Yerushalmi Gittin 1:5 ירושלמי גיטין א׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave,” if he wants to change his mind in either case he can retract¹⁴⁰Before the delivery of the bill or the document. The husband can appoint an agent for delivery of the document; he cannot appoint the agent as receiver of the document on behalf of wife or slave, as explained in the Mishnah., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, only for women’s bills of divorce¹⁴¹It is held that any divorce other than one which the wife can enforce in court is to the wife’s detriment. but not for slaves’ documents of manumission¹⁴²The Sages hold that for a slave the benefits of freedom (and with it the status of a full Jew) always outweigh any possible material detriment attached to manumission. because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on him only in his presence; for if one chooses not to sustain his slave, he has the right not to do so, but not to sustain his wife he has no right. He said to them, but he¹⁴³If the husband or owner is a Cohen, all members of his household share in his sanctified food; unless the household members are born of priestly status they lose the access to sanctified food the moment they leave his household. In contrast to Roman law, a freedman is not part of his patron’s familia. disqualifies his slave for heave the same way he disqualifies his wife! They answered him, because he is his property¹⁴⁴The slave’s ability to eat heave is not intrinsic; it is derivative from his servile status. The slave can eat heave even if his master, the Cohen, refuses to support him.. If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave” and dies, they shall not be delivered after his death¹⁴⁵The Sages who do not permit retraction of a document of manumission agree that both divorce and manumission become effective only at the moment of delivery of the document into the hands of the recipient by the agent representing his employer. But a dead person can neither divorce nor manumit. In Chapter 7 it is explained how a terminally ill childless person can divorce his wife to spare her (or prevent her from entering) a levirate marriage to his brother without divorcing her in case he recovers from his sickness.; “give this mina to Mr. X” and dies, they shall deliver it after his death¹⁴⁶If the gift was given when the giver was aware of his impending death, the heirs are bound to respect the wishes of the deceased..

HALAKHAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife,” etc. Elsewhere you say that “give” means “bring”, but here you say that “give” means “acquire”¹⁴⁷If the messenger was appointed only as an agent for delivery, there would be no question that the sender has the right to retract his instructions. It does not seem reasonable to assume that a charge to deliver something lets the addressee acquire an interest in the document to be delivered at the moment it is given to the agent since “a person’s agent represents him in every respect” [Qiddušin 2:1 (62a 1.41), Babli 43a]. Since a person can do what he wishes with a document still in his possession, why can he not do the same with the document in his agent’s hand?! So is¹⁴⁸It is not so, but must be interpreted in this way. In the Babli, 11b, R. Jeremiah is reported to hold that “give to” really means “accept for”. the Mishnah: “Acquire this bill of divorce for my wife; acquire this document of manumission for my slave.” The formulation¹⁴⁹לשם is dialectal version of לשן, Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew לשון, cf. S. Lieberman, לשם לשן Tarbiz 6 (1935), p. 235; J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנסח המשנה², Jerusalem-Tel Aviv 1964, p. 475. of the Mishnah says so: “Because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence¹⁵⁰This argument would be futile if the owner had not bestowed freedom on his slave by handing the document to the messenger. Therefore, the rule of the Mishnah applies only if the owner had given some indication that the messenger also acted as the slave’s agent. but put a detriment on a person only in his presence.” Rebbi Meïr says, it is a detriment for either of them, but the Sages say it is a benefit for the slave but a detriment for the wife. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if he was the slave of a rich person, would it not be a detriment for the slave¹⁵¹Who as a free man probably never would eat as well as he did as a slave.? The colleagues said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if she was the wife of a man suffering from boils¹⁵²In which case the wife can force a divorce, Mishnah Ketubot 7:10., would it not be a benefit for the woman? You have only the following: If one sells his slave without the latter’s knowledge, is the sale of the slave not valid¹⁵³Therefore, the slave can be manumitted without his consent and the owner can appoint the messenger as the slave’s agent without that latter’s knowledge.? If one divorces his wife without her knowledge, is the divorce valid¹⁵⁴Nobody can represent the wife without her consent; even if the husband would appoint a person to be his wife’s agent, the appointment would be invalid and the delivery of the bill of divorce by the agent to the wife would be illegal. because she¹⁵⁵That is the ms. version, copied in editio princeps. But it seems preferable to follow the commentators and read this clause as a quote from the Mishnah מִפּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְייָנוֹ “because he (the slave) is his property”, asking what is the relevance of this fact to the problem in hand, i. e., whether manumission is a benefit or a detriment to the slave. was acquired by him? Rebbi Abin said, he is his property but he disqualifies him for heave¹⁵⁶Since the Cohen owner can sell his slave to an Israel any time he wishes, the slave has no intrinsic right to heave that would be eliminated by the document of manumission. This explanation is given in the Babli, 13a, in the name of Rava (Rav Abba bar Rav Josef bar Ḥama)..

