Gittin 56

שמא מת לא חיישינן שמא ימות חיישינן

We disregard the chance of his having died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the bearer delivers the Get, as in the former case. ');">¹</span>

אמר ליה רב אדא בר מתנה לרבא והא נוד דכשמא ימות הוא ופליגי אמר רב יהודה מדסקרתא שאני נוד דאפשר דמסר ליה לשומר

but take into account the chance that he may die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At any moment, as in the latter case where he gives her the divorce to come into force an hour before his death. ');">²</span>

מתקיף לה רב משרשיא ערביך ערבא צריך אלא אמר רבא שמא מת לא חיישינן שמא ימות תנאי היא:

Said R. Adda b. Mattena to Raba: What of the wine-skin [in the case of the <i>terumah</i>, the chance of which breaking is] like the chance that the man may die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring as it does to a contingency of the future. ');">³</span>

השולח חטאתו ממדינת הים וכו': והא בעינא סמיכה אמר רב יוסף בקרבן נשים רב פפא אמר בחטאת העוף

and yet the authorities differ in regard to it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir not taking this chance into account. ');">⁴</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמועינן גט משום דלא אפשר אבל תרומה דאפשר אימא לא

— Said R. Judah from Diskarta:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deskarah, N.E. of Bagdad. ');">⁵</span>

ואי אשמועינן תרומה דזמנין דלא אפשר אבל חטאת העוף מספיקא לא ליעול חולין לעזרה צריכא:

A wine-skin is different, because it can be handed over to someone to keep. R. Mesharshe ya strongly objected to this, saying: Your security himself requires a security.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. perhaps the other person will also neglect to look after the wine-skin. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שלשה דברים אמר רבי אלעזר בן פרטא לפני חכמים וקיימו את דבריו על עיר שהקיפה כרקום ועל הספינה המוטרפת בים ועל היוצא לידון שהן בחזקת קיימין

— In fact, said Raba, the chance that he has died we do not take into account:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that our Mishnah agrees with all. ');">⁷</span>

אבל עיר שכבשה כרקום וספינה שאבדה בים והיוצא ליהרג נותנין עליהן חומרי חיים וחומרי מתים בת ישראל לכהן ובת כהן לישראל לא תאכל בתרומה:

whether we take into account the chance that he may die is a question on which Tannaim differ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and R. Simeon, and the Baraitha will represent the view of R. Simeon. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יוסף לא שנו אלא בב"ד של ישראל אבל בב"ד של עובדי כוכבים כיון דגמיר ליה דינא לקטלא מיקטל קטלי ליה

IF A PERSON SENDS A SIN-OFFERING FROM ABROAD etc. But is not laying-on of hands required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Lev. I, 4: And he (the bringer of the sacrifice) shall lay his hands on the head of the sin. offering. ');">⁹</span>

אמר ליה אביי בית דין של עובדי כוכבים נמי דמקבלי שוחדא אמר ליה כי שקלי מקמי דלחתום פורסי שנמג לבתר דמיחתם פורסי שנמג לא שקלי

R. Joseph replied that [the Mishnah refers] to an offering sent by a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was not required to lay on hands, v. Kid. 36a. ');">¹⁰</span>

מיתיבי כל מקום שיעמדו שנים ויאמרו מעידין אנו את איש פלוני שנגמר דינו בבית דינו של פלוני ופלוני ופלוני עדיו הרי זה יהרג דלמא בורח שאני

R. Papa said that it refers to the sin-offering of a bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which did not require laying-on of hands. V. Lev. I, 14. ');">¹¹</span>

ת"ש שמע מב"ד של ישראל שהיו אומרים איש פלוני מת איש פלוני נהרג ישיאו את אשתו מקומנטריסין של עובדי כוכבים איש פלוני מת איש פלוני נהרג אל ישיאו את אשתו

[All three clauses in the Mishnah] are necessary. For if the rule [that the person in question is presumed to be alive] were stated merely in regard to a Get, I should say the reason is because there is no alternative,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. p. 112, n. 7. ');">¹²</span>

מאי מת ומאי נהרג אילימא מת מת ממש ונהרג נהרג ממש דכוותיה גבי עובדי כוכבים אמאי אל ישיאו את אשתו הא קיימא לן דכל מסיח לפי תומו הימוני מהימני ליה

but in the case of <i>terumah</i> where there is an alternative, it does not apply. And if the rule had been stated with regard to <i>terumah</i>, I should say that the reason is because sometimes there is no alternative,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if she is very poor. ');">¹³</span>

אלא לאו מת יוצא למות נהרג יוצא ליהרג וקתני בב"ד ישראל ישיאו את אשתו

but in the case of the sin-offering of the bird I should say that, as there is a doubt [whether the person who sent it is still alive], we should not [take the risk of] bringing profane things into the Temple court. Hence [all three clauses] are necessary.

