5. All are qualified to write a bill of divorce, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. A woman may write her own bill of divoice and a man may write his own quittance,4 since the validity of the writ depends on them that sign it. All are qualified to bring a bill of divorce excepting a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, or a gentile.
6. If it was received [from the husband] by a minor who became of age [before he delivered it to the wife], or by a deaf-mute whose senses became sound, or by an imbecile who became sane, or by a gentile who became a proselyte, it is still invalid. But if [it was received from the husband by] one of sound senses who then became a deaf-mute and again became of sound senses [before he delivered it to the wife], or by one with sight who '■ If he is a priest. See Lev. 22”; App. I. 48.
* Which the woman signs and leaves with him on receipt of her Ketubah.
then became blind and again received his sight, or by one who was sane who then became an imbecile and again became sane, it is valid. This is the general rule: If at the beginning and at the end an act is performed knowingly, it is valid.
7. Howbeit women that are not deemed trustworthy if they say, ‘Her husband is dead’,1 are deemed trustworthy when they bring her bill o', divorce; namely, her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her husband’s brother’s wife, and her husband’s daughter. Wherein2 does [evidence of] divorce differ from [evidence of] a death? The written document [in divorce] affords proof. The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, save only that she must say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence’.
3. 1. No bill of divorce is valid that is not written expressly for the woman. Thus if a man was passing through the market and heard the scribes calling out,3 ‘Such a man is divorcing such a woman of such a place’, and he said, ‘That is my name and that is the name of my wife’, it is not a valid document wherewith to divorce his wife. Moreover, if he had drawn up a document wherewith to divorce his wife but he changed his mind, and a man of his city found him and said to him, ‘Mv name is like thy name and my wife’s name like thy wife’s name’, it is not a valid docu¬ ment wherewith to divorce his wife; moreover if he had two wives and their names were alike and he had drawn up a document wherewith to divorce the elder, he may not therewith divorce the younger; moreover if he said to the scrivener, ‘Write it so that I may divorce therewith whom I will’, it is not a valid document wherewith to divorce any one.
2. He that writes out copies of the formula of a bill of divorce should leave space for the man, for the woman, and for the date; in bonds of indebtedness he should leave space for the lender, for the borrower, for the sum, and for the date; in deeds of sale he should leave space for the buyer, for the seller, for the price, for the field, and for the date — because of the advantage.4 R. Judah pronounces them all invalid. R. Eliezer pro¬ nounces them all valid, excepting the writs of divorce, for it is written. And he shall write for her 5 — expressly for her.6 3. If a man brought a bill of divorce and lost it but straightway found it again, it remains valid; otherwise it becomes invalid. If he found it in a satchel or a bag, and recognized it, it remains valid. If a man brought a bill of divorce, and he had left the husband aged or sick, he must deliver it to her with the presumption that he is still living. If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and her husband went beyond the sea, she may eat of Heave-offering7 with the presumption that he is still living. If a man sent his Sin-offering from beyond the sea, it is offered with the presumption that he is still living.
4. Three things did R. Eleazar b. Perata declare before the Sages and they confirmed his words: concerning [them that live in] a town that is besieged, or [that travel in] a ship storm -tossed at sea, or a man that is gone forth to be judged8 — these must be presumed to be still living; but con¬ cerning [them that lived in] a town that was overcome after a siege, or 3 Dictating the prescribed formula to their pupils.
* That scriveners might have copies available at need. s Deut. 24*.
6 Some texts omit ‘expressly for her'. 7 Lev. 22l*f. 8 On a capital charge.
310 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM [them that travelled in] a ship that was lost at sea, or a man that has been condemned to death, the more stringent rulings for the living and the more stringent rulings for the dead apply to them; [thus whether the wife of such- a-one was] the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, or a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite, she may not eat of Heave-offering.1 5. If within the Land of Israel a man brought a bill of divorce and fell sick, he may send it by another’s hand; but if the husband had said, ‘Take from her such a thing for me’, he may not send it by another's hand, since it was not the will of the husband that his pledge should fall into another’s hand.
