a_9:" Ex. XV, 2. The words are expounded to signify. 'Beautify thyself before Him in the performance of religious duties'."
,k20a_10:" Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k20a_11:" By paying the scribe's fee, which she was required to do according to the Rabbinical rule, v. B.B. 168a."
,k20a_12:" According to the principle. 'The <i>Beth din</i> has power to expropriate'. V. <i>infra</i> 36b."
,k20a_13:" Deut. ibid."
,k20a_14:" E.g.. a leaf of a tree of <i>'orlah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). Such things had naturally no monetary value."
,k20a_15:" Which is also worthless."
,k20a_16:" E.g., a pile of olive leaves may be bought for lying on or for feeding cattle. The Mishnah affords then no support to the message from Eretz Israel."
,k20a_17:" Lit., 'it was not praised'."
,k20a_18:" Lit., 'of many'."
,k20a_19:" Because when it was not approved at first, Levi took the trouble to obtain additional authority."
,k20a_20:" So Rashi. Jastrow, however, (s.v. [H]) translates, 'a slave does not go free in virtue of wearing a freedman's cap or of a vindicto (manumission by declaration before a court).'"
,k20a_21:" Lit., 'if he carved out the interior (of the plate)'."
,k20a_22:" Lit., 'if he carved out the thighs (of the letters)'."
,k20a_23:" V. Ex. XXVIII, 36."
,k20a_24:" Lit., 'the interior'."
,k20a_25:" Lit., 'the thighs'. They were pressed forward from the back and so projected in front."
,k20a_26:" If it scrapes out the metal round the letters, the use of it is not writing; but it is if the letters are formed by compression. "
}

txt:
<p>
water.<a id="k20a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that the scroll is itself a Get because of the portion it contains relating to 'cutting off'?<a id="k20a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; We require that it should be written for that woman specifically,<a id="k20a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; which is not here the case. If you should plead that possibly he gave, beforehand, a fee<a id="k20a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to the scribe [to write the passage in the scroll specifically for her], this also is unavailing, since we require [the insertion<a id="k20a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; of] his name and her name, the name of his town and the name of her town, which we do not [find here]. What does [then] R. Joseph teach us here?<a id="k20a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That gall-nut water makes no writing on [a sheet treated with] gall-nut water.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: If a Get was written not expressly for a certain woman, and the writing was then gone over with a pen with specific reference to that woman, the same difference of opinion may arise as we find between R. Judah and the Rabbis. For it has been taught: If a scribe [copying a scroll of the Law] had to write in a certain place the Tetragrammaton<a id="k20a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and intended to write instead the name Judah<a id="k20a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and by mistake left out the letter daleth [thus actually writing the Tetragrammaton], he may go over the letters with his pen and so sanctify the Name. This is the opinion of R. Judah, but the Sages say that such a Name is not of the choicest. Said R. Aha b. Jacob: The analogy is not altogether sound; for perhaps the Rabbis ruled thus in regard to the Tetragrammaton on account of the maxim indicated in the words, This is my God and I will beautify him,<a id="k20a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but here they would not [object]. R. Hisda said: I am able to invalidate all the bills of divorce ever written. Said Raba to him: How so? Is it because the Scripture says, And he shall write,<a id="k20a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and in this case it is she who writes for him?<a id="k20a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Perhaps the Rabbis declare him to be the owner [of the money which she gives to the scribe].<a id="k20a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it because it is written, And he shall give,<a id="k20a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and here he does not give her anything [of any value]? Perhaps the delivery of the Get is referred to. That this is so is proved by the instruction sent from Eretz Israel: 'If the Get was written on something from which it is forbidden to derive any benefit,<a id="k20a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; it is still valid.'
</p><p>
	The text above [stated:] 'The instruction was sent from Eretz Israel: If the Get is written on something from which it is forbidden to derive a benefit, it is still valid'. R. Ashi said: We have also learned [to the same effect]: [A Get may be written] ON AN OLIVE LEAF.<a id="k20a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps an olive leaf is different because [although worth nothing in itself] it may yet be combined [with other things to enhance the value of the whole]?<a id="k20a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught: Rabbi said that if the Get is written on something from which it is forbidden to derive a benefit, it is still valid. Levi went about stating this ruling in the name of Rabbi, and it was not approved.<a id="k20a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; He then stated it in the name of the main body of the Rabbis<a id="k20a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was approved. From this we may conclude that the law follows his ruling.<a id="k20a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: '[The Scripture says] And he shall write ["the writ of divorce"], which implies that he is not to grave it.' From this we would conclude that graving is not counted as writing. This, however, seems to be in contradiction with the following: A slave who produces a deed engraved on a tablet or a board is legally emancipated, but not if the writing is woven into a woman's headband or a piece of embroidery?<a id="k20a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said 'Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar: There is no contradiction. Graving is invalid if the letters are in relief,<a id="k20a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but valid if they are hollowed out.<a id="k20a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [You say that if the letters are] in relief it is not [valid]. Does not this contradict the following? 'The writing [on the High priest's plate]<a id="k20a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; was not sunk in but projected like that on gold coins.' And is not [the inscription on] gold <i>denarii</i> in relief? &mdash; [It was] like [the inscription on] gold <i>denarii</i> and yet not like it. [It was] like it in the fact that it projected, but it was unlike it because there [in gold <i>denarii</i> the metal is hollowed] round the letters,<a id="k20a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but here [in the High Priest's plate] the letters themselves<a id="k20a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; were hollowed out.
</p><p>
	Rabina inquired of R. Ashi: Does a stamp scrape out or does it force together?<a id="k20a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: It makes a depression. [Rabina] thereupon raised the following objection: [It has been taught] 'The writing [on the High Priest's plate] was not sunk in but was in relief, like the [inscription on] gold denarii'. Now if a stamp makes a depression round the letters,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k20b_1:" Ex. XXVIII, 30."
,k20b_2:" Because he has to 'give' her the writ, and here there is no giving."
,k20b_3:" Because a gift which is made conditionally on its being returned is still counted a gift."
,k20b_4:" And in this case he makes it into several."
,k20b_5:" I.e., by long letters like the final nun, which obliterate the spaces between the lines."
,k20b_6:" V. Mishnah 19a."
,k20b_7:" And therefore it is no Get."
,k20b_8:" Who read it, and who could testify in case of falsification."
,k20b_9:" Who says that the witnesses to delivery make the Get effective."
,k20b_10:" Which Raba put to him."
,k20b_11:" Because he was speaking of the case where there were no witnesses to delivery."
,k20b_12:" And so could not be effaced."
,k20b_13:" [So <i>Var. lec</i>., cur. edd., read 'to Raba'.]"
,k20b_14:" Lit., 'those kept in folds', because they are liable to stray; hence their being found in a certain man's possession is not presumptive evidence that he is the owner, and the same applies to a slave, v. B.B. 36a."
,k20b_15:" Of such a nature where the transfer is a mere legal fiction designed to place the tablet in the temporary ownership of the husband to enable him to write the Get on it. Consequently the Get is not valid since it must be written on material belonging to the husband."
,k20b_16:" R. Judah b. Baba. V. 'Ed. II, 3."
,k20b_17:" [H] (Jer. XXXII, 10). which is taken to mean 'a document written by the transferor'. V. Kid. 26a."
,k20b_18:" And they returned them to him. So here we may say that even if the wife does not intend to leave the tablet in the husband's hands permanently, yet for the time being she has given it to him, and he can therefore 'give' it to her as a Get. "
}

txt:
<p>
it does not write, and [for the plate] 'writing' was required?<a id="k20b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was like [the inscription on] gold <i>denarii</i> and yet not like it. It was like it in the fact that it stood out, but not like it in the fact that there [in a coin] the pressure is applied on the same side [as the inscription], but here [in the plate] it was from the other side.
</p><p>
	Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a man writes a Get on a plate of gold and says to his wife, 'Receive herewith your Get and receive herewith your kethubah', what is the ruling? &mdash; He replied: Both her Get and her <i>kethubah</i> have been legally received by her. [Raba] thereupon raised an objection. [We have been taught,] If a man says, 'Receive herewith your Get and the rest can go to your kethubah', the Get has been legally received by her and the rest goes to the <i>kethubah</i>. Now the reason is that there is something over, but otherwise not? &mdash; No. The same rule applies even if there is nothing over, and what this [statement] teaches us is that even if there is something over, if he tells her [to take that in payment of her <i>kethubah</i>] she takes it, but if not, not. For what reason? &mdash; Because [in that case the rest] is [reckoned merely as] the margin of the Get.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says to his wife.] 'Here is your Get, but the sheet belongs to me', she is not divorced,<a id="k20b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [but if he said.] On condition that you return the sheet to me, she is divorced.<a id="k20b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa inquired: Suppose he says, [On condition that] the space between the lines, or between the words [is to belong to me], what is the ruling? &mdash; This question was left over. But cannot the question be decided from the fact that the Divine Law said 'a writ', that is to say one writ, and not two or three?<a id="k20b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The difficulty still remains in the case where it is all linked together.<a id="k20b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama propounded: Suppose a slave [is brought into court] who is known to have belonged to the husband, and a Get is written on his hand and he comes before us as the slave of the wife, how are we to decide? Do we presume that the husband transferred the slave to the wife [along with the Get],<a id="k20b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or do we argue that perhaps he went to her of his own accord? &mdash; Said Raba: Cannot the question be decided on the ground that the writing is such as to admit of falsification?<a id="k20b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But does not Raba's difficulty apply also to our Mishnah which says that a Get may be written ON THE HAND OF A SLAVE? &mdash; We understand that the Mishnah presents no difficulty to Raba. [The Mishnah was speaking of a case] where [the Get was] delivered before witnesses,<a id="k20b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with the ruling of R. Eleazar.<a id="k20b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; The difficulty,<a id="k20b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; however, arises on [the question of] Rami b. Hama!<a id="k20b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; According to Rami b. Hama there is no difficulty, as he is speaking of the case [where the Get was] tattooed [on the slave's hand].<a id="k20b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; If you take that line, you can say that the Mishnah also presents<a id="k20b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; no difficulty, as it was speaking of tattooing. What then is the answer [to Rami b. Hama's question]? &mdash; Come and hear: Resh Lakish has laid down that there is no presumptive title to living creatures.<a id="k20b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama inquired: If a tablet was known to have belonged to the wife, and a Get is written on it, and it is produced by the husband, what do we decide? Do we say that she made it over to him, or do we argue that a woman does not know how to make over things [temporarily]?<a id="k20b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: Come and hear: He<a id="k20b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; also testified regarding a small village adjoining Jerusalem in which lived an old man who used to lend money to all the people of the village, and he used to write the bond and others signed it, and the case was brought before the Sages and they declared the bonds valid. Now how could they do this, seeing that there must be a 'writ of transfer'.<a id="k20b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Obviously the reason is that we say that he made over the bonds to them.<a id="k20b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: What is the difficulty? Perhaps
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k21a_1:" V. B. B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 773, n. 12. In this case the lender gives the bond to the security who is the transferor to sign, and then takes it back from him."
,k21a_2:" And then give it to the husband, who gives it back to her."
,k21a_3:" For the <i>kethubah</i>, and give it to the wife, who then signs it and returns it to him."
,k21a_4:" V. <i>infra</i> 22b."
,k21a_5:" Giving it to the slave is like putting it in a courtyard and telling her to take it from there, only the slave is moving from place to place; on the transfer of ownership by means of a court, v. B.M. 9b."
,k21a_6:" For then he is indeed on a par with the courtyard."
,k21a_7:" If the husband places the Get in the courtyard of a third party which subsequently comes into possession of the wife, the Get is not effective, v. <i>infra</i> 24a and 63b."
,k21a_8:" The term 'her hand' in Deut. XXIV. 1, is taken to include courtyard, v. B.M. 9b."
,k21a_9:" And therefore the dictum of Raba falls to the ground, does it not?"
,k21a_10:" [H]. In which case the woman is divorced from the very moment the agent receives the Get."
,k21a_11:" Lit., 'he becomes an agent for receiving'."
,k21a_12:" Lit., '(instead of) and he send (it is written) and he send her'. V. Kid. 410."
,k21a_13:" Deut. XXIV, 1, (v. <i>infra</i>, 62b), and consequently there is no warrant for insisting on drawing an analogy between 'hand' and 'agency'."
,k21a_14:" I.e., under twelve years of age, v. Keth. 47a."
,k21a_15:" That the slave is then given to her. "
}

