Gittin 17

Chapter 17

א לעולם הוא בן חורין עד שיאמר כל נכסיי נתונין לפלוני עבדי חוץ מאחד מריבוא שבהן
1 that in any case the slave becomes free<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this seems to be the plain intention of the document. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב והאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אע"פ שקילס רבי יוסי את רבי שמעון הלכה כר' מאיר דתניא כשנאמרו דברים לפני ר' יוסי קרא עליו המקרא הזה (משלי כד, כו) שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים
2 unless he declares [in writing] 'All my property is left to So-and-so my slave except one ten-thousandth part thereof.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this part may include the slave, v. B.B. 149b. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ומי אמר רב נחמן הכי והאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לעבדו ועמד חוזר בנכסים ואינו חוזר בעבד
3 [But can Raba then rule thus, Seeing that] R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: Although R. Jose commended R. Simeon, the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon's disputant and the anonymous first Tanna of the Mishnah, that the slave should not go free. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד חוזר בנכסים מתנת שכיב מרע הוא ואינו חוזר בעבד שהרי יצא עליו שם בן חורין
4 For it has been taught: When the discussion was reported to R. Jose, he applied to him [R. Meir] the Scriptural words, He shall be kissed upon the lips that giveth a right answer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXIV, 26. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אלא אמר רב אשי התם היינו טעמא משום דלאו כרות גיטא הוא:
5 But was this R. Nahman's opinion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we do not give two diverse applications to a single statement. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו אם יש עליו עוררין יתקיים בחותמיו: ערער כמה אילימא ערער חד והאמר ר' יוחנן דברי הכל אין ערער פחות משנים
6 Has not R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: If a man lying dangerously ill assigned all his possessions to his slave and then recovered, he may retract the grant of the property but not the grant of freedom. He may retract the grant of the property because it is a gift made on a death bed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which can be nullified by the dying man on recovery. v. B.B. 146b. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז ואלא ערער תרי תרי ותרי נינהו מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני אלא ערער דבעל:
7 He may not retract the grant of the freedom because the slave has already become known as a free man!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Nahman applies the instruction diversely to the slave and to the property. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המביא גט ממדינת הים ואינו יכול לומר בפ"נ ובפ"נ אם יש עליו עדים יתקיים בחותמיו
8 — In fact, said R. Ashi, [R. Nahman's reason] in the former case [where he said that in practice R. Meir was to be followed] was because the document did not expressly sever the connection between the slave and his master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the grant of the slave's freedom was not specifically mentioned in the document, and we require such severance, because a Get of emancipation is on the same footing as a Get of divorce, which is termed in the Scripture 'a document of severance' or 'cutting off' (Deut. XXIV, 1). ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט אחד גיטי נשים ואחד שחרורי עבדים שוו למוליך ולמביא וזו אחת מן הדרכים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים:
9 [and not because the same statement cannot receive two applications].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Seeing that R. Meir denies the slave his freedom even if the property specifically excepted was land, his view being that since the master limited the scope of this document by excluding 'some thing', whatever it may be, the Get is no longer effective as an instrument of complete severance (Rashi).] ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי אינו יכול לומר אילימא חרש חרש בר אתויי גיטא הוא והתנן הכל כשרין להביא את הגט חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן
10 IF ITS VALIDITY IS CHALLENGED, IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE SIGNATURES. Challenged by how many? Shall I say by one person? Has not R. Johanan laid down that a challenge must come from two at least? Shall I say then two? In that case there are two on each side, and why should you give credence to one set rather than to the other? — The challenge meant is that of the husband.
יא אמר רב יוסף הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנתנו לה כשהוא פיקח ולא הספיק לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם עד שנתחרש:
11 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHERE THE BEARER OF A GET FROM FOREIGN PARTS IS NOT ABLE TO DECLARE 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED, IF THE GET HAS BEEN SIGNED BY WITNESSES, ITS VALIDITY CAN BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH ITS SIGNATORIES. WRITS OF DIVORCE AND WRITS OF EMANCIPATION ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES WHEN TAKEN [FROM THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO FOREIGN PARTS] OR VICE VERSA,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., or 'he who brings it'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב אחד גיטי נשים ואחד שיחרורי עבדים: תנו רבנן בשלשה דרכים שוו גיטי נשים לשיחרורי עבדים שוו למוליך ולמביא וכל גט שיש עליו עד כותי פסול חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים וכל השטרות
12 THIS BEING ONE OF THE POINTS IN WHICH WRITS OF DIVORCE ARE ON A PAR WITH WRITS OF EMANCIPATION. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the meaning of the expression, 'IS NOT ABLE TO DECLARE'? Shall I say it means that the bearer is a deaf-mute? Can a deaf-mute then be the bearer of a Get, seeing that we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 23a. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> 'All persons are qualified to be bearers of a Get except a deaf-mute, a lunatic, and a minor?' — R. Joseph said: Here we are dealing with a case in which he gave the woman the Get while he was still in possession of his faculties, but before he could utter the formula was struck deaf and dumb. WRITS OF DIVORCE AND WRITS OF EMANCIPATION etc. Our Rabbis taught: 'In three points writs of divorce are on a par with writs of emancipation. One is in the matter of being taken [from Eretz Israel to foreign parts] or vice versa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bearer in both cases being required to declare, 'In my presence etc.' ');"><sup>12</sup></span> [Secondly,] any document witnessed by a Cuthean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Samaritan. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> is invalid, except writs of divorce and emancipation. [Thirdly,] all documents
Previous ChapterNext Chapter