mishnah

MISHNAH: Even women who cannot be believed if they say that [a woman’s] husband died are trustworthy to bring her bill of divorce: Her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her sister-in-law, and her husband’s daughter. What is the difference between divorce and death? The writing is the proof. A woman may herself bring her own bill of divorce, but she still is required to say that it was written and signed before her.

Think of it, if she stayed in Rome ten years and remarried! Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah if he said to her, you shall only be divorced [by this document] at place X.

MISHNAH: Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he wrote [a bill] to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one by, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.

MISHNAH: If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time. For bonds, he has to leave space for the lender, the borrower, the sum, and the time. For commercial deeds, he has to leave space for the buyer, the seller, the sum, the field, and the time, because of good order. Rebbi Jehudah invalidates all of these. Rebbi Eleazar validates all of them except women’s bills of divorce, for it is said: “He shall write for her”, in her name.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

MISHNAH: If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it, if he finds it on the spot it is valid, otherwise it is invalid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a box, if he recognizes it, it is valid. If somebody transports a bill of divorce from an old or sick man, he delivers it to her under the presumption that the man is alive. The daughter of an Israel who is married to a Cohen and whose husband went overseas, may eat heave under the presumption that he is alive. If somebody sends his purification offering from overseas, it is sacrificed under the presumption that he is alive.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar ben Parṭa said three things before the Sages and they confirmed his words: [People in] a city which was surrounded by palisades, on a ship in emergency at sea, or a person about to be judged, are presumed to be alive. But on [people in] a city conquered from palisades, a ship lost at sea, or a person led to execution, one puts the restrictions of the living and the dead: neither an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may eat heave.

MISHNAH: If somebody is transporting a bill of divorce in the Land of Israel when he falls sick, he may send it by somebody else. If [the husband] had told him, take from her such and such, he cannot send it by somebody else since he does not want to see his valuables in somebody else’s hand.

MISHNAH: If somebody transports a bill of divorce overseas and falls sick, he assembles a court to send it and declares before them: “it was written and signed before me.” The later messenger does not have to say: “it was written and signed before me,” but he says: “I am an agent of the court.

MISHNAH: If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account, he can proceed on the assumption that they are alive and does not worry whether the Cohen or Levite died or the poor person became rich. If they died, he has to receive permission from the heirs; if the loan was executed in court he does not need permission.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him, separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate, but from his own he may separate.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The Mishnah speaks of the heirs in priesthood and Levitic status. But concerning the poor, the poor has no inheritance. Bar Qappara stated: No person is immune from this; if not he then his son, if not his son then his grandson. This means, he can change the terms. Can the creditor change the terms? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody lends money to a first rich and then poor person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost and the poor acquired what is in his hand.” This implies that the creditor cannot change the terms.

MISHNAH: If somebody sets aside produce to be used for future heave and tithes, or money to be used for Second Tithe, can refer to them on the presumption that they exist. If they were lost, one worries about them for 24 hours back, the words of Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Jehudah says, three times a year one has to check the wine: At the time of East wind after Tabernacles, when the vines blossom, and when fluid starts to enter unripe grapes.

There, we have stated: “If someone buys wine from Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, for the wine bag might spring a leak and it may turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” Does the Mishnah here not follow Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there it was not in order from the start. But here it is not in order from now to the future.

MISHNAH: If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife and caught up with the agent, or he sent another agent after him and said: the bill of divorce I gave you is annulled, it is annulled. If he met his wife or he sent an agent to her and said: the bill of divorce I sent to you is annulled, it is annulled. After the bill of divorce came into her possession, he no longer can annul it.

MISHNAH: In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do that because of the public good. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

MISHNAH: A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only by an oath. When they avoided letting her swear, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should make a vow on the instruction of the orphans for anything they would decide on and collect her ketubah, and that witnesses sign the bill of divorce because of the public good. Hillel instituted prozbol for the public good.

HALAKHAH: “A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only,” etc. Earlier they swore falsely and buried their children, since it is written: “For vain [vows] I smote your children.” In addition, they fear vows more than oaths. If she transgressed and swore? Rav Huna said, if she swore, she swore. Rav said to his daughter-in-law: If I were not a person readily making concessions, even the cover on your head would be my property. Samuel said, she acquires the garments which she is wearing. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “Neither his wife’s garments nor his children’s are his property.”