txt:
<p>
an old man is different, because he knows how to make over things. But no, said Raba; [we decide] from the following: 'If the signature of the security [for another] appears below the signatures to the bond, the lender may recover from his [the security's] unmortgaged property.<a id="k21a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi: What is the difficulty? Perhaps a man is different, because he knows how to make over things. No, said R. Ashi; we decide from the following: A woman may write her own Get<a id="k21a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and a man may write his own receipt,<a id="k21a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; because a document is only rendered valid by its signatures.<a id="k21a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: If a man writes a Get for his wife and entrusts it to his slave, and also writes a deed assigning the slave to her, she becomes the legal owner of the slave and she is divorced by the Get. Why should this be? The slave is a moving courtyard,<a id="k21a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and a moving courtyard cannot transfer ownership. And should you reply that we speak of a slave who stands still, has not Raba laid down that things which do not transfer ownership when moving do not transfer it when standing or sitting? The law, however, is [that the Get is valid if the slave] is bound.<a id="k21a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba also said: If a man wrote a Get for his wife and put it in his courtyard and then wrote a deed assigning her the courtyard, she becomes owner of the courtyard and is divorced by the Get. Both of these statements of Raba are necessary. For if he had confined himself to the first statement, about the slave, I should have said that this applies strictly to a slave, but in the case of a courtyard [I should declare the Get invalid], so as not to set a precedent for a courtyard which comes into her possession subsequently.<a id="k21a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And again, if he had stated only the rule about a courtyard, I should have said that this applies strictly to a courtyard, but in the case of a slave I should debar one who is bound so as not to set a precedent for one who is not bound. Now I know [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	Said Abaye: Let us see. From what expression in the Scripture do we infer the rule about a courtyard? From the words 'her hand'.<a id="k21a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore, just as, if he gives the Get into her hand, the husband can divorce her with her consent or without her consent, so if he places it in the courtyard he should be able to divorce her with her consent or without her consent. But the gift [of the courtyard] can be made only with her consent and not against her will.<a id="k21a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred to this objection. There is, [he said,] the case of her appointing an agent to receive the Get from the husband,<a id="k21a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which appointment can be made only with her will but not against her will, and yet the agent is duly authorised?<a id="k21a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And Abaye? &mdash; He rejoins: The rule of agency is not derived from the term 'her hand'; the rule regarding agency is derived from the superfluous letter in the word we-shilhah<a id="k21a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; ['and he send her'].<a id="k21a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Or if you prefer, I can reply that we find cases where an agent for receiving [the Get is also appointed] without the consent [of the wife], since a father can accept a Get for his daughter who is still a child<a id="k21a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; without her consent.
</p><p>
	ON AN OLIVE LEAF etc. We understand the ruling (in the case of a Get written] on the hand of a slave<a id="k21a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k21b_1:" Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k21b_2:" E.V. 'writ'. Deut. XXIV. 1."
,k21b_3:" I.e., of Parchment."
,k21b_4:" Lit., 'telling'."
,k21b_5:" Which includes any form of written document."
,k21b_6:" In Deut. XXIV, 2, the two words denoting separation and union, [H] lit., 'she shall deport' and 'she shall be (another man's wife) occur in close juxtaposition, hence the suggested comparison."
,k21b_7:" A money gift is one of the forms of betrothal. V. Kid. ad init."
,k21b_8:" Lit., 'and the other'."
,k21b_9:" Because there is always some link between him and her. V. <i>infra</i> 83b."
,k21b_10:" Both words mean 'cutting off', the former however being the reduplicated and intensive form."
,k21b_11:" Because if the text is altered it will not be noticeable."
,k21b_12:" A kind of skin. V. <i>infra</i> 22a."
,k21b_13:"[H] Viz., the names and the date, v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 35, n. 4."
,k21b_14:" [H] [G], v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.), p. 35, n. 3."
,k21b_15:" Which might therefore be regarded as still attached to the soil."
,k21b_16:" And there is in fact no detaching from the soil. "
}

txt:
<p>
, because it is not possible to cut off the hand [and give it to her]. But where [it is written] on the horn of an ox [why need the ox be given to her]? Let the husband cut it off and give it to her? &mdash; Scripture says, He shall write and give to her.<a id="k21b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [This means that the Get must be on something] which requires only to be written on and to be given [to make it effective]: it excludes [something like] this which requires to be written on, to be cut off, and to be given [before it can become effective].
</p><p>
	R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS etc. What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? &mdash; As it has been taught: [From the word] sefer<a id="k21b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; I understand [that the husband must give the wife] a 'book'.<a id="k21b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; How do I know that any thing will serve the purpose? Because it says, 'and he write her', that is to say, any form of written document &mdash; If so why does it specify 'book'? To show that, just as a 'book' is not animate and does not eat, so the document used for the Get must be inanimate and not a thing which eats. What do the Rabbis [who allow this say to this]? &mdash; [They can reply:] If the text had written be sefer ['in a book'], your deduction would be correct, but as it writes sefer it refers only to the record [sefirath,]<a id="k21b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; of the circumstances. What do the Rabbis make of the word we-kathab ['and he shall write']?<a id="k21b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They require it to [deduce therefrom the rule that a woman] is divorced by a written document and not by a money gift. For you might think that her separation from her husband is to be effected in the same way as her union with him:<a id="k21b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; just as the union was effected by a money payment,<a id="k21b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; so also the separation. Now I know [that this is not so]. From whence then does R. Jose derive this lesson?<a id="k21b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From the words 'a writ of cutting off': a written [document] effects the 'cutting' [separation] and not anything else. What then do the Rabbis make of these words?<a id="k21b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They deduce from them that [for a Get] we require something which genuinely cuts off the husband from the wife, as it has been taught: '[If a man says to his wife], Here is your Get on condition that you never drink wine, that you never go to your father's house, this is no "cutting off".<a id="k21b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But if he says, on condition that you do not do so for thirty days, this is "cutting off".' Whence does R. Jose derive this lesson?<a id="k21b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From [the fact that the text uses the word] kerithuth when it might use the simpler form <i>kareth</i>.<a id="k21b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What do the Rabbis make of this?<a id="k21b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They do not stress the difference between kerithuth and <i>kareth</i>.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [A GET] MUST NOT BE WRITTEN ON SOMETHING STILL ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS WRITTEN ON SOMETHING STILL ATTACHED TO THE SOIL AND THEN DETACHED AND SIGNED AND GIVEN TO THE WIFE, IT IS VALID. R. JUDAH DECLARES IT INVALID UNLESS IT IS BOTH WRITTEN AND SIGNED ON SOMETHING NOT ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAYS THAT [A GET] MUST NOT BE WRITTEN ON A SHEET FROM WHICH WRITING HAS BEEN ERASED<a id="k21b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR ON DIFTERA,<a id="k21b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; BECAUSE WRITING ON IT CAN BE ALTERED [WITHOUT BEING NOTICEABLE]. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DECLARE SUCH A GET VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. IF IT IS WRITTEN ON SOMETHING ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. Does not the Mishnah say just before this that it must not be so written? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It may be so written if a place is left blank for the substantive part.<a id="k21b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The same statement was made by R. Eleazar in the name of R. Oshiah: It may [be so written] if a place is left blank for the substantive part. The same statement was also made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: It may [be so written] if a place is left blank for the substantive part. And [our Mishnah] follows R. Eleazar, who says that it is the witnesses to delivery who [make the Get] effective, and it is to be interpreted as follows: 'The formal<a id="k21b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; part [of the Get] must not be written [on something attached to the soil] lest one should come to write thereon the substantive part also. If, however, the formal part was written [on something still attached to the soil] and then detached and the substantive part was then filled in and [the Get] given to her, it is valid.' Resh Lakish, however, said: Our Mishnah says distinctly, AND SIGNED'. [This shows that] it follows the view of R. Meir who said that the signatures of the witnesses make [the Get] effective, and it is to be interpreted as follows: 'The substantive part must not be written [on something still attached to the soil] for fear lest the signatures should also be affixed to it [while in that state]. If, however, the substantive part was so written, and the Get was then detached and signed and given to her, it is valid.'
</p><p>
	If it is written on the surface of an earthenware flowerpot with a hole at the bottom<a id="k21b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it is valid, because he can take the pot and give it to her.<a id="k21b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If it is written on a leaf inside a flowerpot with a hole at the bottom, Abaye says it is valid and Raba says it is not valid. Abaye says it is valid
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k22a_1:" The recognised form of transfer of movable articles, y. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>meshikah</i>."
,k22a_2:" As for immovable property. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">glos.</a>"
,k22a_3:" Kid. 26a."
,k22a_4:" Because <i>hazakah</i> does not effect transfer of movable articles."
,k22a_5:" The pot being exactly on the border."
,k22a_6:" In determining whether it is subject to tithe."
,k22a_7:" Being thus rooted in the soil of the upper garden while the leaves spread out into the air space of the lower."
,k22a_8:" But they agree that in ordinary cases we go by the root, v. B.M. 118b."
,k22a_9:" I.e., in Eretz Yisrael."
,k22a_10:" I.e., outside Eretz Yisrael."
,k22a_11:" B.B. 27b."
,k22a_12:" But the whole of the roots are either on one side or the other, and yet they differ,"
,k22a_13:" Where however, the entire roots are in Eretz Yisrael all agree that the position of the branches is of no consequences."
,k22a_14:" Lit., 'unleavened bread'."
,k22a_15:" To save it from wearing away."
,k22a_16:" A small ornament used as a charm."
,k22a_17:" [Cf. [G]. The list includes only hides that are partly prepared for writing, and therefore omits [H] which has gone through the whole process and hence is no longer regarded as hide, but as parchment. (Rashi)]. "
}