6. If a man brought a bill of divorce from beyond the sea and fell sick, the court appoints another and sends him, but the first messenger must say before the court, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence’; and the other messenger needs not to say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence’; but he says, ‘I am the messenger of the court’.
7. If a man lent money to a priest or a levite or a poor man, so that in its stead he may set apart what would fall to their lot,2 he may set it apart with the presumption that they are still living, and he need not fear lest the priest or the levite shall have died or that the poor man shall have become rich. If they died he must get permission from the heirs;3 but if he had lent the money in the presence of the court he need not get permission from the heirs.
8. If a man put aside produce so that by virtue of it he may set apart Heave-offering or Tithes,4 or if he put aside money so that by virtue of it he may set apart the Second Tithe,5 he may, by virtue of them, continue to set apart his dues6 with the presumption that what he put aside still endures; but if it was lost he must assume [that it had been lost] throughout the past twenty-four hours. So R. Eleazar b. Shammua. R. Judah says: At three times must they examine wine7 [that has thus been put aside]: during the east wind that follows the Feast [of Tabernacles], when the berries first appear, and when the juice enters into the unripe grapes.
4. 1. If a man sent a bill of divorce to his wife and then overtook the messenger or sent another messenger after him, and said to him, ‘The bill of divorce that I gave to thee is void’, it thereby becomes void. If he reached his wife first or sent another messenger to her, and said to her, ‘The bill of divorce that I have sent to thee is void’, it thereby becomes void. But [if he or the messenger reached her] after the bill of divorce came into her hand he can no more render it void.
2. Beforetime a man used to set up a court [of three] elsewhere8 and 1 The former must presume her husband to be dead, and the latter must presume him to be alive.
2 As Heave-offering, Tithe, or Poorman’s Tithe, respectively, and sell (to another priest) the Heave-offering, and consume the Tithe or Poorman’s Tithe, reserving their value towards the repayment of his loan; but he must set aside the 'Heave-offering of Tithe’, since this is forbidden to a non-priest.
2 Lest they prefer to pay off the debt and receive the dues in kind.
4 And regard that produce as taking the place of the dues for which other produce of his would be liable.
5 And regard it as redeemed and free for his use (see p. 73, n. 6.)
6 i.e. regard what he has put aside as representing his dues. 1 Lest it has gone sour.
8 Where the husband was; he did not disannul the bill of divorce before the wife or messenger.
disannul it [before them]; but Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained that they should not do so, as a precaution for the general good.1 Beforetime a man used to change his name and her name, and the name of his city and the name of her city.2 Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained that [in the bill of divorce] there should be written, ‘Such-a-man’ and all other names that he had, and ‘Such-a- woman’ and all other names that she had, as a precaution for the general good.
3. A widow may not receive payment [of her Ketubah] from the property of the orphans unless she swears [to her claim] on oath.3 But when they refrained from making her swear on oath, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained that she should vow to the orphans whatsoever they would,4 and receive her Ketubah. Witnesses sign the bill of divorce as a precaution for the general good. Hillel ordained the prozbol s as a precaution for the general good.
4. If a bondman was taken captive and others ransomed him, if he was ransomed as a bondman he must remain a bondman, but if he was ran¬ somed as a free man he may not remain a bondman. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: In either case he must remain a bondman. If a man pledged his bondman to others as security and then set him free, by right the slave is in no wise bound [to his new master]; but as a precaution for the general good they compel his [new] master and he sets him free, and [the bondman] writes him a bond of indebtedness for his value. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: He writes nothing, but [his first master] that set him free [is liable for his value].
5. If6 a man was half bondman and half freedman7 he should labour one day for his master and one day for himself. So the School of Hillel. The School of Shammai said to them: Ye have ordered it well for his master, but for him ye have not ordered it well: [thus] he cannot marry a bond- woman since he is half freedman, and he cannot marry a freedwoman since he is half bondman. May he never marry? And was not the world only created for fruition and increase, as it is written, He created it not a waste; he formed it to be inhabited?8 But as a precaution for the general good they should compel his master and he sets him free; and the bondman writes him a bond of indebtedness for half his value. The School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai.