MISHNAH: If a slave was kidnapped and ransomed, if it was as a slave he shall serve, if as a free person he shall not serve; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in any case he shall serve. A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.

MISHNAH: A person who is half slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, you provided for his master but you did not provide for him. He can marry neither a slave woman nor a free woman: shall he be alone? But the world was created only for procreation and increase, as it is said: “He did not create it to be empty, He formed it to be settled.” For the public good one forces his master to manumit him and he writes a bond for half his value. The House of Hillel changed and instructed following the House of Shammai.

MISHNAH: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles or outside the Land, the slave gains his freedom. One does not ransom kidnap victims for more than the going rate because of the public good. One does not smuggle kidnap victims out because of the public good; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, because of the welfare of the kidnap victims. One does not buy Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot from Gentiles for more than their worth because of the public good.

MISHNAH: If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation, he cannot take her back; because of a vow, he cannot take her back. Rebbi Jehudah says, for any vow known in public, he cannot take her back; not known in public, he can take her back. Rebbi Meїr says, for any vow which needs investigation by a Sage, he cannot take her back; if it does not need investigation by a Sage, he can take her back. Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah said, it happened in Sidon that one said to his wife, a qonam if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back, for the public good.

MISHNAH: If somebody divorces his wife because she is a she-ram, Rebbi Jehudah says, he cannot take her back, but the Sages say, he may take her back. If she was married to another man, had children by him, and requests her ketubah, Rebbi Jehudah says, he tells her: Your silence would be better than your talking.

MISHNAH: If somebody sells himself and his children to Gentiles, one does not buy him back, but one buys his children back after their father’s death. If somebody sold his field to a Gentile and then a Jew bought it back from him, the buyer brings first fruits because of the public good.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sells himself and his children to Gentiles,” etc. The Mishnah, if he sold himself repeatedly. But if he sold himself once, one buys him back, but if he sold himself to the games, one does not buy him back. There was a case of one who sold himself to the games; the case came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said, what can we do? He did it for his livelihood.

The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

MISHNAH: For tort victims one estimates with best quality land, for a creditor with average quality, and for a woman’s ketubah with lowest quality. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also for a woman’s ketubah with average quality.

MISHNAH: One does not collect from encumbered property as long as there is free property, even if the latter is of lowest quality. One may collect from orphans’ property only from the lowest quality.

HALAKHAH: “One cannot collect for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should be eager to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there about an adult orphan, here about an underage orphan.

MISHNAH: One cannot collect for usufruct, for improvement of the land, or for sustenance of the wife and the daughters from incumbered property, for the public good.

There, we have stated: “You have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find.” Rebbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good.” Rebbi Abba said, this Mishnah [applies] when he said to him, you found my two oxen. But if he said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In this case they did institute. But in the first case, it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen, but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated [to swear]? The verse says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me, and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.

MISHNAH: If orphans rely on a property owner or if their father appointed a guardian for them; these are obligated to tithe their produce. A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit not for detriment. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage. If it did do damage, from whom does one take payment? Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the orphans. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, from the guardian. And even if Rebbi Joḥanan never taught this, does not his word imply it since he said if in the end they are detrimental, they are detrimental?

MISHNAH: If someone causes impurity, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated. If Cohanim in the Temple intentionally made [a sacrifice] piggul, they have to pay.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan did not go to the assembly. He was standing with Rebbi Mana and asked him, what new was said? He said: So says Rebbi Yose, a person causing impurity does not have the status of a perpetrator, fromthe following: “Heave which became impure.” He answered: Explain it, if it became impure by itself; then you cannot infer anything, because of a Mishnah: “If somebody judged, absolved the guilty and obligated the innocent, declared the pure impure and the impure pure.” For Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: If he touched it with his hand. Samuel said: If he touched it with his hand. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi says, it should have been logical that even intentionally he should have been free. Why did they say that he is obligated? That he should tell. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should have been logical that even unintentionally he should have been obligated. Why did they say that he is free? Because of a fine. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan comes from this: “If someone causes anything to become impure, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person who puts a yoke on another’s cow is free in human law but guilty in Heaven’s law.”