txt:
<p>
because he can take the whole pot and give it to her. Raba says it is not valid, because [if we declare it so], there is a danger lest he should pluck the leaf [and give it to her].
</p><p>
	If a flowerpot belongs to one person and the seeds in it to another, then if the owner of the pot sells the pot to the owner of the seeds, as soon as the latter pulls it into his possession<a id="k22a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he becomes the legal owner. If, however, the owner of the seeds sells [the seeds] to the owner of the pot, [the latter] does not acquire possession [of them] till he performs some act of <i>hazakah</i>.<a id="k22a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If the pot and the seeds both belong to the same man and he sells them to another, [the latter,] as soon as he has performed <i>hazakah</i> on the seeds, [ipso facto] acquires possession of the pot. This accords with the rule which we have learned:<a id="k22a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Movable property is transferred along with immovable property through money payment, through deed of assignment, and through <i>hazakah</i>. If he performs <i>hazakah</i> on the pot, he does not acquire possession even of the pot:<a id="k22a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>hazakah</i> must be performed if at all on the seeds. If the inside of the pot is in Eretz Yisrael but the leaves of the plant extend outside of Eretz Yisrael,<a id="k22a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye says that we go by the inside,<a id="k22a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and Raba says that we go by the leaves. If the plant has taken root, all authorities agree [that it is subject to tithe]. Where they differ is when the plant has not taken root. But is there no difference in the case where it has taken root? Have we not learnt: 'If two gardens adjoin, one being higher than the other, and vegetables grow on the slope between,<a id="k22a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir says they belong to the upper garden and R. Judah to the lower'? &mdash; The reason for the difference in that case is stated [in the Mishnah itself]: 'Said R. Meir: If the owner of the upper garden wants to take away his earth, there will be no vegetables. To which R. Judah rejoined: If the owner of the lower one wants to fill in his garden [to the level of the higher], there would be no vegetables there.'<a id="k22a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But we may still [question whether] there is not a difference in the case where [the plant] has taken root, seeing that it has been taught: 'If part of a tree is in Eretz Yisrael and part of it outside, then titheable and non-titheable produce are mixed up in it. This is the view of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, holds that that part of its fruit which grows in the place liable to tithe<a id="k22a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is titheable, and that part which grows in the place not liable to tithe<a id="k22a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is non-titheable.'<a id="k22a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Now here we speak, [do we not], of a tree of which part of the branches are in Eretz Yisrael and part outside?<a id="k22a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No: [we speak of one of which] some of the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and some outside. What then is the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? &mdash; [He speaks of a case] where a piece of hard stone separates [the roots inside and outside]. What is the reason of Rabbi? &mdash; He holds that in spite of this the saps mix again [higher up]. What is their difference in principle? &mdash; One holds that the air mingles the saps, and the other holds that each side remains separate.<a id="k22a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAYS etc. R. Hiyya b. Assi said in the name of 'Ulla: There are three kinds of skins, mazzah, hifa, and diftera. Mazzah, as its name implies,<a id="k22a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [is a skin] that has been neither salted nor treated with flour nor with gall-nut. What bearing has this distinction upon the <i>halachah</i>? &mdash; In respect of carrying on Sabbath &mdash; How much of it may be carried? As learnt by R. Samuel b. Judah: Enough to wrap a small weight [of lead] in.<a id="k22a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; How much is that? &mdash; Abaye answered: About a 'fourth of a fourth' of Pumbeditha. Hifa [is skin] that is salted but not treated with flour or gall-nut. What bearing has this upon the <i>halachah</i>? &mdash; In respect of carrying on Sabbath. How much of it may be carried? &mdash; Even as we have learnt: '[The permitted quantity of skin] is enough to make an amulet<a id="k22a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; out of.' Diftera [is skin] which is salted and treated with flour but not with gall-nut.<a id="k22a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; What bearing has this upon the <i>halachah</i>? &mdash; In respect of carrying on Sabbath. How much of it may be carried? &mdash; Enough for writing a Get upon.
</p><p>
	BUT THE SAGES DECLARE IT VALID. Who are 'THE SAGES'? &mdash; Rab Eleazar [the Amora] said:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k22b_1:" I.e., on the same day, in order to notify them that she obtained her divorce."
,k22b_2:" And meanwhile the witnesses to the delivery have forgotten it."
,k22b_3:" Because once it has been produced in the <i>Beth din</i> the matter is known, and therefore the Get need not be kept."
,k22b_4:" E.g., bonds and promissory notes. These are necessary for substantiating the claim at a later date and there is a possibility of altering any condition contained in them without necessarily arousing the suspicion of the witnesses. (Rashi)."
,k22b_5:" Jer. XXXII, 14."
,k22b_6:" [Consistent with his view that witnesses will recall any condition that might have been inserted. (Tosaf.)]."
,k22b_7:" Lit., 'by them that sign it'."
,k22b_8:" Lit., 'not men of knowledge'. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Eleazar [the Tanna] is meant, for he said that it is the witnesses to the delivery who make [the Get] effective. R. Eleazar further said: R. Eleazar declared [such a Get] valid only if brought [by the woman] before the <i>Beth din</i> immediately,<a id="k22b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but not if it is brought ten days later, because in that case we have to consider the possibility that there was some condition in it and she altered it.<a id="k22b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, said [that it is valid] even if produced ten days later, because if there was any condition in it the witnesses [to the delivery] will still remember it. R. Eleazar further said: R. Eleazar declared valid a document [of this kind] only if it was a Get,<a id="k22b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but no other documents,<a id="k22b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in virtue of the Scriptural verse, And thou shalt put them in an earthenware vessel, in order that they may stand many days.<a id="k22b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, held that even other documents of this nature are valid.<a id="k22b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But does not Scripture say, 'In order that they may stand'? &mdash; That is merely a piece of good advice.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL [PERSONS] ARE QUALIFIED TO WRITE A GET, EVEN A DEAF-MUTE, A LUNATIC AND A MINOR. A WOMAN MAY WRITE HER OWN GET AND A MAN HIS OWN RECEIPT [FOR THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>], SINCE THE DOCUMENT IS MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY BY THE SIGNATURES ATTACHED TO IT.<a id="k22b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [How can a deaf-mute etc. be qualified to write] seeing that they do not understand<a id="k22b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [what they are doing and therefore will not write with special reference to the woman in question]? &mdash; Said R. Huna:
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k23a_1:" And not write with special reference to the woman concerned, even if he is told."
,k23a_2:" <i>Infra</i>."
,k23a_3:" Since he considers signatures not essential for the Get, the words and he write for her are to be interpreted as requiring writing with 'special intention', v. <i>infra</i>."
,k23a_4:" According to another interpretation we translate above, instead of 'and certainly the heathen etc.' 'But will not the heathen etc.' the words being an objection raised by R. Nahman's interlocutor, and the next statement is R. Nahman's reply."
,k23a_5:" By allowing a deaf-mute etc. to write."
,k23a_6:" K. Zerika and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah."
,k23a_7:" Lit., 'of knowledge'."
,k23a_8:" Since the Jewish law of marriage and divorce does not apply to him, and he cannot do on behalf of another what he cannot do on behalf of himself."
,k23a_9:" [The stress is laid on the possession of mental faculties at the beginning and the end but not of sight provided it was there at the beginning enabling him to make the necessary declaration.]"
,k23a_10:" To become the bearer of the Get, which includes his acting as the wife's agent to receive the Get. "
}

txt:
<p>
[They are permitted] only if an adult is standing by them [and telling them to write for such-and-such a purpose]. Said R. Nahman to him: If that is so, then if a heathen [writes] while a Jew stands by him, [the Get] ought still to be valid? And should you say that this actually is so, has it not been taught that a heathen is not qualified [for this purpose]? &mdash; A heathen will follow his own idea.<a id="k23a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Later R. Nahman corrected himself, saying: What I said was all wrong. For since [the Mishnah] expressly disqualifies a heathen from being the bearer [of a Get],<a id="k23a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; we may infer that he is qualified to write one. But is it not taught that he is disqualified? &mdash; That is in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar, who said that the witnesses to delivery make [the Get] effective and [consequently] that it must be written with 'special intention'<a id="k23a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and certainly the heathen will follow his own idea.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: R. Meir used to say that even if [the Get] was found on a rubbish heap and was then signed and given to the wife, it is valid.<a id="k23a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba raised an objection to this: [The Scripture says], 'he shall write for her', [which we interpret to mean] 'expressly for her name' &mdash; Does not this refer to the actual writing of the Get? &mdash; No: it refers to the signing by the witnesses, Raba raised another objection: [We have learnt that] 'any Get that is not written expressly for the woman [to be divorced] is invalid'? &mdash; Read 'that is not signed expressly.' He again raised an objection: [It has been taught] When he writes, it is as if he writes it expressly 'for her name.' Does not this mean that if he writes the substantive part 'for her name' it is reckoned as if he had written the formal part also 'for her name'? &mdash; No: what it means is that if he has it signed expressly 'for her name', it is as if he had written it also expressly 'for her name'. Or if you prefer I can answer that these teachings follow R. Eleazar who says that the witnesses to delivery make [the Get] effective.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that [a deaf-mute etc. is qualified to write] only if he leaves the formal part a blank. So too said R. Haga in the name of 'Ulla: [A deaf-mute etc. is qualified to write] only if he leaves the formal part a blank. [The Mishnah thus] follows R. Eleazar. R. Zerika, however, said in the name of R. Johanan: This is not Torah.<a id="k23a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; What does he mean by saying, 'This is not Torah'? &mdash; Said R. Abba: Here [the Mishnah] makes known to us that there is no force in [the ruling that the Get should be written with] 'special intention', and it follows the view of R. Meir who said that it is the signatures of the witnesses which make [the Get] effective. But did not Rabba b. Bar Hana say in the name of R. Johanan that [the Mishnah] follows Rabbi Eleazar? &mdash; Two Amoraim<a id="k23a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; report R. Johanan differently.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL [PERSONS] ARE QUALIFIED TO ACT AS BEARERS OF A GET EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, A LUNATIC, AND A MINOR, A BLIND MAN AND A HEATHEN. IF AFTER BEING ENTRUSTED [WITH THE GET BUT BEFORE DELIVERING IT] THE MINOR BECAME OF AGE OR THE DEAF-MUTE RECOVERED HIS SPEECH OR THE BLIND PERSON HIS SIGHT OR THE LUNATIC HIS REASON OR THE HEATHEN BECAME A PROSELYTE, [THE GET] IS [STILL] INVALID. BUT IF THE BEARER [BEING ORIGINALLY] OF SOUND SENSES BECAME A DEAF-MUTE AND THEN RECOVERED HIS SPEECH, OR [BEING] WITH SIGHT BECAME BLIND AND RECOVERED HIS SIGHT, OR [BEING] SANE BECAME INSANE AND RECOVERED HIS REASON, [THE GET] IS VALID. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT ANY BEARER WHO COMMENCES AND FINISHES [HIS MISSION] IN FULL POSSESSION OF HIS MENTAL FACULTIES<a id="k23a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IS QUALIFIED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. We understand a deaf-mute, a lunatic, and a minor being disqualified, because they do not know what they are doing; also a heathen, because in any case he himself cannot release.<a id="k23a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But why should a blind person be disqualified? &mdash; R. Shesheth says: Because he does not know from whom he takes [the Get] and to whom he delivers it. R. Joseph strongly demurred to this. In that case, [he said,] how is it permitted to a blind man to associate with his wife, or to any men to associate with their wives at night time? Is it not by recognising the voice? So here, [a blind person] can recognise the voice! No, said R. Joseph; the fact is that here we are speaking of [a Get brought from] foreign parts, [the bearer of which] has to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed', and a blind man cannot say this. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, then a person who becomes blind [after receiving the Get] ought to be qualified, and yet [the Mishnah] states expressly that IF [BEING] WITH SIGHT HE BECAME BLIND AND RECOVERED HIS SIGHT [THE GET] IS VALID, which shows [it is valid] only if he recovered his sight, but if he did not recover his sight that he is not qualified? &mdash; He is qualified even if he does not recover his sight. Since, however, the Mishnah employed the formula, 'OR [BEING] SANE HE BECAME INSANE AND RECOVERED HIS REASON' &mdash; which was necessary in that case because the reason [why it is valid] is because he recovers his reason, but if he does not recover it, [the Get] is not valid &mdash; it uses a similar wording in the next clause: 'BEING WITH SIGHT HE BECAME BLIND AND RECOVERED HIS SIGHT. Said R. Ashi: There is an indication of this in [the language of] the Mishnah itself, since it says: THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE; ANY BEARER WHO IS IN FULL POSSESSION OF HIS MENTAL FACULTIES AT THE BEGINNING AND END [OF HIS MISSION] IS QUALIFIED, and it does not say, 'anyone who is qualified at the beginning and end [of his mission].' This shows [that what was said above about the bearer who becomes blind, is correct].<a id="k23a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A question was put to R. Ammi: May a slave be made an agent on behalf of a woman to receive her writ of divorce from her husband? &mdash; He replied: Since the [Mishnah] declares a heathen disqualified,<a id="k23a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k23b_1:" Ter. III, 9."
,k23b_2:" Ibid. I, 1."
,k23b_3:" Num. XVIII, 28."
,k23b_4:" Which shows that the implication is wrong, and so the original idea must also be wrong."
,k23b_5:" And a slave was regarded as a 'son of the Covenant', on the strength of Deut. XXIX, 9ff., Ye are standing all this day before the Lord your God&nbsp;&hellip; from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water&nbsp;&hellip; to enter into the covenant of the Lord. Thus a slave can be an agent."
,k23b_6:" Tem. 25a."
,k23b_7:" As this refers to a writ of emancipation, how can we derive a ruling from it for a writ of divorce?"
,k23b_8:" I.e., if the slave to be emancipated belongs to the same master as he himself. The reason is that he is regarded as merely the hand of his master, and therefore does not become owner of the writ on behalf of his fellow-slave."
,k23b_9:" Seeking to mislead you."
,k23b_10:" Which shows that a slave can accept a writ of emancipation on behalf of another slave even from his own master."
,k23b_11:" Lit., 'who are not believed'."
,k23b_12:" Lit., 'her rival'."
,k23b_13:" These women are suspect of bearing a grudge against the wife and of harbouring a desire to spite her."
,k23b_14:" To a place which the husband specifies."
,k23b_15:" Before a <i>Beth din</i> in the place specified."
,k23b_16:" Because witnesses to the signatures are always available."
,k23b_17:" I.e. on the declaration, 'In my presence' etc."
,k23b_18:" The declaration 'in my presence' etc., not having been made."
,k23b_19:" Because the Get has been certified by virtue of the declaration in my presence etc."
,k23b_20:" Because she cannot be trying to make mischief. "
}

