Yerushalmi Gittin 7:3 ירושלמי גיטין ז׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce if I should die from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,” he did not say anything⁴⁵Nobody can be divorced after his death. The next sentence makes it clear that a bill of divorce would be valid if given on condition to become activated one hour before the husband’s death. But from that moment he can no longer live with his wife without invalidating the divorce.. “From today if I should die, from now if I should die,” that is a bill of divorce. “From today after my death” is no bill of divorce⁴⁶The husband’s intent cannot be determined from this language. Does he want to say that the divorce shall be valid from the moment the bill was handed to his wife if he should die (either from the illness he is currently suffering from, or on a trip overseas he is just starting, or any other foreseeable dangerous situation which causes him to write the bill), or does he really mean that the divorce should become effective only at the time of his death? In the first case, the wife becomes a divorcee after his death, in the second case she becomes a widow.
In some Bablylonian sources, the wording is “it is and is not a bill of divorce.”; if he dies⁴⁷If he dies childless and has a brother, the wife cannot enter levirate marriage since she might be a divorcee; she cannot marry outside the family without ḥalîṣah since she might be a widow; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot. she must receive ḥalîṣah but is barred from levirate marriage.

HALAKHAH: “ ‘This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,’ he did not say anything.” ⁴⁸This paragraph is also in Niddah 3, explained there in Notes 93–97. “Rebbi Jehudah the Prince” may be Judah II, Rebbi’s grandson; cf. Note 51. But our teachers said, it is a bill of divorce⁴⁹The Babli, Giṭṭin 72b, reports the same but in 76b refers the decision to Mishnah 7:9: “If he says, this is your bill of divorce if I do not return within 12 months; if he dies in the meantime, the bill of divorce is void.” In this case also, he did not specify from today. The Babli explains that in both cases they follow R. Yose who holds that “the date of a document is proof of its validity;” a bill of divorce executed before the husband’s death is valid (cf. below, Note 67). The Yerushalmi’s interpretation is given in the second and third paragraphs following.. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court⁵⁰Šabbat 1:1 (3d 1.20), Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d 1.17), Avodah zarah 2:8 (41d 1.48); obliquely mentioned in the Babli Giṭṭin 72b, 76b; Ketubot 2b, Avodah zarah37a.. In three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil⁵¹Mishnah Avodah zarah 2:9. The Mishnah has a list of foods that cannot be taken from Gentiles without kosher supervision since one cannot be sure that no forbidden ingredients were used, but which are not forbidden for usufruct. A first group includes milk, bread, and olive oil, with a note that “our teachers permitted olive oil” [to be used without supervision.] In the Babli, this permission is attributed to Rebbi, not his grandson R. Jehudah the Prince. (The chronology of the House of Hillel in the Third Cent. and the attribution of decrees between Rabbis Jehudah I, II, and III is in dispute.), and a sole⁵²If a woman has a miscarriage in the shape of a sole (essentially an empty placenta) she is subject to all disabilities of the woman who gave birth to a male and a female. Rebbi Jehudah’s court restricted this to the case that a human shape was recognizable.. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael⁵³In Niddah simply: R. Yudan. said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce.

May she⁵⁴This cannot refer to the case in the Mishnah here, but must refer to Mishnah 10, about a man going overseas who gave his wife a bill of divorce to be valid if he should not return within 12 months. It is clear that the wife can remary after 12 months. The question is whether she can remarry within 12 months if news was received of her husband’s death (meaning that he would not be able to return) but the news was not brought by two witnesses testifying in court. be allowed to remarry? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rebbi Yose: she is forbidden to remarry; I say that a miracle happened to him and he survived.