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudguedah testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father, that she must be divorced by a bill of divorce, and about an underage girl who was married to a Cohen, that she may eat heave and her husband inherits from her if she dies, and about a stolen log which was used to build a house, that [the owner] has to take the value, and about a purification sacrifice of a stolen animal which was not known in public, that it atones because of the order of the altar.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, why did they say “an Israel underage girl eats heave,” that all should be eager to marry her for her attractiveness. Rebbi Shammai said, only if she knows how to keep her [valuables given for] preliminary marriage. Rebbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for her attractiveness, that means, even if she does not know how to keep her [valuables given for] preliminary marriage.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rebbi Assi: An underage girl has no definitive marriage to let her eat heave. Rebbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave.” Rebbi Abin asked: If she was definitively married but had no intercourse, [the husband] sent her to her father’s house and she grew up, may she eat heave? Let us hear from the following: “Based on her earlier definitive marriage.”

MISHNAH: There was no law of siqarii in Judea for those killed in the war. After those killed in the war there was a law of siqarii. How is this? If one bought from a siqarius and afterwards from the original owner, his acquisition is void; from the original owner and afterwards from the siqarius, his acquisition is valid. If one bought from a husband and afterwards from the wife, his acquisition is void; from the wife and afterwards from the husband, his acquisition is valid. This is the earlier Mishnah; a later court said that he who buys from a siqarius gives a quarter to the original owner. When is this? If they have no means to buy, but if they have the means to buy, they precede everybody else. Rebbi (Joshua) assembled a court who voted that if it was in the siqarius’s hand for twelve months, any who wants to buy shall buy and give a quarter to the original owner.

MISHNAH: There was no law of siqarii in Judea for those killed in the war. After those killed in the war there was a law of siqarii. How is this? If one bought from a siqarius and afterwards from the original owner, his acquisition is void; from the original owner and afterwards from the siqarius, his acquisition is valid. If one bought from a husband and afterwards from the wife, his acquisition is void; from the wife and afterwards from the husband, his acquisition is valid. This is the earlier Mishnah; a later court said that he who buys from a siqarius gives a quarter to the original owner. When is this? If they have no means to buy, but if they have the means to buy, they precede everybody else. Rebbi (Joshua) assembled a court who voted that if it was in the siqarius’s hand for twelve months, any who wants to buy shall buy and give a quarter to the original owner.

MISHNAH: A deaf-mute communicates in sign language, and Ben Bathyra says, in pantomimes, referring to movables. Underage children: their buy is a buy and their sale is a sale, referring to movables.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

“One puts an eruv in an old house.” Rebbi Abin said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller.

MISHNAH: A woman may lend to her neighbor, whom she suspects in matters of the Sabbatical, a coarse sieve, a fine sieve, grindstones, or an oven, but she should neither cull nor grind with her. The wife of a Fellow may lend to the wife of a vulgar a coarse sieve and a fine sieve, she may cull, grind, and sift with her, but she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors. All this has only been said for communal peace. One encourages Gentiles in the Sabbatical year but not Jews. One greets them for communal peace.

HALAKHAH: “A woman may lend to her neighbor,” etc. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? He said to him, I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked: Has this been said for all of this chapter or only for this Mishnah? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: From the fact that we state this Mishnah in Giṭṭin it follows that it was said only for this Mishnah.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked: Has this been said for all of this chapter or only for this Mishnah? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: From the fact that we state this Mishnah in Giṭṭin it follows that it was said only for this Mishnah.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked: Has this been said for all of this chapter or only for this Mishnah? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: From the fact that we state this Mishnah in Giṭṭin it follows that it was said only for this Mishnah.

There, we have stated: One does not knead or form bread with a baker working in impurity. And it was stated additionally: One should neither cull nor grind with him. And here, it says so? Rebbi La said, here for profane [bread], there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues say, one if he washes, there if he does not wash. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in.”

MISHNAH: Somebody who says, accept this bill of divorce for my wife, or bring this bill of divorce to my wife, may retract if he wants to retract. If a woman said, accept the bill of divorce for me, he cannot retract even if he wants to retract. Therefore, if the husband said, it is not possible for me that you accept for her but bring and deliver it to her, he may retract if he wants to retract. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even if she says, take my the bill of divorce for me, he cannot retract even if he wants to retract.