txt:
<p>
we may infer that a slave is qualified. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A slave cannot be appointed an agent by a woman to receive a Get on her behalf from her husband, because he does not come within the [provisions of the Jewish] law in regard to divorce and marriage. R. Eleazar strongly demurred to this. Your reason, [he said,] is [that the slave cannot be an agent to do for another] a thing which he cannot do for himself. This would imply that he can be an agent for a thing which he can do for himself. How does this square with the fact that a heathen or a Samaritan can give <i>terumah</i> for himself, as we have learnt: 'If a heathen or a Samaritan gives <i>terumah</i> from his own produce, what is so given is genuine <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k23b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet we also learn [in another place]: 'If a heathen gives <i>terumah</i> from the produce of an Israelite even with the latter's permission, what is so given is not regarded as terumah'?<a id="k23b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason is, is it not, that Scripture says, you also shall give your heave-offering,<a id="k23b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and we take the superfluous word 'also' to indicate that just as you are Israelites, &mdash; so your agents must be Israelites?<a id="k23b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In the school of R. Jannai they replied: No! [The proper inference from the word 'also' is]: Just as you are sons of the Covenant, so must your agents be sons of the Covenant.<a id="k23b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: A slave cannot he made an agent by a woman to receive a Get on her behalf from her husband because he does not come within [the provisions of the Jewish] law in regard to divorce and marriage, and [this] in spite of the fact that we have a teaching: [If a man says to his female slave], 'You are a slave, but your child is free', if she was pregnant at the time she acquires freedom for it [the child].<a id="k23b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the point of [quoting]: 'if she was pregnant, she acquires freedom for it'?<a id="k23b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; When R. Samuel b. Judah came [from Palestine], he said: R. Johanan said two things. [One was the dictum regarding a Get quoted above]. The other was this: It seems a reasonable view that a slave can receive a writ of emancipation on behalf of another slave from the master of that slave but not from his own master.<a id="k23b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And if someone should whisper in your ear<a id="k23b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; that there is a <i>halachah</i> laid down which contradicts this, [viz.] 'If she was pregnant, she acquires freedom for it,'<a id="k23b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; reply to him that two great authorities in their generation, R. Zera and R. Samuel b. Isaac, explained the matter. One said that this [teaching] follows the opinion of Rabbi who said that if a man emancipates the half of his slave, the slave acquires [freedom in regard to the one half], and the other said [in further explanation] that the reason of Rabbi [for applying this to the present case] is that he looks upon the embryo as part of the mother, and therefore the master [in freeing the child] as it were made her owner of one of her own limbs. 
</p><p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. EVEN THE WOMEN WHOSE WORD IS NOT ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE<a id="k23b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY SAY THE HUSBAND [OF A CERTAIN WOMAN] IS DEAD ARE ACCEPTED AS BEARERS OF HER GET. NAMELY, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW'S DAUGHTER, HER HUSBAND'S OTHER WIFE,<a id="k23b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; HER HUSBAND'S BROTHER'S WIFE, AND HER HUSBAND'S DAUGHTER.<a id="k23b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; WHY IS A GET DIFFERENT FROM [A REPORT OF] DEATH? BECAUSE THE WRITING AFFORDS PROOF. A WOMAN MAY BE THE BEARER OF HER OWN GET,<a id="k23b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; ONLY SHE IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE,<a id="k23b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.'
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [How can you say this] seeing that it has been taught: Just as these women's word is not accepted as evidence that her husband is dead, so they are not accepted as bearers of her Get? &mdash; R. Joseph replied: There is no contradiction. The one rule is for Eretz Yisrael, the other for outside Eretz [Yisrael]. In Eretz Yisrael, where we do not rely upon her [word],<a id="k23b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; such a woman is permitted to bring the Get: outside Eretz [Yisrael], where we should have to rely upon her [word],<a id="k23b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; she is not permitted to bring it. Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable: in Eretz Yisrael, where if the husband comes and challenges [the Get] we take note of his objection,<a id="k23b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it could be argued that the woman has been deliberately trying to make mischief, and therefore she should not be trusted, but outside, where if the husband comes and challenges [the Get] we do not pay any attention to him,<a id="k23b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; she should be trusted.<a id="k23b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught in accordance with the view of Abaye: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Akiba: That a woman may be trusted to bring her own Get may be established <i>a fortiori</i>. For since those women whose word [the Rabbis] declared to be inacceptable as evidence that her husband is dead can be trusted as bearers of her Get, does it not follow that she herself whose word is accepted as evidence that her husband is dead should be trusted to bring her own Get?
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k25a_1:" Or 'a shoe made of felt'."
,k25a_2:" Because we say that possibly there is such a thing as a retrospective decision, and therefore this Get has a certain validity."
,k25a_3:" Since there certainly is no such thing as retrospective decision."
,k25a_4:" [For the portion chosen by each brother for himself could not be considered as having retrospectively become the very inheritance designated for him, because he does not uphold bererah, v. B.K.. (Sonc. ed.) P. 399 and notes.]"
,k25a_5:" In accordance with Lev. XXV, 13."
,k25a_6:" And therefore we may say retrospectively that each son took the part which the father intended."
,k25a_7:" I.e., his reason for deciding as he did was because he was not absolutely certain that there is retrospective decision, and so he wished to be on the safe side."
,k25a_8:" Where the estate belonged to the person in spite of the fact that normally there is retrospective decision."
,k25a_9:" And we have to say that his reason is because there is no such thing as retrospective decision."
,k25a_10:" I.e., as assumed at present he alone shall have a real right to a portion in it."
,k25a_11:" From which we should infer that the father selects him retrospectively."
,k25a_12:" Pes. 89a."
,k25a_13:" Precepts. The father never had any intention of making the first entry into Jerusalem determine the title to the Paschal lamb."
,k25a_14:" The company which was to eat that particular lamb. V. Ex. XII, 4: According to every man's eating ye shall make your count for the lamb."
,k25a_15:" Pes. ibid."
,k25a_16:" But it does not say that the sons were not reckoned in, which proves that the father originally counted all his sons in."
,k25a_17:" I.e., the husband leaves the choice to the woman who will first go out of doors."
,k25a_18:" The amount of the <i>terumah</i> is not specified in the Scripture, but the Rabbis considered two parts in a hundred a fair proportion."
,k25a_19:" For the Levites, v. Num. XVIII, 21."
,k25a_20:" From the remaining ninety."
,k25a_21:" To be consumed in Jerusalem. V. Deut. XIV, 22ff. "
}

txt:
<p>
[if it was performed to] a minor or with a sock,<a id="k25a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it does not release [the woman] but neither does it disqualify her. Ze'iri said: None of the kinds [of Get] mentioned disqualify the woman [from living with her husband if a priest] save the last.<a id="k25a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; So did Rab also lay down: None of these disqualify save the last. R. Johanan, however, said that even the last does not disqualify.<a id="k25a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan follows the principle he has enunciated elsewhere, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If two brothers divide an inheritance, they are reckoned as having purchased each his share from the other,<a id="k25a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and each restores his share to the other at the Jubilee.<a id="k25a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And both statements [of R. Johanan] are necessary. For if I had only the statement about the Get to go by. I should say that in that case there can be no retrospective decision [as to which (wife) he meant] because we require the [Get to be written] for 'her', [namely] for the name [of the woman concerned], but there [in the case of an estate], the All Merciful said that it is a sale which has to be returned at the Jubilee but not an inheritance or a gift.<a id="k25a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If again I had only the Statement regarding the field to go by, I might say that he takes the stricter line,<a id="k25a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or again that he thinks the property should revert to its original state,<a id="k25a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but here [in the case of a Get] this does not apply.<a id="k25a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [Hence both statements were] necessary.
</p><p>
	R. Hoshaiah put a question to Rab Judah: If a man said to a scribe, Write [a Get] for whichever [of my wives] shall go out of doors first, what is the ruling? &mdash; He replied: We have learnt: MOREOVER: IF HE SAID TO THE SCRIBE, WRITE AND I WILL DIVORCE WHICHEVER I CHOOSE, IT IS NOT VALID TO DIVORCE THEREWITH [EITHER]. We infer from this that there is no such thing as a retrospective decision. [R. Hoshaiah] raised an objection [against this from the following passage]: If a man says to his sons, 'I am going to kill the paschal lamb for whichever of you will first enter Jerusalem',<a id="k25a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; as soon as the first of them enters with his head and the greater part of his body. he becomes entitled to his portion<a id="k25a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and makes his brothers entitled to their portions along with him.<a id="k25a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: Hoshaiah, my son, what has the Paschal lamb to do with bills of divorce? In this connection it has been recorded that R. Johanan said that the reason is to make them eager to perform the mizwoth.<a id="k25a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; This is also indicated [by the language of the passage itself], which states, as soon as the first has entered with his head and the greater part of his body, he becomes entitled to his portion and makes his brothers entitled to theirs along with him.' If now you say that the father mentally reckoned them all as of his company<a id="k25a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; from the first, this is intelligible. But if you say that he did not so reckon them, can they be counted in after the lamb is killed? Have we not learnt: 'Persons can be counted in to a company and withdraw until the lamb is killed [but not after].'?<a id="k25a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; It has also been taught to the same effect: It happened once that the daughters came before the sons. the former showing themselves diligent and the latter slack.<a id="k25a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: [R. Hoshaiah] questioned him [Rab Judah] with reference to the case where he leaves the choice to another,<a id="k25a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rab Judah answers him by citing the case where he retains the choice in his own hands, and then R. Hoshaiah raises an objection from the case where he leaves the choice to others again! &mdash; Said Raba: What is the difficulty? Perhaps according to the authority who says there is [such a thing as] retrospective decision, it makes no difference whether he leaves the choice to another or retains it in his own hand; in either case he holds there is retrospective decision; whereas according to the authority who says there is no [such thing as] retrospective decision it makes no difference whether he keeps the choice in his own hand or leaves it to others: in either case he holds there is no retrospective decision. Said R. Mesharsheya to Raba: But is there not R. Judah, who holds that when the man keeps the choice in his own hands we do not decide retrospectively but when he leaves the choice to others he holds that we do decide retrospectively? That [R. Judah] holds that he is permitted to decide retrospectively when he keeps the choice in his own hands [is shown by the following Baraitha]. For it was taught: If a man buys wine from the Cutheans, he can say. 'Two logs which I intend to set aside [from each hundred] are to be the priest's due;<a id="k25a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; ten [logs] the first tithe;<a id="k25a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and nine [logs]<a id="k25a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the second tithe,'<a id="k25a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k25b_1:" v. Tosaf. s.v."
,k25b_2:" Which shows that he cannot decide retrospectively. (For fuller notes v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 399.)"
,k25b_3:" <i>Infra</i> 83b."
,k25b_4:" I.e., if he says to her, 'This shall be thy Get from now if I die.' V. <i>infra</i> 72a."
,k25b_5:" And therefore if the husband is a priest she may eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k25b_6:" Hence when God, to whom he has left the choice, decides that he should die, it is decided retrospectively that she was divorced from the moment he gave her the Get."
,k25b_7:" This being one of the methods of affiancing; v. Kid. ad. init. "
}