Jb. If a man sold his bondman to a gentile or to any one outside the Land J6f Israel], he goes forth a freedman. Captives should not be ransomed for more than their value as a precaution for the general good.9 Captives should not be helped to escape, as a precaution for the general good.10 Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: As a precaution for the good of the captives. And none should buy scrolls [of the Law], phylacteries,11 or Mezuzahs11 from gentiles for more than their value, as a precaution for the general good.13 1 Lest she remarry on the strength of a cancelled bill of divorce.
* He had adopted a changed name and home-town to conceal his identity for certain other reasons, and used this changed name in the bill of divorce. 3 Cf. Ket. y*.
4 e.g. 'Korban be to me the fruits of the earth if I have received my Ketubah V 7 He had been the property of two jointholdera and one of them had set him free.
8 Is. 4S1*. 9 Lest kidnapping become a lucrative trade.
>° Lest captives be bound in chains. “ p. 114, n. 16.
,J App. I. 25. Lest the theft of them be encouraged.
312 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM 7. If a man put away his wife because of her evil fame, he may not take her back; and if because of a vow, he may not take her back. R. Judah says: If because of a vow that was known to many he may not take her back; but for one that was not known to many he may take her back. R. Meir says: For any vow that needed inquiry of a Sage: he may not take her back; but for any that did not need inquiry of a Sage he may take her back. R. Eliezer said: They did not forbid the one2 except by reason of the other.3 R. Jose b. R. Judah said:4 It once happened in Sidon that a man said to his wife, 'Konaml if I do not divorce thee’, and he divorced her; but the Sages per¬ mitted him to take her back as a precaution for the general good.
8. If a man put away his wife5 because she was barren, R. Judah says: He may not take her back. But the Sages say: He may take her back. If she then married another and had children by him, and she claimed her Ketubah, R. Judah said: He should say to her, ‘Thy silence is fairer than thy speech!’6 9. If a man sold himself and his children to a gentile, they may not redeem him, but they may redeem his children after the death of their father. If a man sold his field to a gentiie, and an Israelite bought it back again, the buyer should bring the First-fruits7 from it as a precaution for the general good.
5. 1. Compensation for damage is paid out of the best land. 6 a creditor out of medium land, and a wife’s Ketubah out of the poorest land. R. Meir says: A wife’s Ketubah also is paid out of medium land.
2. Payment may not be taken from mortgaged property if there is also unmortgaged property at hand, even if this is the poorest land. Payment may not be taken from the property of orphans save only from the poorest land.
3. They may not exact indemnity from mortgaged property for produce consumed during wrongful tenure, or for what has been expended on improvement of land,9 or for the maintenance of a widow and her daughters,10 as a precaution for the general good. If a man found lost property he need not take an oath [that he has not impaired it], as a pre¬ caution for the general good.11 4. If orphans were supported by a householder, or if their father appointed a guardian for them, he must give Tithe12 from the produce that 1 i.e. a vow which the husband had not power to revoke. Cf. Ned. 1 ilS.
1 That needed inquiry.
3 That did not need inquiry; since in the case of the latter there is no fear of his saying, ‘If I had known that a Sage could revoke the vow I should not have divorced her’.
* Gem. 46a suggests a lacuna here: ‘This applies only when it is the wife that has vowed; but if it was the husband that vowed he may take her back. It once happened, etc.’
5 Without her Ketubah (Ket. it*).
6 Since he could say, ‘I divorced thee on the ground that thou wast barren, and thou art not barren; therefore the divorce is void, the second marriage invalid, and the children bastards*.
7 Deut. 26*°. Even though they grew while the field was in gentile possession. Some texts read: ‘If a man sold his field to a gentile he must buy the First-fruits from him (every year) and bring them (to the Temple) as a precaution, etc.' — so that Israelites shall not be encouraged to sell their land to gentiles. 8 Cf. Ex. 226.