לעולם מת ממש ונהרג ממש ודקאמרת דכוותיה גבי עובדי כוכבים אמאי לא והא קי"ל דכל מסיח לפי תומו הימוני מהימני ה"מ במילתא דלא שייכי בה אבל במילתא דשייכי בה עבדי לאחזוקי שיקרייהו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THREE STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY R. ELEAZAR B. PERATA BEFORE THE SAGES, WHO FORMALLY APPROVED OF THEM. [HE SAID] THAT [PEOPLE IN] A BESIEGED TOWN, [PEOPLE] IN A SHIP STORM-TOSSED AT SEA, AND A MAN WHO HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO COURT TO BE TRIED [FOR HIS LIFE] ARE PRESUMED TO BE ALIVE [SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD]. [PEOPLE, HOWEVER,] IN A BESIEGED TOWN WHICH HAS BEEN CAPTURED OR [IN] A SHIP WHICH HAS BEEN LOST AT SEA OR A MAN WHO HAS BEEN LED OUT TO EXECUTION ARE PRESUMED TO BE EITHER ALIVE OR DEAD ACCORDING TO WHICHEVER VIEW ENTAILS THE GREATER RIGOUR. [HENCE] THE DAUGHTER OF AN ORDINARY ISRAELITE WHO HAS MARRIED A PRIEST OR THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST WHO HAS MARRIED AN ORDINARY ISRAELITE MAY NOT EAT OF THE <i>TERUMAH</i> [IF THE HUSBAND HAS DISAPPEARED IN THIS WAY].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former case we presume the husband to be dead, in the latter, to be alive. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ד א"ר יוסף ל"ש אלא בב"ד של עובדי כוכבים

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Joseph said: This rule [with regard to a man led out to execution] applies only to Israelite courts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because new evidence may come to light and he may be tried again and acquitted. V. Sanh. 42b. ');">¹⁵</span> but in the case of a heathen court once he is condemned to execution, [there is no question that] he is executed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we do not presume him to be alive for any purposes. ');">¹⁶</span> Said Abaye to him: Do not the heathen courts sometimes take a bribe? — He replied: If they do, it is only before the writ is signed with the words Pursi shanmag,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Jastrow puris nameh, Persian for 'investigation paper', 'verdict'. ');">¹⁷</span> but after it has been signed pursi shanmag they will not take a bribe. An objection was raised [from the following]: 'Whenever two persons come forward and say, We testify against So-and-so that he was condemned to death in such-and-such a <i>Beth din</i>, So-and-so and So-and-so being the witnesses against him, such a man has to be put to death'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which seems to show that after condemnation by an Israelite court we do not assume the possibility that he might have subsequently been acquitted as a result of new evidence; v. Mak. 7a. ');">¹⁸</span> — Perhaps [a condemned person] who escapes is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage speaks of one who escaped justice. His flight is a proof of his guilt. ');">¹⁹</span> Come and hear: If he heard [a report] from an Israelite court that So-and-so died or was put to death, they allow his wife to marry again [If, however, the report came] from heathen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] cf. Lat. commentariensis, registrars of prisoners, jailers (Jast.). ');">²⁰</span> jailers that he died or was put to death, they do not allow his wife to marry again. Now what is meant here by 'died' and 'put to death'? Shall I say these terms are to be taken literally? Then why in the case of heathens is the wife not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle that [the word of] a heathen speaking without ulterior motive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'talking in his simplicity'. ');">²¹</span> is to be accepted [in questions relating to marriage]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we regard the first husband as dead. ');">²²</span> I must therefore understand the words 'died' and 'put to death' in the sense of 'Taken out to die'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [By some means other than the four prescribed deaths, v. Sanh. 81b; or in the case of a heathen court, by casting into a furnace, (Rashi)]. ');">²³</span> or 'to be put to death'; and yet it states [that if the report comes] from an Israelite court they do allow the wife to marry again?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which seems to contradict the Mishnah as interpreted by R. Joseph. ');">²⁴</span> — [The passage quoted means] really 'died' and really 'put to death', and as for your question why in such a case [if the report comes] from a heathen court is she not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle with us that [the word of] a heathen speaking without ulterior motive is to be accepted, [the answer is that] this applies only to a matter in which they themselves have not participated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And which therefore they cannot boast about. ');">²⁵</span> but where the matter is one in which they themselves have participated, they are prone to indulge in falsehood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., that their Court has executed a Jew, though they have not actually seen the execution. [This reading follows Rashi, cur. edd.: to hold firm to their falsehood.] ');">²⁶</span> [The following is] another version [of the above passage]. R. Joseph said: This rule applies only to heathen courts,