txt:
<p>
and he then begins<a id="k25b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to drink from it at once. This is the ruling of R. Meir. R. Judah and R. Jose and R. Simeon, however, prohibit [him from doing so].<a id="k25b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; That [according to R. Judah] we do decide retrospectively where he leaves the choice to others [is shown by the following Mishnah].<a id="k25b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: 'What is the status of the woman [who has received a conditional Get<a id="k25b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; from a sick husband] during those days [between the giving of the Get and his death]? R. Judah says that she is a married woman in every respect,'<a id="k25b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet when the husband dies the Get takes effect.<a id="k25b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Mesharsheya said further to Raba: There is also R. Simeon who holds that when the man keeps the choice in his own hands we do not decide retrospectively, but when he leaves the choice to others he holds that we do. That according to R. Simeon we do not decide retrospectively when he keeps the choice in his own hands [is shown] by [the teaching] just quoted. That [according to him] where he leaves the choice to others we do so decide is shown by the following [teaching]: [If a man says to a woman], I betroth thee by means of this intercourse<a id="k25b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; on condition that thy father consents, even if the father does not consent she is betrothed. R. Simeon b. Judah said in the name of R. Simeon that if the father consents she is betrothed,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k26a_1:" Keth. 73b. Which shows that we do decide retrospectively where he leaves the choice to others."
,k26a_2:" So that it will no longer be possible to set aside the various dues."
,k26a_3:" Lit., 'when it does burst'. I.e., the danger is remote and there is no need to provide against it."
,k26a_4:" In order to have them ready at hand whenever the"
,k26a_5:" Lit., 'on account of the takkanah (adjustment)': an expression used in connection with regulations laid down by the Rabbis without Scriptural warrant to prevent abuses or for the smoother working of social relations. The question what hardship is meant is discussed in the Gemara."
,k26a_6:" Because this is also an essential part of the Get."
,k26a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> 23a."
,k26a_8:" <i>Supra</i> 21b, in connection with the Mishnah 'A Get must not be written on something attached to the soil'."
,k26a_9:" 'All persons are qualified to write a Get,' <i>supra</i> 22b."
,k26a_10:" And there is no need to leave a blank space for the substantive part."
,k26a_11:" And there is no need to leave a blank space for 'You are permitted etc.', except for the names, for the reason given <i>infra</i>."
,k26a_12:" That the first ruling too follows R. Eleazar, he being represented by two varying opinions. "
}

txt:
<p>
and if not she is not betrothed.<a id="k26a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba answered him: Both according to R. Judah and according to R. Simeon, it makes no difference whether he keeps the choice in his own hands or leaves it to another: in either case we do decide retrospectively. There [in the case of the Cuthean wine], however, the reason [for their prohibiting] is as given [in the Mishnah quoted]: 'They said to R. Meir, Do you not admit that if the wine-skin should burst [and the wine be spilt]<a id="k26a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the man would be found to have drunk wine which had not been freed for ordinary use? He answered them: Wait till it does burst.'<a id="k26a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF [A SCRIBE] WRITES OUT FORMULAS OF BILLS OF DIVORCE<a id="k26a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST LEAVE BLANK SPACES FOR THE NAME OF THE MAN AND THE NAME OF THE WOMAN AND THE DATE. [IF HE WRITES FORMULAS OF] BONDS OF INDEBTEDNESS HE MUST LEAVE BLANK SPACES FOR THE NAME OF THE LENDER, THE NAME OF THE BORROWER, THE AMOUNT LENT AND THE DATE. [IF HE WRITES] FORMS OF CONTRACTS OF SALE HE MUST LEAVE BLANK SPACES FOR THE NAME OF THE VENDOR, THE NAME OF THE PURCHASER, THE PURCHASE MONEY, THE PROPERTY AND THE DATE, TO PREVENT HARD SHIP.<a id="k26a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH DECLARES ALL. SUCH [FORMULAS] INVALID [EVEN IF THE BLANKS HAVE BEEN LEFT]. R. ELEAZAR DECLARES ALL OF THEM VALID [IF THE BLANKS HAVE BEEN LEFT] EXCEPT WRITS OF DIVORCE, BECAUSE SCRIPTURE SAYS, HE SHALL WRITE FOR HER, WHICH MEANS, EXPRESSLY FOR HER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: [The scribe] must also leave space for the words. 'You are permitted to [marry] any man.'<a id="k26a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And [the Mishnah] follows R. Eleazar who said that the witnesses to delivery make [the Get] effective and the [Get] must [consequently]<a id="k26a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; be written expressly for the woman concerned. And it was necessary [for Samuel to tell us here that the Mishnah follows R. Eleazar although he has already twice told us so]. For if he had only told us so on the first occasion,<a id="k26a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [I might think that the reason why we interpret] that [Mishnah] so as to make it agree with R. Eleazar is to reconcile the contradiction between the first statement of the Mishnah, '[A Get] must not be written' etc. and the second, 'If it was written [on something attached to the soil it is valid],' but [all the same] in connection with the next [Mishnah]<a id="k26a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; where it also says that a Get is made effective only by the signatures attached to it, I might think that [the Mishnah is there] following R. Meir who said that the witnesses to the signatures make [the Get] effective<a id="k26a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [unless Samuel told us the contrary]. If again Samuel had only told us there [that the Mishnah] follows R. Eleazar, [I might think that that is because] there also it is possible to interpret [the Mishnah] in this way, but here [in speaking of the scribe who writes out formulas] since the last [ruling] given is that of R. Eleazar, I should say that the first [ruling, 'If a scribe writes our formulas of bills of divorce etc.'] is not that of R. Eleazar.<a id="k26a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore [Samuel] had to tell us this also.<a id="k26a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	TO PREVENT HARDSHIP. Hardship to whom? &mdash; R. Jonathan said: Hardship to the scribe, [the Mishnah] following R. Eleazar who said that the witnesses to delivery make [the Get] effective. By rights therefore it should not be permitted to write [beforehand] even the formula of the Get, but to make matters easier for the scribes the Rabbis allowed it. R. JUDAH DECLARED THEM ALL INVALID: he forbade the formulas for fear that the substantive part might also be written in and [he forbade the scribes to write] the formulas of bonds of indebtedness for fear [that they might also write] the formulas of bills of divorce. R. ELEAZAR DECLARED ALL OF THEM VALID EXCEPT BILLS OF DIVORCE: he forbade the formulas for fear that the substantive part might also be written, but he did not forbid the writing of bonds out of fear [that it might lead to the writing] of bills of divorce.
</p><p>
	BECAUSE SCRIPTURE SAYS, 'HE SHALL WRITE FOR HER.' Rut do not the words 'for her' in the text refer to the substantive part of the Get? &mdash; Explain [R. Eleazar's reason thus]: Because it is written 'he shall write for her', which means 'expressly for her', [therefore we forbid the writing of the form for fear it may lead to the writing of the substantive part].
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k26b_1:" By laying down in the first clause of this Mishnah that the formulas may be written and in the second that they may not."
,k26b_2:" Because since the Get is written but not signed she is neither divorced nor married."
,k26b_3:" For fear that it may lead to the writing of the substantive part."
,k26b_4:" Because according to Jewish law death cannot be presumed."
,k26b_5:" V. <i>supra</i> 17a."
,k26b_6:" There are no provisions entitling the bridegroom to the usufruct of his bride's property."
,k26b_7:" Yeb. 52a."
,k26b_8:" I.e., that she was divorced while still only affianced, and that therefore her child was born out of wedlock."
,k26b_9:" That even the formula of the Get may not be written beforehand."
,k26b_10:" The formulas of which he allows to be written out beforehand."
,k26b_11:" Certifying that the signatures to such-and-such a document are genuine."
,k26b_12:" Since it runs: 'While we sat as a court of three there came before us So-and-so who testified to their signatures etc.'"
,k26b_13:" In not being written originally for the loan which is now being contracted. "
}

txt:
<p>
Does not R. Eleazar here contradict himself?<a id="k26b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Two Tannaim report R. Eleazar differently.
</p><p>
	R. Shabbathai said in the name of R. Hezekiah: [The words TO PREVENT HARDSHIP] mean 'to prevent quarrelling', [the Mishnah] following R. Meir who said that the signatures of the witnesses make [the Get] effective. and by rights it should be permitted to the scribe to write [beforehand] even the substantive part, but in that case it might happen that a woman might hear a scribe [reading over] what he had written and she might think that her husband had told him to write and so fall out with him. R. Hisda said in the name of Abimi: It is for the relief of deserted wives. Some say [that this interpretation] follows R. Meir, and some say that it follows R. Eleazar. Some say it follows R. Meir who held that the witnesses to the signatures make [the Get] effective, and therefore by rights it is permissible to put in beforehand even the substantive part of the Get, only it may happen sometimes that a husband falls out with his wife and in a passion throws her [the Get] and then makes her remain a deserted wife.<a id="k26b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Some again say it follows R. Eleazar who held that the witnesses to delivery make [the Get] effective, and therefore by rights even the formula [of the Get] should not be written beforehand,<a id="k26b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; only it may happen sometimes that the man wants to go abroad and does not find a scribe ready and so he leaves her [without giving her the Get] and thus makes her a deserted wife [if he is lost].<a id="k26b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND FOR THE DATE. The Mishnah makes no distinction between [a Get which dissolves] a marriage and [a Get which dissolves] a betrothal. In the case of [a Get which dissolves] a marriage this is a proper [regulation], whether on the view [that the date is required] to prevent a man shielding his sister's daughter or on the view that [it is required] on account of the usufruct.<a id="k26b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; In [a Get which dissolves] a betrothal, however, the regulation certainly is reasonable on the view that the date is required to prevent a man shielding his sister's daughter, but on the view that it is required on account of the usufruct &mdash; does the law of usufruct apply to a betrothed woman?<a id="k26b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Amram said: I heard a certain remark from 'Ulla, who said 'it is to safeguard the interest of the child', and I did not know what he meant. [I discovered it, however], when I came across the following statement:<a id="k26b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man says, 'Write a Get for my fiancee, I will divorce her with it after I marry her,' it is no Get. And commenting on this 'Ulla said: What is the reason? Because people may say that her Get came [before] her child.<a id="k26b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; So here, [the date has to be put in] lest people should say that her Get [came] before her child.
</p><p>
	R. Zera said in the name of R. Abba b. Shila who said it in the name of R. Hamnuna the Elder who had it from R. Adda b. Ahaba who had it from Rab: The <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Eleazar.<a id="k26b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab designated R. Eleazar 'the happiest of the wise men.' Does then the [<i>halachah</i>] follow him in regard to other documents also?<a id="k26b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Has not R. Papi said in the name of Raba: If an authentication of the <i>Beth din</i><a id="k26b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is written before the witnesses have testified to their signatures, it is invalid? The reason is that it seems to contain a falsehood.<a id="k26b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; So here, the documents seem to contain a falsehood? &mdash; This is no objection, as shown by the statement of R. Nahman, who said: R. Meir used to say that even if a man found [a Get] on a rubbish heap and had it signed and delivered to the wife, it is valid. And even the Rabbis do not differ from R. Meir save in regard to writs of divorce, which have to be written with 'special intention', but not in regard to other documents, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man gives a bond for a loan and repays the loan [on the same day], he may not use the same bond for another loan because the obligation contained in it is already cancelled. The reason is that the obligation contained in it is cancelled, but the fact that it may appear to contain a falsehood<a id="k26b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is of no concern.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k27a_1:" Because perhaps it is not the same one but another with the same names."
,k27a_2:" Names of receptacles, explained <i>infra</i> 28a."
,k27a_3:" V. Rashi."
,k27a_4:" B.M. 18a. For fuller notes on this whole section, v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 110-115."
,k27a_5:" Either to the writer or the recipient."
,k27a_6:" As in the case of a Get sent by a bearer."
,k27a_7:" And therefore other documents containing the same names may also have been dropped."
,k27a_8:" And therefore the claimant may not be the person who dropped the Get and it is not to be delivered."
,k27a_9:" Because if the writer had not meant it to be delivered, he would not have brought it to the <i>Beth din</i> to be confirmed."
,k27a_10:" Because two men of the same name were not known to be in that town."
,k27a_11:" That the Get is to he delivered unless there are two reasons &mdash; of the place and of the name &mdash; to the contrary."
,k27a_12:" B.M. 18b. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE BEARER OF A GET LOSES IT. ON THE WAY, IF HE FINDS IT AGAIN IMMEDIATELY IT IS VALID, AND IF NOT IT IS NOT VALID.<a id="k27a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE FINDS IT IN A HAFISAH OR IN A DELUSKAMA<a id="k27a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; OR<a id="k27a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE RECOGNISES IT, IT IS VALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Is there not a contradiction [between this Mishnah and the following]:<a id="k27a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If a man finds bills of divorcement of wives or of emancipation of slaves or wills or deeds of gift or receipts, he should not deliver them,<a id="k27a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for I say that after they were written [the writer] changed his mind and decided not to give them'. I infer from this, do I not, that if he had said 'Give them,'<a id="k27a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; they are to be given, even if a long interval had elapsed? &mdash; Rabbah replied: There is no difficulty. Here [in our Mishnah the reference] is to a place where caravans pass frequently, there [the other] to a place where caravans do not frequently pass.<a id="k27a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And even in a place where caravans frequently pass, [the Get is invalid] only if there are presumed to be two men named Simon ben Joseph in the same town. For if you do not [understand Rabbah thus], then there is a contradiction between this statement of Rabbah and another of his. For a Get was once found in the <i>Beth din</i> of R. Huna in which was written, 'In Shawire, a place by the canal Rakis', and R. Huna said: The fear that there may be two Shawires is to be taken into account;<a id="k27a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Hisda said to Rabbah: Go and look it up carefully, because to-night R. Huna will ask you about it, and he went and looked up and found that we had learnt [in a Mishnah]: 'Any document which has passed through a <i>Beth din</i> is to be returned'.<a id="k27a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now the <i>Beth din</i> of R. Huna was on a par with a place where caravans pass frequently, and Rabbah decided that the document should be delivered. From this we conclude that if there are known to be two men named Simon ben Joseph in the town it is [not to be returned], but otherwise it is.<a id="k27a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of a Get which was found 'among the flax' in Pumbeditha, Rabbah acted according to the rule just laid down.<a id="k27a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Some say it was found in the place where flax was soaked, and although there were two persons of the same name known to be in the place, he ordered it to be returned because it was not a place where caravans passed frequently. Some again say that it was the place where flax was sold, and there were not two persons of the same name known to be there though caravans did pass frequently.
</p><p>
	R. Zera pointed to a contradiction between the Mishnah and the following Baraitha, and also resolved it. We learn here: IF THE BEARER OF A GET LOSES IT ON THE WAY AND FINDS IT AGAIN IMMEDIATELY, IT IS VALID, AND IF NOT IT IS NOT VALID. This seems to contradict the following: If a man finds a bill of divorce in the street, if the husband acknowledges it he should deliver it to the woman, but if the husband does not acknowledge it he should give it neither to one nor to the other.<a id="k27a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; It says here at any rate
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k27b_1:" Viz., our Mishnah and the Mishnah from Baba Mezi'a."
,k27b_2:" This being the assumption made above."
,k27b_3:" Hence there is no contradiction in the Mishnah from Baba Mezi'a, and therefore R. Zera raised the difficulty from a Baraitha."
,k27b_4:" That a claimant to a lost article could make good his claim by mentioning a sign, and had not necessarily to bring witnesses."
,k27b_5:" I.e., if the Torah required witnesses and the Rabbis dispensed with this on their own authority, in the case of a Get, in view of the grave implications involved, a very clear mark would be required."
,k27b_6:" Though it was not a precise mark."
,k27b_7:" That it was sufficient for a claimant to give a sign, and therefore even a Get should be restored. "
}