MISHNAH: A woman who said, accept my bill of divorce for me, needs two groups of witnesses; two who say that she appointed in their presence and two who say that in their presence he received it and tore it up, even if the first ones are the latter ones, or one of the first together with one of the latter and a third person is associated with them. A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah says, no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce. Any female who cannot take care of her bill of divorce cannot be divorced. If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand. Therefore, if the husband wants to retract he can retract since an underage person cannot appoint an agent. But if her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.

“A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that [her father] contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she has legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage by himself and through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage by herself and through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

“A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that [her father] contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she has legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage by himself and through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage by herself and through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

“A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that [her father] contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she has legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage by himself and through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage by herself and through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

MISHNAH: If somebody says, deliver this bill of divorce to my wife at place X and he delivered it at another place, it is invalid. But if he said, she is at place X, and he delivered it at another place, it is valid. If a woman says, accept my bill of divorce at place X, and he accepted it at another place, it is invalid, but Rebbi Eleazar declares it valid. Bring my bill of divorce from place X and he brought it from another place, it is valid.

HALAKHAH: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me,” etc. The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eleazar. But following Rebbi Eleazar she is (not) divorced unless [the husband] tells [the agent]: Do not divorce her except at place X. “If he said, she is at place X and he delivered it at another place,” Rebbi Eleazar agrees that he only indicates a place; the rabbis agree that he only indicates a place.

MISHNAH: “Bring my bill of divorce”, she may eat heave until the bill is delivered to her. “Receive my bill of divorce,” she is immediately forbidden to eat heave. “Receive my bill of divorce at place X,” she may eat heave until the bill arrives at that place; Rebbi Eleazar forbids immediately.

MISHNAH: If somebody says: “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife, divorce her, write a letter and deliver to her”, they should write and deliver. “Discharge her, provide for her, treat her according to the law, do what is necessary;” he did not say anything. Earlier, they said that if somebody was led away in a neck-iron when he said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, they should write and deliver. They reconsidered and said, also one who leaves on a ship or in a caravan. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, also the dangerously sick.

MISHNAH: If somebody was thrown into a cistern and said, anybody hearing my voice should write a bill of divorce for my wife, they should write and deliver. If a healthy person said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, he wants to make fun of her. It happened to a healthy person who had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, that he went on the roof, fell down, and died. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the Sages said that if he jumped, it is a bill of divorce; if the wind pushed him, it is no bill of divorce.

MISHNAH: If one said to two persons, give a bill of divorce to my wife, or to three persons, write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife, they should write and deliver. If he said to three persons, deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, they shall ask others to write since he appointed them as a court, the words of Rebbi Meïr. This instructions for practice did Ḥananiah from Ono send from jail: I know from tradition that if someone said to three persons, deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, they shall ask others to write since he appointed them as a court. Rebbi Yose said, we told the messenger that we also know from tradition that even if he said to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, they shall learn, write, and deliver. If he said to ten persons, write a bill of divorce for my wife, one writes and two sign. All of you shall write, one writes and all sign. Therefore, if one of them died, the bill of divorce would be void.

HALAKHAH: “If one said to two persons, give a bill of divorce to my wife,” etc. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Meïr, from the next sentence: “If he said to three persons;” and Rav Ḥisda said, the reason of Rebbi Meïr is that we find everywhere that others write and the court signs, also here others write and the court affixes their signatures.

MISHNAH: If somebody had an attack of seizures and said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, he did not say anything. If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are nothing. If somebody became paralyzed, one asks him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nods his head, one checks him out three times. If he answers no for no, yes for yes, they shall write and deliver.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are disregarded.” He explains it: After he regains his sanity, his later words are disregarded. If he gave her a bill of divorce saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he threw her bill of divorce to her saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Eleazar said that Rebbi Abin asked: If he separated heave from his grain heap and said, it shall be heave only tomorrow but the next day he suffered an attack of seizures, is this the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it: If somebody had been crucified or mortally wounded when he signalled to write a bill of divorce to his wife, one writes and delivers on the assumption that his soul hangs on in him. Is it not impossible that his mind should not have been disturbed for an hour? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others execute his written instructions? They upheld it, if he was illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the bill] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, (here also it is invalid). Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