“ ‘From today if I should die, from now if I should die,’ that is a bill of divorce. ‘From today after my death’ is no bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yudan said, the rabbis and our teachers [discussed.] Our teachers objected to the rabbis⁵⁵Since in the sequel Rebbi (who is “our teachers”) objects to the rabbis, it follows that here one has to read: The rabbis (of the Mishnah) objected to our teachers (who declare the bills of divorce of the first series as valid.): Why do you say, it is a bill of divorce? Because he said, “if”⁵⁶Our teachers follow R. Yose (Note 67) who declares that “the date of a document is proof”, meaning that the date of a document valid under certain conditions is proof of intent that it should be valid from that date on once the condition was satisfied. Therefore, the difference between the first and second series of bills of divorce is irrelevant; all are conditional in the same way.! But in the last statement, he said “if” and you say, it is no bill of divorce⁵⁷He really did not say “if” but “from today after my death” but this means the same as “from today on condition that I shall have died.” In any case, it is a dated document with an implied condition.! But it must be because he said, “from today”. We also hold that “from today” is the main point⁵⁸An undated document, while valid if executed unconditionally and delivered before witnesses at the time it was written, can never be validated after that time.. Rebbi objected to the rabbis. Why do you say, it is not a bill of divorce⁵⁹“From today after my death”.? Because he said, “from today”! But in the earlier statement⁶⁰The first two examples of the second series., he said “from today” and you say, it is a bill of divorce! But it must be because he said, “if”. I also am holding that “if” is the main point⁶¹That every dated document containing a condition is to be read as valid from the date of execution once the condition is satisfied (unless it is stated otherwise in the document.). There⁶²In the Babli, 72b, Rebbi is quoted to the effect that “from today after my death” is a valid condition., they switch attributions. Both Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav say that the words of Rebbi [interpreted] there are the words of the rabbis [interpreted] here: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “on condition.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, “on condition that I die⁶³Retroactively valid now if the husband dies from his current illness.” or “on condition that it be after my death⁶⁴That the divorce be valid only after the husband’s death.”? He said to him, “on condition that I die.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi [interpreted] here are the words of the rabbis [interpreted] there: Since he said “from today” it is as if he had said “after death.⁶²In the Babli, 72b, Rebbi is quoted to the effect that “from today after my death” is a valid condition.”

There⁶⁵Mishnah Baba Batra 8:7., we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death⁶⁶By a positive biblical rule, an inheritance has to be divided evenly among the male heirs (Num. 27:6–11) except that the firstborn male in rabbinic interpretation receives a double portion (Deut. 21:17). If the father wants to distribute his property unevenly, or leave real estate to his daughters, he has to execute a will which has to become valid during his lifetime since nobody can act in law after his death.. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof⁶⁷Since everybody knows that a will has to be activated during the testator’s lifetime, the date of the will automatically becomes the date of its validation except if this is disclaimed in the document itself. The same statement is in the Babli, Baba Batra 136a.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition⁶⁸Perhaps compare Greek ὕστερος “later, subsequent” as in combination τῇ ὑστέρῃ προσβολῇ “later, subsequent, conditions added to a document.” (E. G.) Less likely is a relation between the hapax איסרטה and Arabic شرطة “stipulation, clause” which might be Aramaic שטר, Accadic šeṭrum,šaṭārum “document”.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts⁶⁹This is a reformulation of the colleague’s statement: R. Yose’s statement about wills is applicable neither to divorces nor to gifts.. Rebbi Ila⁷⁰He disagrees with R. Ze‘ira. said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself⁷¹During his lifetime.. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation⁷²If it is a divorce, the wife will be able to marry another man.. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body⁷³The use of prothetic א for אל, על is Babylonian. He wants to prevent his wife from remarrying during his lifetime. Therefore, the mention of “after death” contradicts the statement “from today” and there is no divorce. Rashba (Novellae ad 72b) reads: “the bill of divorce is unclear” (He also reads לְשַׁייֵר לוֹ גוּפָהּ, a better Yerushalmi style). to himself. Rebbi Bibon⁷⁴Rashba reads: R. Bun. [Compare the Latin adjective vivus “alive” as equivalent of חַיִים; cf. also the Roman name Bibulus. (E.G.)] bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself⁷⁵Then the divorce would be absolute and the wife entitled to remarry during her first husband’s lifetime.? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

The same situation obtains for bills of manumission. “This is your bill of manumission valid after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is a bill⁷⁵Then the divorce would be absolute and the wife entitled to remarry during her first husband’s lifetime.; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is no bill⁷⁶The document is self-contradictory and therefore invalid.. The same situation obtains for abandoning. “My field shall be abandoned after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is abandoned⁷⁷And freed from some of the obligations imposed by biblical law on agricultural properties in the Land; cf. Sevi‘it 9:6, Note 85.; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is not abandoned. Is it the same for dedications⁷⁸Donations to the Temple or, in later times, for charitable purposes.? Everybody agrees that “my speaking to Heaven is equivalent to my delivering to a person.”⁷⁹Formulated in the third person this is Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6. Promises of charitable giving always are absolute and irrevocable. Is it the same for preliminary marriage? It was found stated: Rebbi says, she is completely preliminarily married⁸⁰This refers to Mishnah Qiddušin3:1: “ ‘(You are preliminarily married to me) after 30 days from today’, if another man married her preliminarily within the thirty days she is married and not married.” In the Babli, Qiddušin 59b, Rav holds that she is permanently disabled from marrying anyone unless she receives a bill of divorce from both men; Samuel holds that she cannot definitively marry until the 30 day period has passed, when the claim of the second man disappears automatically. In contrast, Rebbi here asserts that the preliminary marriage of the second man never was valid in law..