txt:
<p>
that when the husband acknowledges it he should give it to the woman, even if a long time has elapsed? &mdash; R. Zera answered himself by saying that [in the Mishnah] here we speak of a place where caravans pass frequently and there [the other passage] of a place where caravans do not pass frequently. Some add [in quoting the answer of R. Zera]: And even [the Mishnah says] it should not be delivered only if there are presumed to be two men of the same name, which is the view of Rabbah. Some again report R. Zera as having said 'even though there are not presumed etc., he should not deliver,' and so as differing from Rabbah. We can understand why Rabbah did not raise the difficulty in the form in which it was raised by R. Zera: he thought there was more force in opposing one Mishnah to another.<a id="k27b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But why did not R. Zera raise it in the form in which it was raised by Rabbah? &mdash; R. Zera might answer: Does the [other Mishnah] state, 'If the husband has said, Give, it is to be given even after the lapse of some time'?<a id="k27b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; possibly what it means is that if he has said 'give' it is given only in the recognised way, i.e. immediately.<a id="k27b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah said: [The Get is delivered after a lapse of time only] if, for instance, the witnesses say, 'We have never signed more than one Get in the name of Joseph ben Simeon.' If that is so, what does [the Mishnah] tell us? &mdash; You might think that we [still do not declare the Get valid] for fear that the name may happen to be the same and the witnesses may happen to be the same. Now we know [that we disregard this possibility]. R. Ashi said: [The Get is delivered after a lapse of time only] if the bearer can say, 'there is a hole at the side of such-and-such a letter,' which is a precise distinguishing mark. And that is, provided he says, 'at the side of such-and-such a letter', which is a precise distinguishing mark, and not simply 'a hole'. [R. Ashi ruled thus] because he was not certain if the rule about distinguishing marks<a id="k27b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is derived from the Torah or was laid down by the Rabbis [on their own authority].<a id="k27b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah lost a Get in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>. He said [to the <i>Beth din</i>]: If you want a distinguishing mark, I can give one, and if you want me to recognise it by sight, I can do so. They gave it back to him. He said: I do not know if they gave it back because I was able to give a distinguishing mark,<a id="k27b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and they thought that the rule about such marks<a id="k27b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was derived from the Torah, or because I was able to recognise it by sight. And for this only a Talmudical student would be trusted, but not any ordinary person.
</p><p>
	AND IF NOT IT IS NOT VALID. Our Rabbis have taught: What is it that we call 'not immediately'? R. Nathan says: If he has allowed an interval to elapse long enough for a caravan to pass by and encamp. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: [It is called 'immediately'] so long as someone stands there and sees that no-one passes there; some say, that no-one has stopped there. Rabbi says: [If he waits long enough] for the Get to be written. R. Isaac says: Long enough to read it. According to others, to write and to read it. Even if a considerable time did elapse, if there are [precise] distinguishing marks they are taken as evidence, e.g., if the bearer says that there is a hole at the side of such-and-such a letter. The general characteristics [of the Get], however, are no evidence, e.g., if he said that it was long or short. If the bearer found it tied up in a purse, a bag, or a ring,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k28a_1:" The opinion assigned to 'some say'; <i>supra</i>."
,k28a_2:" The opinion assigned to R. Simeon, <i>supra</i>."
,k28a_3:" The opinions assigned to R. Simeon and 'some say'."
,k28a_4:" To keep documents in. [The word is also frequently spelt Geluskama, probably from [G] receptacle.]"
,k28a_5:" One who is not a kohen."
,k28a_6:" Although if a widow she would not be allowed to eat <i>terumah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k28a_7:" Although if he is dead the animal should not be sacrificed."
,k28a_8:" I.e., eighty years, in allusion to Ps. XC, 10."
,k28a_9:" And may go on living."
,k28a_10:" [Lit., 'his death', a euphemism. V. Tosef. Git. IV (Zuckemandel p. 330), where some texts read 'my death'.]"
,k28a_11:" As we fear at every moment that he will die within the next hour."
,k28a_12:" I.e., she can eat other food."
,k28a_13:" There is no alternative way of saving her from becoming a 'deserted wife'."
,k28a_14:" But his chance of dying does not enter into consideration."
,k28a_15:" I.e., we have to take the chance of his dying into consideration, as otherwise it would not be a Get."
,k28a_16:" V. <i>Supra</i> 25a."
,k28a_17:" Because they take into account the chance of the skin bursting, whereas R. Meir does not. "
}

txt:
<p>
or among his clothes, even after a considerable time, it is valid.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is that [the found Get is valid] if no-one has stopped there, whereas Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said the <i>halachah</i> is [that it is valid] if no-one has passed by there. Why does not Rab Judah say that the <i>halachah</i> follows [this] Master,<a id="k28a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say that it follows [the other] Master?<a id="k28a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because there is another reading which reverses the names.<a id="k28a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IN A HAFISAH OR A DELUSKAMA. What is a hafisah? &mdash; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah says: A small pouch. What is a deluskama? &mdash; The kind of box used by old men.<a id="k28a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF, WHEN THE BEARER OF A GET LEFT, THE HUSBAND WAS AN OLD MAN OR SICK, HE SHOULD YET DELIVER IT TO THE WIFE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS STILL ALIVE. IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ORDINARY ISRAELITE<a id="k28a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; IS MARRIED TO A PRIEST AND HER HUSBAND GOES ABROAD, SHE GOES ON EATING OF THE <I>TERUMAH</I> ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS STILL ALIVE.<a id="k28a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A MAN SENDS A SIN-OFFERING FROM ABROAD IT IS SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS STILL ALIVE.<a id="k28a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Raba said: [This Mishnah] speaks only of an old man who has not reached the years of 'strength'<a id="k28a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and of a man who is just ill, because most invalids recover, but not if he has attained 'years of strength' or was in a dying condition, because most persons in a dying condition die. Against this [opinion] Abaye raised the following objection: 'If when the bearer left the husband was old, even a hundred years old, he yet gives it to the wife on the presumption that he is alive.' This is a refutation. I might, however, still answer that if a man reaches such an age he is altogether exceptional.<a id="k28a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye pointed out to Rabbah a contradiction. We learn: IF, WHEN THE BEARER LEFT, THE HUSBAND WAS OLD OR SICK, HE SHOULD YET DELIVER IT TO THE WIFE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS STILL ALIVE. This seems to contradict the following [Baraitha]: 'If a priest said to his wife, "Here is thy Get [to come into force] an hour before my death",<a id="k28a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; she is forbidden to eat the priestly dues immediately'?<a id="k28a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: Do you compare <i>terumah</i> with bills of divorce? To <i>terumah</i> there is an alternative,<a id="k28a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but to the Get there is no alternative.<a id="k28a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Why not oppose two statements regarding <i>terumah</i> itself? For we learn here: IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ORDINARY ISRAELITE IS MARRIED TO A PRIEST AND HER HUSBAND GOES ABROAD, SHE GOES ON EATING THE <I>TERUMAH</I> DUES ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS STILL ALIVE. Does not this contradict the following [Baraitha]: 'If a Priest says to his [non-priestly] wife, "Here is thy Get [to come into force] an hour before my death", she is forbidden to eat the <i>terumah</i> immediately'? &mdash; R. Adda the son of R. Isaac answered: There the case is different, because he prohibited her to himself one hour before his death.<a id="k28a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa strongly demurred to this, saying: How do you know that he will die first? Perhaps she will die first?<a id="k28a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; In fact, said Abaye. the solution of the contradiction is that the one passage follows R. Meir who disregards the chance of dying, and the other follows R. Judah who takes this chance into account, as we have learnt:<a id="k28a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man buys wine from the Cutheans, he can say, Two logs which I intend to set aside are to be reckoned as <i>terumah</i> [on a hundred], ten logs as first tithe, and nine logs as second tithe, and then begin to drink at once. This is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon forbid him to do this.<a id="k28a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k28b_1:" Before the bearer delivers the Get, as in the former case."
,k28b_2:" At any moment, as in the latter case where he gives her the divorce to come into force an hour before his death."
,k28b_3:" Referring as it does to a contingency of the future."
,k28b_4:" R. Meir not taking this chance into account."
,k28b_5:" Deskarah, N.E. of Bagdad."
,k28b_6:" I.e. perhaps the other person will also neglect to look after the wine-skin."
,k28b_7:" So that our Mishnah agrees with all."
,k28b_8:" R. Meir and R. Simeon, and the Baraitha will represent the view of R. Simeon."
,k28b_9:" According to Lev. I, 4: And he (the bringer of the sacrifice) shall lay his hands on the head of the sin. offering."
,k28b_10:" Who was not required to lay on hands, v. Kid. 36a."
,k28b_11:" Which did not require laying-on of hands. V. Lev. I, 14."
,k28b_12:" V. <i>supra</i>. p. 112, n. 7."
,k28b_13:" E.g., if she is very poor."
,k28b_14:" In the former case we presume the husband to be dead, in the latter, to be alive."
,k28b_15:" Because new evidence may come to light and he may be tried again and acquitted. V. Sanh. 42b."
,k28b_16:" And therefore we do not presume him to be alive for any purposes."
,k28b_17:" According to Jastrow puris nameh, Persian for 'investigation paper', 'verdict'."
,k28b_18:" Which seems to show that after condemnation by an Israelite court we do not assume the possibility that he might have subsequently been acquitted as a result of new evidence; v. Mak. 7a."
,k28b_19:" The passage speaks of one who escaped justice. His flight is a proof of his guilt."
,k28b_20:" [H] cf. Lat. commentariensis, registrars of prisoners, jailers (Jast.)."
,k28b_21:" Lit., 'talking in his simplicity'."
,k28b_22:" And therefore we regard the first husband as dead."
,k28b_23:" [By some means other than the four prescribed deaths, v. Sanh. 81b; or in the case of a heathen court, by casting into a furnace, (Rashi)]."
,k28b_24:" Which seems to contradict the Mishnah as interpreted by R. Joseph."
,k28b_25:" And which therefore they cannot boast about."
,k28b_26:" E.g., that their Court has executed a Jew, though they have not actually seen the execution. [This reading follows Rashi, cur. edd.: to hold firm to their falsehood.] "
}