MISHNAH: If they said to him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? If he said to them, write, and they told the scribe who wrote, and the witnesses who signed; even though they wrote, signed, and delivered it to him and he delivered it to her, this is an invalid bill of divorce unless he said to the scribe, write, and to the witnesses, sign.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce if I should die from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,” he did not say anything. “From today if I should die, from now if I should die,” that is a bill of divorce. “From today after my death” is no bill of divorce; if he dies she must receive ḥalîṣah but is barred from levirate marriage.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should die from this illness;” if he got up, walked on the market, fell ill again and died, one estimates whether he died from the original sickness, in which case it is a bill of divorce; otherwise it is no bill of divorce. She may not be alone with him except in the presence of witnesses, which may be even a male or a female slave except her personal slave girl since she has no shame in the presence of her personal slave girl. What is her status in those days? Rebbi Jehudah says, she is a married woman in all respects. Rebbi Yose says, she is divorced and not divorced.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz;” she is divorced and has to pay. “On condition that you give me within thirty days,” if she paid within thirty days she is divorced, otherwise she is not divorced. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, it happened in Sidon that someone said to his wife “this is your bill of divorce on condition that you return to me my stole” and it turned out that his stole was lost; then the Sages said, she shall pay him its value.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you serve my father,” “on condition that you breast-feed my son,” how long does she have to breast-feed him? Two years; Rebbi Jehudah says, eighteen months. If the son or the father died, it is a valid divorce. “On condition that you serve my father for two years,” or “on condition that you breast-feed my son for two years;” if the son died or the father said, I cannot stand you serving me (without being offended), it is no divorce. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is a divorce. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated a principle: Given any hindrance which is not from her side, it is a divorce.

HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you serve my father,” etc. Rebbi Abba said: During his lifetime, on condition that she serve all his needs, on condition that she breast-feed all his needs. Even if she did not serve all his needs, even if she did not breast-feed all his needs, but even if she served him for one hour, or breast-fed him for one hour. After death, even if she never served him or never breast-fed him. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “How long does she have to breast-feed him? Two years, Rebbi Jehudah says, eighteen months.” Rebbi Abin said, this was taught about the cost of a wet-nurse.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Judea to Galilee, came to Antipatris, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go from Galilee to Judea, came to Kefar Othnay, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within thirty days from today;” if he intended to go overseas, came to Acco, and returned, it isinvalidated following his condition. “This is your bill of divorce if I should be absent from you for thirty days;” even if he repeatedly came and left, it is a bill of divorce if he never was alone with her.

HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce,” etc. For what? Rebbi Elazar said, for his house; Rebbi Joḥanan said, for places. The Mishnah supports him who said, for his house: “If he came to Acco, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce. But even if you say that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce, does that mean also for conditions imposed on a bill of divorce?

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is no bill of divorce. “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is a bill of divorce. “If I should not return within twelve months from today write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it within twelve months, it is no bill of divorce. “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife if I should not return within twelve months from today;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it after twelve months, it is no bill of divorce; Rebbi Yose says, this is an example of a bill of divorce. If they wrote after twelve months and delivered after twelve months but he had died, if the bill of divorce preceded the death it is a bill of divorce but if the death preceded the bill of divorce it is no bill of divorce. If it is not known, it is a case where they say, she is divorced and not divorced.

MISHNAH: If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in her own house or her own courtyard, she is divorced. If he threw it to her inside his house or his courtyard, even if he was together with her in a bed, she is not divorced. Into her bosom or her wool basket, she is divorced.

MISHNAH: If he said to her, “take this bond,” or she found it behind his back, she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If he put it into her hand while she was asleep, after she awoke she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If she was standing in the public domain when he threw it to her and it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.

MISHNAH: The same applies for preliminary marriages and for [liquidation of] debts. If he said to him, throw to me what you owe me and he threw it close to the lender, the borrower is acquitted, close to the borrower, the borrower remains obligated, in the middle both of them must share it. If she was standing on top of her roof and he threw it to her, as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace she is divorced. If he was on top and she below, once it left the domain of the roof she is divorced even if it was blotted out or burned.