* e.g. if B wrongfully acquired A’ s field and sold it to C who did not know that it was stolen, and it produced a crop and C spent money in improving the field, A may seize land, crop, and improvements, and if C had already consumed the crop he is liable to A for its value; when C seeks to recover from B he may recover the cost of the field from B’s mort¬ gaged property, but the value of crop and improvements only from B’s unmortgaged property. 10 From the husband’s estate.
11 Since their cost could not be ascertainable in advance and due preparation be made to meet it.
12 The term here includes Heave-offering, First (levitic) Tithe, Second Tithe, and Poor- man’s Tithe.
belongs to them. If a guardian was appointed by the orphans’ father he must take an oath [that he has not impaired their property]; if he was appointed by the court he need not take an oath. Abba Saul says: The rule is to the contrary. If a man rendered another’s food unclean, or if he mixed Heave-offering1 [with another's common produce], or if lie mixed another’s wine with libation wine,2 he is not culpable if he did so in error, but if wantonly he is culpable. If priests rendered offerings in the Temple unfit, and did so wantonly, they are culpable.
5. R. Johanan b. Gudgada3 testified of a woman that was a deaf-mute and that was given in marriage by her father [while vet a minor] that she could be put away by a bill of divorce; and that a minor, that was an Israelite’s daughter and married to a priest, could eat of Heave-offering, and that if she died her husband could inherit from her;4 and that if a man built a stolen beam into a structure he need only repay its value, as a pre¬ caution for the benefit of the penitent;5 and that a Sin-offering that was stolen property, if this was not known to many, could [still] effect atone¬ ment — as a precaution for the benefit of the Altar.
6. In Judea until the [days when the Israelitish owners were] slain in battle, the law concerning the usurping occupant6 was not applied; after the [days when the Israelitish owners were] slain in battle, the law’ con¬ cerning the usurping occupant was applied. Thus if a man bought [a field] from the usurping occupant and then bought it from the owner, the sale is void;7 but if he had bought it from the owner and then bought it from the usurping occupant the sale remains valid. If he bought [a field]8 9 from the husband and then bought it from the wife, the sale is void f but if he bought it from the wife and then bought it from the husband, the sale remains valid. This was according to the First Mishnah;10 but a later court en¬ joined that if a man bought [a field] from the usurping occupant he must give a quarter to the owner. This applies when the owner himself has not the means to buy it; but if he has the means to buy it he has first right of purchase. Rabbi set up a court and they decided by vote that after the field had been in the usurping occupant’s possession for twelve months, whosoever first bought it secured the title, but that he must give a quarter to the owmer.
7. A deaf-mute may communicate by signs and be communicated with by signs. Ben Bathyra says: He may communicate by movements of the mouth and be communicated with by movements of the mouth in matters concerned with movable property. In matters concerned with movable property a purchase or sale effected by children" is valid.
8. These things have they enjoined in the interests of peace. A priest * Wine belonging to gentiles or used, or intended to be used, as a libation to idols. Cf.
3 Yeb. 14.*; Eduy. 7* (where the reading is Nehunya b. Gudgada).
♦ i.e. in these two cases, though she is still a minor, the status and rights of her husband have priority over those of her father.
s He need not pull down his structure to restore the beam.
6 Cf. Bilck. 1 *; a1. He was one who had seized the property of those absent or killed or taken captive in war, or who received property confiscated by Romans from its Jewish owner. The reference is probably to the time of the Hadrianic persecutions following the Bar Cocheba revolt.
7 The owner may have sold only from fear.
8 Belonging to the wife, or the security for her Ketubah.
9 The wife may have sold only from fear. 14 p. 251, n. 4. 11 Above six years of age.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM reads first, and after him a levite, and after him an Israelite — in the inter¬ ests of peace. They put the Erub1 in the wonted house — in the interests of peace. The cistern nearest to a water-channel is filled first — in the interests of peace. The law of theft applies2 in part to what is caught in traps set for wild animals, birds, or fishes — in the interests of peace. R. Jose says: The law of theft applies in every respect. The law of theft applies in part to what is found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor — in the interests of peace. R. Jose says: The law of theft applies in every respect. When a poor man beats the top of an olive-tree,3 the law of theft applies to what is beneath him4 — in the interests of peace. R. Jose says: The law of theft applies in every respect. They do not try to prevent the poor among the gentiles from gathering Gleanings, s the Forgotten Sheaf6 and Peak7 — in the interests of peace.