¹⁵⁷This baraita also appears in Baba Batra 8:9, 16c.“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi¹⁵⁸For Ṭabi (m.), Ṭabitha (f.) as names of slaves cf. Niddah 1:5, Note 103., I shall free him, he is free, he acquired¹⁵⁹The slave acquired the right to be freed..” Rebbi Inaia¹⁶⁰In Baba Batra: R. Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document¹⁶¹The slave cannot acquire freedom by the simple declaration of his owner; he only can acquire the right to a document of manumission.. “He should be freed¹⁶²The owner said that the slave should be freed, but did not say it in the context of a last will and testament. The Sages hold that this is a not binding promise; Rebbi holds that this kind of promise is binding., Rebbi says, he acquired, but for the Sages he did not acquire. Give this document of manumission, and he died, Rebbi says, he did not acquire but the Sages say, he did acquire; one forces the heirs to fulfill the instructions of the deceased.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree¹⁶³In the case of the owner who gave instructions to write a document for his slave. if he did not specify. How do we hold? If he said, “free him”, Rebbi will agree¹⁶⁴Since the heirs are required to follow the wishes of the testator, they have to free the slave.. If he said, “write and deliver,” the Sages will agree¹⁶⁵This is the case of the Mishnah; if the owner instructed to write the document and deliver it in his name, the instruction becomes void at his death.. But we deal with the case that he said “give”. Rebbi says, one who says “give” is like one who said “write and deliver,” but the Sages say, one who says “give” is like one who said “free him”.

¹⁶⁶Tosephta Baba Batra 8:1; Yerushalmi Baba Batra 8:8 16b; Babli Baba Batra 138a, Ḥulin 39b, Keritut 24b.“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave¹⁶⁷Since the transfer of possession is automatic, the slaves belong to the Cohen until he disposes of them.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs¹⁶⁸The legal heirs who would have inherited in the absence of a will. acquired them.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if he¹⁶⁹The recipient. did not specify. How do we hold? If he accepted at the first moment, Rabban Gamliel will agree¹⁷⁰If the Cohen was owner of the slaves for one moment, he cannot dispose of them except by sale or manumission.. If he did refuse at the first moment, the rabbis will agree¹⁷¹Nobody is forced to accept a bequest against his will.. But we deal with the case that he did not specify. Rebbi says, nobody says ‘it is impossible’ unless he had accepted¹⁷²And had time to inspect what he received.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible’, the end is proof for the start¹⁷³Since he was noncommittal at the start, his later rejection has retroactive power. The same explanation is given in the Babli in the name of R. Joḥanan..

“If somebody says, give this mina to X because I owe it to him, bring this mina to X for the pledge which he has from me, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so but he himself is responsible until X receives his due¹⁷⁴While the agent can accept the payment for the creditor (which is to the creditor’s benefit), the debt is not paid until the creditor receives it; without the creditor’s instructions the responsibility for the money cannot be transferred to the creditor since that would be a detriment; Tosephta 1:6. In the Babli 14a, Samuel disputes the ruling and holds that there is no acquisition without consent; the possibility of a detriment invalidates the benefit..” Rebbi Ila said, a gift is like a debt. ¹⁷⁵Tosephta 1:7.“Give this mina to X, bring this mina to X, give this gift document to X, if he wants to change his mind he can(not)¹⁷⁶“Not” is in the ms. but not in the Tosephta. All Medieval authors who quote this Yerushalmi mention it in the version of the Tosephta: Sefer Miṣwot Gadol 2, 161d, #82; Rashba ad 14a, Tosaphot haRosh ad 13a, s.v. והוא (col. 99 in the edition of H. B. Ravitz, Jerusalem 2004). Aviezri (Eliezer ben Joel, Ravia) is quoted in Mordechai Giṭṭin 532 as having seen in one Tosephta ms. the reading “cannot”; he rejects that since then the Tosephta could have been formulated together with the following one. This argument is accepted by S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah Giṭṭin p. 793, but it does not seem conclusive since the treatment of the case that the recipient died is different in the two cases. Therefore, the reading לא should be provided with a question mark but cannot be rejected out of hand. do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should return it to the sender¹⁷⁷Not deliver to the recipient’s heirs since it was not intended for them., and if that one had died he should give it to the latter’s heirs.” ¹⁷⁸Tosephta 1:8.“Acquire this mina for X, accept this mina for X, acquire this gift document for X, accept this gift document for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should deliver it to his heirs. But if he acquired after [X’s] death¹⁷⁹If it turned out that the recipient was already dead at the time the messenger was intended to become an agent for him, there was no transaction since nobody can become an agent for a dead person. The messenger was not appointed as agent for the deceased’s estate. he should return it to the sender since nobody can acquire documents after his death.” ¹⁷⁹If it turned out that the recipient was already dead at the time the messenger was intended to become an agent for him, there was no transaction since nobody can become an agent for a dead person. The messenger was not appointed as agent for the deceased’s estate.“If somebody says, this mina is for X, take this mina for X, this mina shall be in your hand for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so” because if somebody acquires for another person it cannot be changed.

