Gittin 22

Chapter 22

א עדים החתומין על הגט ושמותן כשמות עובדי כוכבים מהו אמר ליה לא בא לידינו אלא לוקוס ולוס והכשרנו
1 'If a Get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Coming from Palestine. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ודוקא לוקוס ולוס דלא שכיחי ישראל דמסקי בשמהתייהו אבל שמהתא אחריני דשכיחי ישראל דמסקי בשמהתייהו לא
2 is attested by witnesses with heathen names, how do we proceed?' — He replied: 'The only [heathen names] that have come before us in this way were Lucus and Lus, and in both cases we declared [the Get] valid.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., I relied upon the witnesses to delivery. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג איתיביה גיטין הבאים ממדינת הים ועדים חתומים עליהם אע"פ ששמותיהן כשמות עובדי כוכבים כשירין מפני שרוב ישראל שבחו"ל שמותיהן כשמות עובדי כוכבים
3 This ruling applies strictly to names like Lucus and Lus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lucius and Gaius (Jast.). ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד התם כדקתני טעמא מפני שרוב ישראל שבחוץ לארץ שמותיהן כשמות עובדי כוכבים
4 which are never borne by Israelites, but not to heathen names which are also borne by Israelites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in that case the witnesses, even if Gentiles, might be presumed to be competent. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה ואיכא דאמרי כי מתניתא בעא מיניה ופשט ליה ממתניתא:
5 He [thereupon] raised an objection [from the following]: 'Writs of divorce brought from foreign parts and attested by signatures, even if the names are like those of heathens, are valid, because most Jews in foreign parts bear heathen names!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This apparently contradicts R. Johanan. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר תן גט זה לאשתי ושטר שחרור זה לעבדי אם רצה לחזור בשניהן יחזור דברי ר"מ
6 — There the reason is as given, because most Jews in foreign parts bear heathen names.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is safe to presume that the witness with a Gentile name is a Jew, but this is not the case in Palestine. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז וחכ"א בגיטי נשים אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים לפי שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לו אלא בפניו
7 According to another version, Resh Lakish put the question to R. Johanan on the lines of the Baraitha [just quoted],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., 'What is the rule about writs of divorce brought from foreign parts with heathen signatures.' ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי ושלא לזון את אשתו אינו רשאי
8 and he answered him by quoting [the second] clause of the Baraitha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., 'they are valid etc.' ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט אמר להם והרי הוא פוסל את עבדו מן התרומה כשם שהוא פוסל את אשתו אמרו לו מפני שהוא קניינו:
9 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SAYS: GIVE THIS WRIT OF DIVORCE TO MY WIFE AND THIS BILL OF EMANCIPATION TO MY SLAVE, HE IS AT LIBERTY IF HE PLEASES TO COUNTERMAND BOTH INSTRUCTIONS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this is a disability for both of them, and the agent does not become possessed of the bills, on the principle that 'a disability may not be inflicted on a man save in his presence.' ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> יתיב רב הונא ורב יצחק בר יוסף קמיה דר' ירמיה ויתיב ר' ירמיה וקא מנמנם ויתיב רב הונא וקאמר ש"מ מדרבנן התופס לבעל חוב קנה
10 THIS IS THE RULING OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY THAT HE MAY COUNTERMAND IN THE CASE OF THE GET BUT NOT IN THAT OF THE WRIT OF EMANCIPATION, ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT A BENEFIT MAY BE CONFERRED ON A MAN IN HIS ABSENCE BUT A DISABILITY MAY BE IMPOSED ON HIM ONLY IN HIS PRESENCE; FOR IF HE DOES NOT WANT TO MAINTAIN HIS SLAVE HE IS NOT BOUND TO DO SO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence emancipation involves no disability for the slave. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא א"ל רב יצחק בר יוסף ואפי' במקום שחב לאחרים א"ל אין
11 BUT IF HE DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE MAINTENANCE TO HIS WIFE HE IS STILL ROUND TO DO SO. SAID R. MEIR TO THEM: DOES HE NOT DISQUALIFY HIS SLAVE FROM EATING THE PRIESTLY HEAVE-OFFERING [BY EMANCIPAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence emancipation involves no disability for the slave. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב אדהכי איתער בהו ר' ירמיה אמר להו דרדקי הכי א"ר יוחנן התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה וא"ת משנתינו
12 NG HIM] IN THE SAME WAY AS HE DISQUALIFIES HIS WIFE [BY DIVORCING HER]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Vid. Lev. XXII, 11; Num. XVIII, 11. So that emancipation does involve a disability for the slave even as divorce for the wife. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג כל האומר תנו כאומר זכו דמי
13 — THEY REPLIED: [THE SLAVE IS DISQUALIFIED] BECAUSE HE IS THE PRIEST'S PROPERTY.
יד אמר רב חסדא התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים באנו למחלוקת רבי אליעזר ורבנן דתנן מי שליקט את הפאה ואמר הרי זו לפלוני עני ר' אליעזר אמר זכה לו וחכ"א יתננו לעני הנמצא ראשון
14 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. points out that this is not the R. Huna usually mentioned in the Talmud, who was much senior to R. Jeremiah. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו אמר אמימר ואיתימא רב פפא
15 and R. Isaac b. Joseph were sitting [studying] before R. Jeremiah whilst R. Jeremiah was sitting and dozing, when R. Huna remarked that we learn from the ruling of the Rabbis [in our Mishnah] that if a man seizes the goods [of a third party] on behalf of a creditor, he acquires [them].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the creditor and the owner cannot recover from him any more than he can withdraw the bill of emancipation from the agent. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Said R. Isaac b. Joseph to him: Even if by doing so he causes loss to others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the man had other creditors also. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — He replied: Yes. At this point R. Jeremiah woke up [and overheard them]. He said: Youngsters, this is what R. Johanan said: If a man seizes goods on behalf of a creditor when by so doing he causes loss to others, he does not acquire. If you ask [how this can be reconciled with] our Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which seems to say that he does become legal possessor. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> [the answer is that] for a man to say 'give' is equivalent to saying 'acquire on behalf of'. R. Hisda says: [The case of the man] who seizes goods on behalf of a creditor and by so doing causes loss to others admits of the same difference of opinion as we find between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 49 ff. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> If a man garners the corner [of his field], and said: This is for such-and-such a poor man, he acquires it on his behalf. The Sages, however, say that he must give it to the first poor man that comes along. Said Amemar (others say it was R. Papa:)
Previous ChapterNext Chapter