Yerushalmi Gittin 4:3 ירושלמי גיטין ד׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only by an oath⁵⁵If the widow continued to live in her husband’s house, she is suspected to have taken from her husband’s property more than was necessary for her guaranteed support and, therefore, if she decides to leave that house she cannot collect her ketubah without swearing that nothing of her ketubah already came into her hand, similar to a woman who had received a down payment on her ketubah, cf. Ketubot 9:8,9.. When they avoided letting her swear⁵⁶The rabbis became worried that the widow while caring for the orphans took things which she thought were payment for her work but which legally should be counted as part payment of the ketubah; if she then swore that she had received nothing, the widow involuntarily transgressed the prohibition of false oaths and the rabbis the prohibition of “putting a stone in the path of the blind.”, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should make a vow⁵⁷A vow that she would prohibit on herself the use of anything (food, vessel, place) chosen by the orphans if she had received any down payment for her ketubah. For these “vows of mortification”, see Introduction to Tractate Nedarim. on the instruction of the orphans for anything they would decide on and collect her ketubah, and that witnesses sign the bill of divorce because of the public good. Hillel instituted prozbol for the public good⁵⁸Prozbol is a document which turns a private debt (subject to the laws of revocation in the Sabbatical year) into a public debt (exempt from these laws) in order to maintain an operating banking system; cf. Ševi‘it 10:3 ff..

HALAKHAH: “A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only,” etc. Earlier they swore falsely and buried their children, since it is written⁵⁹Jer. 2:30. For the statement that children die for the parents’ sins of vows cf. Ketubot 7:7, Note 66.: “For vain [vows] I smote your children.” In addition, they fear vows more than oaths⁶⁰For example, there is an annual revocation rite, Kol Nidre, for vows with oaths only mentioned as an afterthought; cf. introduction to Tractate Nedarim, Note 4.. If she transgressed and swore? Rav Huna said, if she swore, she swore⁶¹If she swears on her own initiative to expedite the process, it is valid and she has to be paid. The same statement in the Babli, 35a.. Rav said to his daughter-in-law: If I were not a person readily making concessions, even the cover on your head would be my property. Samuel said, she acquires the garments which she is wearing⁶²The same disagreement, whether or not garments, which the husband has to supply during the marriage, are counted against the ketubah, is in the Babli Ketubot 54a.. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “Neither his wife’s garments nor his children’s are his property⁶³‘Arakhin 6:5. The family’s clothing cannot be counted as the husband’s property in bankruptcy proceedings. In the Babli, nevertheless practice is decided following Rav, against the Yerushalmi..”

Rav Huna said, why did they require a date on the bill of divorce? Because of an actual case. It so happened that a man was married to his sister’s daughter who committed adultery when she was still married. He predated the bill of divorce and said, it is better she should be judged as single rather than as a married woman⁶⁴In the Babli, 17a/b, R. Joḥanan refers to this story; the editors of the Babli assumed that this Yerushalmi was generally known..

⁶⁶Ševi‘it 10:3, explained there in Notes 83–88. The Leiden ms. is denoted by ל, the Rome ms. by ר. Rav Huna⁶⁷The readings from Ševi‘it, “Rebbi Ḥuna”, “Rebbi Jacob”, are the only ones which make sense in place and time. said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes are from their words. But following him who says tithes are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed in the Land as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed in the Land as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. (Deut. 15:2): “This is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “For all its inhabitants.” In the time when they lived on it, not when they went from it into exile. If they lived on it but did (not)⁶⁸This clearly is a scribal error; see the variant readings. intermingle, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee was operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.