¹⁸¹A parallel, in somewhat better shape, is in Qiddušin 3:3, 64b 1. 37. The readings of the Leiden ms. are given by ק, those of one half line in a Geniza fragment (Qiddušin) by ג, Explanation: Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Yose ben Kipper descended¹⁸²“To descend” everywhere means: To travel from Galilee to Babylonia. to collect there for a colleague¹⁸³In the parallel story in the Babli, 14a/b, R. Aḥai ben R. Joshia asked them to bring him a silver vessel which was owed to him in Nahardea. According to the story in Qiddušin, they went to collect money for the Galilean Academy. when they were slandered¹⁸⁴After they had collected the debt, a rumor was spread that they were dishonest.. They¹⁸⁵The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. came and wanted to take it back from them. They answered, we already acquired it¹⁸⁶Since we are empowered by the creditor, the money became the creditor’s the moment it was given to us.. They¹⁸⁵The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. said, we wish for you to accept it in good faith¹⁸⁷They wanted a declaration by the rabbis that they would be responsible for any loss in transit.; they answered, we are unpaid trustees¹⁸⁸An unpaid trustee is only responsible for losses incurred because of his negligence but not for losses through robbery or other events beyond his control (Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 7:8).. They¹⁸⁵The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. approached Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai who told them, there it is, all of it¹⁸⁹He returned the money, against the rules.. They¹⁸⁵The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. took Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, whipped him with ropes, and took it¹⁹⁰The part of the money which he had. from him. When they returned here, he¹⁹¹R. Yose ben Kipper went to complain to R. Yannai. went to his father and told him, look what your son did to me! He asked him, what did he do to you? He answered, if he had taken my position, they could not have taken anything from us. He asked him¹⁹²R. Yannai interrogated his son Dositheos., why did you act in such a way? He said, I saw that they were a unanimous court,¹⁹³They had made up their minds; it was impossible to argue with them. their hats were a cubit wide¹⁹⁴Perhaps wide-rimmed hats were the uniform of violent people., they were directing blows, my brother Yose was bound¹⁹⁵Following the text in Qiddušin. It seems that the word פטרוי, which in other contexts means “they freed him”, is a scribal corruption and should be removed from the dictionaries. Before correction, the scribe wrote ופרכוי “and they forced him”, which may be correct. and the whip ascended and descended. I said, does my father have another Dositheos¹⁹⁶He was afraid for his life; this justifies his breaking the rules.? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, you say that for somebody who cannot give a warranty in good faith. But if somebody gives a warranty in good faith, one takes from this one and gives to the other¹⁹⁷If the messenger is empowered to sign a receipt for the money which shields the debtor from any claim of the creditor’s under any circumstances, he cannot ask the money back..

If somebody forgave a bond to another person. Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mamal: one said it is forgiven¹⁹⁸An oral declaration by which the creditor engages himself not to claim a debt is valid without any act of acquisition by the debtor. This is the decision of Šulḥan ‘Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ Chapter 12 §8, based on inferences from the Babli.; the other said it is not forgiven unless he handed over the bond¹⁹⁹The debtor has to take possession of the bond directly or by an indirect act of acquisition..

“ ‘Give this mina to X,’ then he died. If the heirs want to hinder [the delivery] they are powerless. It is unnecessary to say that it is so if he said, acquire for him, if he said, accept by my orders.²⁰⁰In a slightly different wording, this is Tosephta 1:9.” Rebbi Abba barMamal said, this baraita refers to a sick person. If he is sick, does he not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this by what Rebbi Abba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They treated verbal instructions by a sick person as if they were written and delivered²⁰¹In the Babli (13a, 15a, Baba Batra 121a, 175a) this is a statement of Rav Naḥman, universally accepted. Cf. Ketubot 11:1, Note 22.. But only if he died from that sickness, not if he recovered, he did not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him.

“ ‘Give this mina to Mr. X’ and he dies, they shall deliver it after his death”¹⁴⁶If the gift was given when the giver was aware of his impending death, the heirs are bound to respect the wishes of the deceased.²⁰²The last clause of the Mishnah is essentially identical with the Tosephta discussed in the preceding paragraph.. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: The Mishnah refers to a sick person.