9. A woman* may lend a sifter, a sieve, a handmill, or an oven to her neighbour that is suspected of transgressing the Seventh Year law, but she may not winnow or grind corn with her. The wife of an Associate may lend a sifter or a sieve to the wife of an Am-haaretz and may winnow, grind, or sift corn with her; but when she pours water over the flour she may not draw near her, since help may not be given to them that commit trans¬ gression. All these have they enjoined in the interests of peace. Gentiles may be encouraged [when tending their fields] in the Seventh Year, but not Israelites. Moreover greetings’ may be offered to gentiles in the interests of peace.
6. 1. If a man said, ‘Do thou accept this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife’, or ‘Take this bill of divorce to my wife’, and he wished to retract [before it came into her hands], he may retract. If the woman had said, ‘Do thou accept my bill of divorce on my behalf’, and he wished to retract, he may not retract;'° therefore if the husband answered, ‘I do not wish thee to accept it for her, but take it [at my bidding] and give it to her’, and he wished to retract, he may retract. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Even if she said, ‘Take my bill of divorce for me’, and he wished to retract, he may not retract.
2. If the woman said, ‘Do thou accept my bill of divorce on my behalf’, she must have two pairs of witnesses: two that say, ‘She said so in our pres¬ ence’, and two that say, ‘He received it and tore it up11 in our presence’, even though the first witnesses are the same as the latter witnesses, or if there is one from the first pair or one from the latter and a third one asso¬ ciated with them. If a girl was [only] betrothed, she and her father receive her bill of divorce. R. Judah said: Two hands cannot together take posses¬ sion: but, rather, her father alone receives her bill of divorce. And any that is unable to take care of her bill of divorce cannot be divorced.
3. If a woman that was a minor said, ‘Do thou accept my bill of divorce on my behalf’, it is not a valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand; therefore if the husband wished to retract he may retract, since a minor may not appoint an agent. But if her father had said to him, ‘Do thou go 1 App. 1.8. 1 As if to property held in valid ownership. 3 In taking gleanings.
4 That has fallen owing to his searching. s Lev. 19**.
4 Bidding them ‘Peace’ ( Shalom ) even though this is one of the names of God (Judg. 6**).
10 Since she had accepted the bill of divorce and thereby become divorced.
" Referring to a time when the observance of Jewish rites was forbidden, and it was necessary to destroy such a document.
and accept my daughter’s bill of divorce on her behalf’, and he wished to retract, he may not retract. If a man said, ‘Give this bill of divorce to my wife in such a place’, and they gave it to her in another place, it is not valid. [But if he said,] ‘Lo, she is in such a place’, and they gave it to her in another place, it is valid. If the woman said, ‘accept my bill of divorce on my behalf at such a place’, and they accepted it on her behalf at another place, it is not valid. R. Eliezer pronounces it valid. [If she said,] ‘Bring me my bill of divorce from such a place’, and it was brought to her from another place, it is valid.
4. [If she said,] ‘Bring me my bill of divorce’, she may1 eat of Heave- offering until the bill of divorce comes into her hand. [If she said,] ‘Do thou accept my bill of divorce on my behalf’, she is forthwith forbidden to eat of Heave-offering. [If she said,] ‘Do thou accept my bill of divorce on my behalf in such a place', she may eat of Heave-offering until the bill of divorce can reach such a place. But R. Eliezer forbids her forthwith.