txt:
<p>
We disregard the chance of his having died,<a id="k28b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but take into account the chance that he may die.<a id="k28b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Adda b. Mattena to Raba: What of the wine-skin [in the case of the <i>terumah</i>, the chance of which breaking is] like the chance that the man may die<a id="k28b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet the authorities differ in regard to it?<a id="k28b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Judah from Diskarta:<a id="k28b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; A wine-skin is different, because it can be handed over to someone to keep. R. Mesharshe ya strongly objected to this, saying: Your security himself requires a security.<a id="k28b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In fact, said Raba, the chance that he has died we do not take into account:<a id="k28b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; whether we take into account the chance that he may die is a question on which Tannaim differ.<a id="k28b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A PERSON SENDS A SIN-OFFERING FROM ABROAD etc. But is not laying-on of hands required?<a id="k28b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph replied that [the Mishnah refers] to an offering sent by a woman,<a id="k28b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said that it refers to the sin-offering of a bird.<a id="k28b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[All three clauses in the Mishnah] are necessary. For if the rule [that the person in question is presumed to be alive] were stated merely in regard to a Get, I should say the reason is because there is no alternative,<a id="k28b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of <i>terumah</i> where there is an alternative, it does not apply. And if the rule had been stated with regard to <i>terumah</i>, I should say that the reason is because sometimes there is no alternative,<a id="k28b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of the sin-offering of the bird I should say that, as there is a doubt [whether the person who sent it is still alive], we should not [take the risk of] bringing profane things into the Temple court. Hence [all three clauses] are necessary.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THREE STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY R. ELEAZAR B. PERATA BEFORE THE SAGES, WHO FORMALLY APPROVED OF THEM. [HE SAID] THAT [PEOPLE IN] A BESIEGED TOWN, [PEOPLE] IN A SHIP STORM-TOSSED AT SEA, AND A MAN WHO HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO COURT TO BE TRIED [FOR HIS LIFE] ARE PRESUMED TO BE ALIVE [SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD]. [PEOPLE, HOWEVER,] IN A BESIEGED TOWN WHICH HAS BEEN CAPTURED OR [IN] A SHIP WHICH HAS BEEN LOST AT SEA OR A MAN WHO HAS BEEN LED OUT TO EXECUTION ARE PRESUMED TO BE EITHER ALIVE OR DEAD ACCORDING TO WHICHEVER VIEW ENTAILS THE GREATER RIGOUR. [HENCE] THE DAUGHTER OF AN ORDINARY ISRAELITE WHO HAS MARRIED A PRIEST OR THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST WHO HAS MARRIED AN ORDINARY ISRAELITE MAY NOT EAT OF THE <I>TERUMAH</I> [IF THE HUSBAND HAS DISAPPEARED IN THIS WAY].<a id="k28b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Joseph said: This rule [with regard to a man led out to execution] applies only to Israelite courts,<a id="k28b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of a heathen court once he is condemned to execution, [there is no question that] he is executed.<a id="k28b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: Do not the heathen courts sometimes take a bribe? &mdash; He replied: If they do, it is only before the writ is signed with the words Pursi shanmag,<a id="k28b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but after it has been signed pursi shanmag they will not take a bribe.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised [from the following]: 'Whenever two persons come forward and say, We testify against So-and-so that he was condemned to death in such-and-such a <i>Beth din</i>, So-and-so and So-and-so being the witnesses against him, such a man has to be put to death'?<a id="k28b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Perhaps [a condemned person] who escapes is different.<a id="k28b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: If he heard [a report] from an Israelite court that So-and-so died or was put to death, they allow his wife to marry again [If, however, the report came] from heathen<a id="k28b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; jailers that he died or was put to death, they do not allow his wife to marry again. Now what is meant here by 'died' and 'put to death'? Shall I say these terms are to be taken literally? Then why in the case of heathens is the wife not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle that [the word of] a heathen speaking without ulterior motive<a id="k28b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is to be accepted [in questions relating to marriage]?<a id="k28b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; I must therefore understand the words 'died' and 'put to death' in the sense of 'Taken out to die'<a id="k28b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; or 'to be put to death'; and yet it states [that if the report comes] from an Israelite court they do allow the wife to marry again?<a id="k28b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The passage quoted means] really 'died' and really 'put to death', and as for your question why in such a case [if the report comes] from a heathen court is she not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle with us that [the word of] a heathen speaking without ulterior motive is to be accepted, [the answer is that] this applies only to a matter in which they themselves have not participated,<a id="k28b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but where the matter is one in which they themselves have participated, they are prone to indulge in falsehood.<a id="k28b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[The following is] another version [of the above passage]. R. Joseph said: This rule applies only to heathen courts,
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k29a_1:" [I.e., it may happen but rarely (Rashi)]."
,k29a_2:" Which supports R. Joseph."
,k29a_3:" And so the passage does not support R. Joseph."
,k29a_4:" When delivering the Get to her."
,k29a_5:" This formula prohibits the agent from sending it on only when he is well, but not when he falls ill."
,k29a_6:" That an agent may not appoint an agent."
,k29a_7:" <i>Infra</i> 66a."
,k29a_8:" Because if they tell a third party to write it. more people will know that the husband is unable to write it himself."
,k29a_9:" As there is nothing to be particular about"
,k29a_10:" If a man said to two or three persons. 'Write me a deed of gift for So-and-so.' Here the question of saving the face of the donor does not arise, as the donor was not supposed to write out his own deed of gift. (V. B.B., 167b)."
,k29a_11:" The ruling in the Mishnah is merely intended to state a prohibition, without affecting the validity of the Get should the bearer send it on by someone else."
,k29a_12:" [Although the husband may not approve of his pledge being in the possession of a third party, the Get is not invalidated since there has been no departure from the husband's instructions in regard to the delivery of the Get itself.] "
}

txt:
<p>
but in the case of an Israelite court once it condemns him to execution he is executed. Said Abaye to him: In an Israelite court also it is possible that some circumstance may be found in his favour [after his condemnation]? &mdash; Such a circumstance happens before the sentence is pronounced; after the sentence is pronounced it does not happen.<a id="k29a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; May we say that this view is supported by the following: Whenever two persons come forward and say. We testify against So-and-so that he was condemned to death in such-and-such a <i>Beth din</i>, So-and-so and So-and-so being witnesses against him, such a man has to be put to death'? &mdash; Perhaps a condemned man who has escaped is different. Come and hear: If he heard [a report] from an Israelite court that So-and-so died or was put to death, they allow his wife to marry again. [If, however, the report came], from a heathen court that he died or was put to death, they do not allow his wife to marry again. Now what is meant here by 'died' and 'put to death'? Shall I say these terms are to be taken literally? Then why in the case of a heathen court is the wife not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle that [the word of] a heathen speaking without ulterior motive is to be accepted [in questions relating to marriage]? I must therefore understand the words 'died' and 'put to death' in the sense of 'taken out to die' or 'to be put to death'; and yet it states [that if the report comes] from an Israelite court they do allow the wife to marry again!<a id="k29a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [The passage means] really 'died' and really 'put to death',<a id="k29a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and as for your question why in such a case [if the report comes] from a heathen court is she not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle with us that the word of a heathen speaking without ulterior motive is to be accepted, [the answer is that] this applies only to a matter in which the heathen has not participated, but where the matter is one in which they have themselves participated, he is prone to indulge in falsehood.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE BEARER OF A GET IN ERETZ YISRAEL FALLS ILL, HE CAN SEND IT ON BY ANOTHER. IF, HOWEVER, [THE HUSBAND] SAID TO HIM, TAKE FOR ME<a id="k29a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; SUCH-AND-SUCH AN ARTICLE FROM HER, HE MAY NOT SEND IT [THE GET] ON BY ANOTHER, SINCE THE HUSBAND MAY NOT WANT HIS PLEDGE TO BE IN THE HAND OF ANOTHER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Kahana said: We have learnt specifically. IF HE FALLS ILL, Cannot I see that for myself? &mdash; [Unless R. Kahana had pointed this out] you might think that the same rule applies even if he does not fall ill, and that [the Mishnah] merely mentioned a usual case. Hence he tells us [that this is not so], How [am I to] understand [the Mishnah]? If the husband said to the bearer simply 'take this [Get]', then surely even if he did not fall ill he can send it on by another? If, however, the husband said, 'You take this,' then even if he did fall ill he cannot send it on by another? And if [the Mishnah] follows R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, then even if he fell ill [although the husband merely said 'take'] he cannot [send it on by another], as it has been taught: 'If a man said, Take this Get to my wife, [the bearer] can send it on by another. If he said, You take this Get to my wife, [the bearer] cannot send it on by another. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: In either case one agent cannot appoint another'? &mdash; If you like I can answer that he said 'Take,' for [even this formula authorises the bearer to send it on by another] only if he falls ill; or if you like I can say that he said 'You take', for only where he falls ill it is different:<a id="k29a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and if you like I can say that the Mishnah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel,<a id="k29a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; only where the bearer falls ill it is different.
</p><p>
	We learnt: IF THE BEARER OF A GET IN ERETZ YISRAEL FALLS ILL, HE CAN SEND IT ON BY ANOTHER. Does not this contradict the following? [For we learnt:] 'If a man says to two persons, "Give a Get to my wife," or to three persons, "Write a Get and give it to my wife," they are to write and give it':<a id="k29a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [which implies, does it not, that] they themselves are [to write it] but not an agent [of theirs]? &mdash; Abaye replied: There the reason is that they should not put the husband to shame,<a id="k29a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but here the husband is not particular.<a id="k29a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: [The reason there is that he only gave them] verbal instructions, and verbal instructions cannot be transmitted to an agent. Does any difference arise in practice between the two? &mdash; It does: in the case of a gift,<a id="k29a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; their difference being in principle the same as that between Rab and Samuel, Rab holding that a gift is not on all fours with a Get and Samuel holding that it is.
</p><p>
	IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, TAKE FOR ME SUCH-AND-SUCH AN ARTICLE FROM HER. Resh Lakish said: Here Rabbi meant [merely] to teach us that the borrower may not lend the article he has borrowed further, nor may the hirer hire it out further.<a id="k29a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Johanan to him: This even schoolchildren know. What we should say is that sometimes [if the bearer did send the Get on by another bearer] the Get itself is no Get, because he puts himself in the same position as the bearer who was told by the husband not to divorce the wife except in the lower room and he divorced her in the upper room, or who was told not to divorce her except with the right hand and he divorced her with the left. Now both authorities are agreed that where she goes out to meet him [the second bearer] and gives him the article and then takes from him the Get, it is a perfectly valid Get.<a id="k29a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Where they differ is in the case where the husband said to the bearer,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k29b_1:" The validity of the Get was apparently made conditional upon the carrying out of the procedure."
,k29b_2:" Resh Lakish is of the opinion that the husband did not intend his instructions to be treated as strict orders of procedure."
,k29b_3:" <i>Var. lec</i>., 'He appoints a court and sends it on (by another agent)'."
,k29b_4:" And therefore presumably the Get is in order."
,k29b_5:" I.e., the second may appoint a third, and so forth."
,k29b_6:" Since the first need not declare, 'In my presence it was written etc.,' the last need not declare, 'I am the messenger of the Beth din'. [Rabbah (Var. lec. Raba) extends the ruling of the Mishnah to Eretz Yisrael where it might be maintained the second could not appoint a third since his own appointment need not necessarily have been made in the presence of a <i>Beth din</i> (Trani)]."
,k29b_7:" Before the Get was delivered to the woman."
,k29b_8:" And is open to criticism."
,k29b_9:" Lit., 'came'."
,k29b_10:" But only for giving the Get to Abba b. Manyumi, and therefore he cannot hand it to another."
,k29b_11:" Lit., 'hamstrung'."
,k29b_12:" 'Was not therefore the bearer also an agent for delivering the Get?"
,k29b_13:" And therefore he was no agent for delivering the Get."
,k29b_14:" <i>Infra</i> 76a."
,k29b_15:" Whom he commissioned to hand over the Get to the wife at the end of the twelve months."
,k29b_16:" But otherwise we do take this chance into account, and the man is not an agent for divorcing her."
,k29b_17:" And the man therefore is an agent and can commission us. "
}