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

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet, or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition. Rebbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the below. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest, for the Sabbath only if it rested. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet, or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition. Rebbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the below. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest, for the Sabbath only if it rested. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce, but the House of Hillel forbid it. And what is an old bill of divorce? If he was again alone with her after he wrote it for her.

MISHNAH: If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

MISHNAH: If somebody married his sister-in-law while her co-wife went and married somebody else, if the sister-in-law turns out to be a she-ram, the co-wife shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

MISHNAH: If the scribe wrote and then in error handed the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man and they exchanged them, then later the bill of divorce is found with the man and the receipt with the woman, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Rebbi Eliezer says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.

“Rebbi Eleazar says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.” What is immediately? Rebbi Ze‘ira says, before she was preliminarily married, or when she was preliminarily married. Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, before she was definitively married, or when she was definitively married. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “Since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.”

MISHNAH: If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, the House of Shammai say, he disabled her from the priesthood. But the House of Hillel say, even if he handed her [the bill of divorce] and attached a condition, if the condition was not satisfied he did not disable her from the priesthood.

MISHNAH: If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him in a hostelry, the House of Shammai say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him, but the House of Hillel say that she needs a second bill of divorce from him. When? If she was divorced after definitive marriage. But they agree that if she was divorced after preliminary marriage, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him since he was not intimate with her. If somebody married her based on a bald bill of divorce, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her.

MISHNAH: Anybody can supplement a bald document following the words of Ben Nanas. Rebbi Aqiba says, one supplements the signatures only by relatives who would be able to testify under other circumstances. What is a bald document? One whose knots are more than its signatures.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah applies if one witness is missing, but only if there are three or more. Two or three at the beginning is invalid, one below the three is valid. Rebbi Mana asked: That is, if they are continuous. If they are with interruptions? As one says, they are considered like testimony at a distance, they only serve to certify the testimony. And so it is here. If there were nine, can he untie two and have two sign? Or are two witnesses on a knotted document nothing? If there were five, it is obvious that he unties one and has it signed. It turns out that his untying permits it following Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel, for Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, the essential part is what validates, even if he ties and signs after that. That is, if he ties all knots and after that the first three [witnesses] did sign. But if he tied the first three and had them signed, even if he makes many ties and lets many sign it is valid. Practice is that a knotted document is first knotted and then signed. If he made the first knots and had them signed right away, it is obvious that the first two did not sign the knotted document.

MISHNAH: If somebody in divorcing his wife says to her: Herewith you are permitted to any man except Mr. X, Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages prohibit. What should he do? He should take the document back from her and deliver it again while saying, herewith you are permitted to any man. If he had written the condition in the document it would be invalid even if he had later erased it.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

MISHNAH: “You are permitted to any man except to my father and your father, to my brother and your brother, to a slave, a Gentile,” or anybody she is unable to contract a preliminary marriage with, it is valid. “You are permitted to any man except as a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one having received ḥalȋṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite girl to an Israel, the daughter of an Israel to a a bastard or a Gibeonite,” or anybody she could contract a preliminary marriage with even if it is sinful, it is invalid. The essence of the bill of divorce: You are herewith permitted to any man. Rebbi Jehudah says: This shall be for you from me a divorce scroll and a letter of abandonment, to enable you to marry any man you desire. The essence of the bill of manumission: You are a free person, you are on your own.

Rebbi Mana said: He has to be careful not to say “וְדִין”. Rebbi Mana asked: “You are on your own”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one must say: “You are a free person, you are on your own.” The Mishnah said so: “You are a free person, you are on your own.”

MISHNAH: Three kinds of bills of divorce are invalid, but if she married, the child is legitimate: If he wrote in his own handwriting but it was not signed by witnesses; it was signed by witnesses but is not dated; it is dated but only one witness signed it. These are three invalid kinds of bills of divorce, but if she married, the child is legitimate.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar says, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.

MISHNAH: If two men sent two identical bills of divorce which became mixed up, one delivers both to both women. Therefore, if one of them was lost, the second became unusable.

MISHNAH: If five wrote collectively a bill of divorce, the man A divorces B and C D and the witnesses sign at the end, all are valid and [the bill] shall be delivered to each of them. If one wrote the text separately for each of them and the witnesses sign at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.