5. If a man said, ‘Write out a bill of divorce and give it to my wife’, [or] ‘Divorce her’, [or] ‘Write a letter and give it to her’, then they may write it out and deliver it. [But if he said,] ‘Set her free’, [or] ‘Make provision for her’, [or] ‘Do for her as is proper’, [or] ‘Do for her as is seemly’, he has said nothing. Beforetime they used to say: If a man was led forth in fetters* and said, ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, they should write it out and also deliver it. Then they changed this and said: Also if a man went on a voyage or set out with a caravan. R. Simeon of Shezur says: Also if a man was at the point of death.
6. If a man was cast into a pit and said, ‘Let him that hears my voice write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, they should write it out and [also] deliver it. If a man in sound health said, ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, he is minded only to mock her. It once happened that a man in sound health said, ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, and he went up to the top of the roof and fell down and died. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The Sages said, ‘If he fell down of himself the bill of divorce is valid;3 but if the wind blew him down, it is not valid’.
7. If a man said to two persons, ‘Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife’, or said to three, ‘Write out a bill of divorce and deliver it to my wife’, they should write it out and deliver it. If he said to three, ‘Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife’, they may tell others to write it out, because he has turned them into a court of law. So R. Meir. And this Halakah did R. Hananiah of Ono bring up from [R. Akiba in] prison: I have received the tradition that if a man said to three persons, ‘Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife’, they may tell others to write it out, since he has turned them into a court of law. R. Jose said: We said to the messenger, We too have re¬ ceived the tradition that even if a man said to the great court in Jerusalem,4 ‘Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife’, they must learn5 and write it out and deliver it. If he said to ten persons, ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, one should write it out and two should sign it. [But if he had said,] ‘All of you write it’, one should write it out but all should sign it. Therefore if one of them died, the bill of divorce becomes invalid.
1 If her husband was a priest. 1 Teb. Y. 4*.
■> Since it can be assumed that he meant also to say ‘Deliver it’.
* Sanh. 1 1 *, * How to write if they did not know already.
3 16 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM 7. i. If a man was seized with delirium' and said, ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, he has said nothing. If he said, ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, and was then seized with delirium and retracted and said, ‘Do not write it’, his last words count for nothing. If a man lost his speech and they said to him, ‘Shall we write out a bill of divorce for thy wife?’ and he bowed his head, they must prove him three times whether for ‘no’ he said ‘no’ and for ‘yes' he said ‘yes’. Then they may w'rite it out and deliver it.
2. If they said to him, ‘Shall we write out a bill of divorce for thy wife?’ and he said, ‘Write’; and they spoke to a scribe and he wrote, and to wit¬ nesses and they signed, although they had written it and signed it and delivered it to him and he then delivered it to her, nevertheless the bill of divorce remains void until he himself has said to the scribe, ‘Write’, and to the witnesses, ‘Sign’.
3. [If he said,] ‘This is thy bill of divorce if I die’, or ‘This is thy bill of divorce if I die of this sickness’, or ‘This is thy bill of divorce after my death’, he has said nothing. [But if he said,] [‘This is thy bill of divorce] from to-day if I die', or ‘from now if I die’, the bill of divorce is valid. [But if he said,] ‘From to-day and after my death,’ it is valid and it is not valid; and if he died she must perform halitzah- and may not contract levirate marriage.3 [If he said,] ‘This is thy bill of divorce from to-day if I die of this sickness’, but he rose up and went into the street and again grew sick, and died, they must find the likely cause of death: if he died of the first sick¬ ness, the bill of divorce is valid; otherwise it is not valid.
4. She may not afterward continue together with him unless in the presence of witnesses, if it is but a bondman or but a bondwoman (excluding her own bondwoman, since with her she feels no shame).4 What is her standing in those days? R. Judah says: She counts as a married woman in all respects. R. Jose says: She counts both as divorced and as not divorced.
5. [If he said,] ‘Lo, this is thy bill of divorce on condition that thou give me 200 zuz', then she is divorced and gives it to him. [If he said,] ‘On condition that thou give it me before thirty days’, and she gave it to him within thirty days, she is divorced, otherwise she is not divorced. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It once happened in Sidon that a man said to his wife, ‘Lo.this is thy bill of divorce on condition that thou give me my cloak’, and the cloak was lost. But the Sages said: Let her give him its value.