txt:
<p>
Take the article from her and then give her the Get,<a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and he went and gave her the Get and then took from her the article. In such a case R. Johanan declares [the Get] invalid even if [delivered] by [the first bearer] himself, and all the more if by his agent, whereas Resh Lakish declares it valid even if [delivered] by the agent and all the more so if by [the first bearer] himself.<a id="k29b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE BEARER OF A GET FROM FOREIGN PARTS FALLS ILL, HE GOES BEFORE A <I>BETH DIN</I> AND APPOINTS AN AGENT AND SENDS HIM<a id="k29b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [ON WITH THE GET,] DECLARING BEFORE THEM, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.' THE LAST AGENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS DECLARATION: HE MERELY DECLARES, 'I AM THE MESSENGER OF THE <I>BETH DIN</I>.'<a id="k29b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The Rabbis said to Abimi the son of R. Abbahu: Enquire of R. Abbahu, Can the agent of the original bearer appoint a further agent or not? &mdash; He replied: You have no need to ask this. For since it says [in the Mishnah], 'THE LAST AGENT [and not 'the second'] you may conclude that he may appoint another agent. What you should ask, however, is whether, when he appoints an agent, he does so before a <i>Beth din</i> or even without a <i>Beth din</i>. They said to him: We have no need to ask this, since [the Mishnah] says, HE SAYS, I AM THE MESSENGER OF THE <I>BETH DIN</I>. R. Nahman b. Isaac reported the discussion thus: The Rabbis said to Abimi the son of R. Abbahu: Enquire of R. Abbahu, When the agent of the original bearer appoints a second agent, does he do so before the <i>Beth din</i> or even without the <i>Beth din</i>? &mdash; He replied: You ought to ask [first] whether he can appoint a second agent at all. They said: This we have no need to ask, since the Mishnah speaks of 'THE LAST AGENT, which shows that the second bearer can appoint a third. What, however, we want to know is whether he must do so before the <i>Beth din</i> or whether he does not need the <i>Beth din</i>. He said to them: This also you need not ask, since it says, HE SAYS, I AM THE MESSENGER OF THE <I>BETH DIN</I>. Rabbah said: A bearer in Eretz Yisrael can appoint any number of further bearers<a id="k29b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [without needing any <i>Beth din</i>].<a id="k29b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: If the first one dies,<a id="k29b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; they all cease to function. Mar son of R. Ashi said: This statement of my father dates from his youth.<a id="k29b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If the husband dies, is there any substance left in them? From whom do they all derive their status? From the husband. As long as the husband is alive, they are all agents; if the husband dies they all cease to be agents.
</p><p>
	A certain man wanted to send a Get to his wife. The messenger said to him, I do not know her. So the husband said to him, Go and give it to Abba b. Manyumi who knows her, and he will go and give it to her. The man took the Get,<a id="k29b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but did not find Abba b. Manyumi [in town]. He found R. Abbahu and R. Hanina b. Papa and R. Isaac Nappaha [sitting as a <i>Beth din</i>] with R. Safra also present. They said to him: Transmit your commission to us, so that when R. Abba b. Manyumi comes we can give him [the Get] and he can go and give it to the woman. Said R. Safra to them: But this man has not been made an agent for effecting the divorce?<a id="k29b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; They were nonplussed. Said Raba: R. Safra tripped up<a id="k29b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; three ordained Rabbis. R. Ashi, however, said: How did he trip them up? Did the husband say to the man, Abba b. Manyumi [shall deliver the Get] and not you?<a id="k29b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; According to another version, Raba said: R. Safra thinks he has tripped up, but he is mistaken, three ordained Rabbis. Said R. Ashi: Where is the mistake? What did the husband say to the bearer? 'Abba b. Manyumi [shall give it] and not you.'<a id="k29b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man sent a Get to his wife, telling the bearer not to give it to her till thirty days had passed. Before the thirty days had passed, the man found he could not carry out the commission. He therefore consulted Raba. Said Raba: Why is a bearer who falls ill [allowed to appoint another bearer]? Because he is prevented by circumstances [from carrying out his commission]. This man also is prevented by circumstances [from carrying out his commission]. So he said to the man: Transmit your commission to us, so that after thirty days we can appoint a bearer who will give the Get to the wife. Said the Rabbis to Raba: But he is not [at this moment] commissioned to effect the divorce? &mdash; He replied: Since he can divorce her after thirty days, he is practically [now] an agent commissioned to divorce her. They rejoined: Do we not take account of the chance that the husband may have made friends with her [within the thirty days]? Have we not learnt: '[If a man says, This is a Get] from now onward if I do not come within twelve months, if he dies within the twelve months, it is a Get,'<a id="k29b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and in discussing this we raised the question. Do we not take account of the chance that he may [in the meantime] have made friends with her, and Rabba son of R. Huna said: Abba Mari has explained in the name of Rab that this applies to the case where the husband says [on handing the Get to the agent].<a id="k29b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Her word is to be accepted if [on being challenged] she says, I did not come [near him within the twelve months]'?<a id="k29b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba was nonplussed. Later it turned out that the woman in this case was only betrothed. Raba thereupon said: If they said in regard to a married woman [that there is a chance of his making it up with her], it does not follow that they said so in regard to a betrothed woman.<a id="k29b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Raba: The real question is this.
</P>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k30a_1:" Because allowance is not made in the case of a Get for unforeseen circumstances, or, if it is, this circumstance, not being unusual, should have been provided for."
,k30a_2:" Lit., 'a tarkabful (two <i>kabs</i>)'."
,k30a_3:" I.e., has he done his very best?"
,k30a_4:" I.e., he can plead that he has not a bag of gold coins."
,k30a_5:" Lit., 'that he may set apart for them what would be their share', i.e., instead of paying them their dues, heave-offering, tithe, or poor-man's tithe, respectively, he would utilize them as part or whole payment of his debt. He would sell the heave-offering to another priest, since it is forbidden to a lay Israelite, whilst he would retain the tithe or poor-man's tithe for himself, after having set aside the 'heave-offering of the tithe' which too is forbidden to a lay Israelite.]"
,k30a_6:" Because in this case they do not yet belong to them, so how can they he given back in payment of the debt?"
,k30a_7:" Makkire Kehunah, lit., 'acquaintances of priesthood', to whom he is accustomed to give the dues year by year, so that they have a presumptive ownership without having handled the dues; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 513, n. 11."
,k30a_8:" I.e., he transfers the dues, after setting them aside, to a third party on their behalf, and the latter returns them to him in payment of the debt."
,k30a_9:" V. <i>infra</i> 59b, and B.M. 12b."
,k30a_10:" Such as R. Jose here, where the majority do not concur with him."
,k30a_11:" I.e., if at the time when he sets aside the dues the price is lower than when he lent the money, he may give himself the benefit of the drop by appropriating a larger amount of produce."
,k30a_12:" Because his corn appeared to be blighted. and the condition was that he should recoup himself from the crop of that year."
,k30a_13:" Because he obtained a harvest after all."
,k30a_14:" What objection can there be to such a proceeding? V. B.M. 72b."
,k30a_15:" I.e., keeps more for himself"
,k30a_16:" Deut. XV, 2; since he cannot claim anything from the debtors."
,k30a_17:" V. B.M. 44a."
,k30a_18:" The owner is regarded as purchasing the dues from the priest or Levite. The latter has received the money, but the former has not yet handled the goods."
,k30a_19:" Because if the corn was in the stalk it has a chance of recovering."
,k30a_20:" The rest of the tribe being regarded as his heirs, and so liable for the debt."
,k30a_21:" Lit., 'the Poor of the world'. "
}

txt:
<p>
When the <i>Beth din</i> appoint an agent, do they do so in the presence of the original agent or not in his presence? He himself decided the matter [saying]: They can do so either in his presence or not. [A message] was sent from there [Eretz Yisrael]: [They may do so] either in his presence or not in his presence.
</p><p>
	A certain man once said: This shall be a Get if I do not come within thirty days. He did come, but could not get across the river, so he cried out, 'See, I have come, see, I have come.' Samuel said: This is no 'coming'.<a id="k30a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to the <i>Beth din</i>, If I do not make it up with her in thirty days, it will be a Get. He went and tried to make up with her, but she would not be reconciled. Said R. Joseph: Has he offered her a bag<a id="k30a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of gold coins and yet not been able to appease her?<a id="k30a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; According to another version, R. Joseph said: Must he offer her a bag of gold coins? He has done his best to make it up with her, but she would not be reconciled. [The latter version] fits in with the view that in the matter of a Get allowance is made for circumstances over which one has no control,<a id="k30a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the [former] with the view that no such allowance is made. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN LENDS MONEY TO A PRIEST OR A LEVITE OR A POOR MAN ON CONDITION THAT HE CAN RECOUP HIMSELF FROM THEIR DUES,<a id="k30a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY DO SO, IN THE PRESUMPTION THAT THEY ARE STILL ALIVE, AND HE DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CHANCE THAT THE PRIEST OR THE LEVITE MAY HAVE DIED OR THE POOR MAN MAY HAVE BECOME RICH. IF [HE KNOWS THAT] THEY HAVE DIED, HE MUST OBTAIN THE PERMISSION OF THE HEIRS. IF HE MADE THE LOAN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE <I>BETH DIN</I>, HE NEED NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE HEIRS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [Can he do this] even if the dues have not come into the hands [of those who are entitled to them]?<a id="k30a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab said: [The Mishnah speaks of] priests and Levites with whom he is familiar.<a id="k30a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel says: He conveys possession to them through a third party.<a id="k30a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla said: This ruling is based on the view of R. Jose, who said that [in many places] possession is reckoned to have been acquired though strictly speaking it has not been acquired.<a id="k30a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [The reason why] all [the authorities] do not concur with Rab is because the Mishnah does not mention [the man's] acquaintance. [The reason why] all do not concur with Samuel is because the Mishnah does not mention transferring possession. [The reason why] all do not concur with 'Ulla is because we do not base a ruling on the opinion of an individual [Rabbi].<a id="k30a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis have taught: 'If a man lends money to a priest or a Levite or a poor man, on condition that he may recoup himself from their dues, he may do so in the presumption that they are still alive. He may stipulate with them to get the benefit of a lower market price,<a id="k30a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is not reckoned as taking interest. The seventh year does not release it. If he desires to retract, he is not permitted to do so. If he gave up all hope of recovering<a id="k30a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [but afterwards found that he could recover],<a id="k30a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he does not appropriate any dues [in payment of the debt]. because dues are not set aside from that which has been given up as lost.'
</p><p>
	The Master says: 'He may stipulate to get the benefit of a lower market price.' Surely this is self-evident?<a id="k30a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He informs us that even though he did not stipulate this expressly, he is reckoned as having done so.
</p><p>
	'This is not reckoned as interest': why so? &mdash; Since when he has nothing he does not give, when he has something [and gives less]<a id="k30a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; this is not counted as interest.
</p><p>
	'The seventh year does not release it': because we do not apply here the verse, he shall not press.<a id="k30a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'If he desires to retract, he is not permitted': R. Papa said: This rule applies only to the owner vis-a-vis the priest, but if the priest wants to retract, he may, as we have learnt:<a id="k30a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; If he [the purchaser] has given him [the seller] money but has not yet pulled into his possession the produce, he can retract.<a id="k30a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'If the owner has given up all hope of recovering he does not appropriate any dues, because dues are not set aside from that which has been given up as lost': Is not this obvious? &mdash; It required to be stated for the case where the corn was in stalk [before it was blighted]. You might think that in that case the corn is counted as something [of value].<a id="k30a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now I know [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Jacob says: If a man lends a priest or a Levite money in the presence of the <i>Beth din</i> and they die [before repaying], he sets aside dues for them as belonging to the whole tribe [and recovers therefrom].<a id="k30a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [If he lent] to a poor man before the <i>Beth din</i> and he died, he sets aside dues for him as belonging to the poor of Israel [and recovers therefrom]. R. Ahi said: As belonging to all the poor.<a id="k30a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the practical difference between them?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


