Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Gittin 9:7 ירושלמי גיטין ט׳:ז׳
Part of: Chapter 9
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין שֶׁכְּתָבָן זֶה בְצַד זֶה וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים עִבְרִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם עֵדִים יְוָונִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה. אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ כָּשֵׁר. עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָונִי עֵד אֶחָד יְוָונִי וְעֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי בָּאִין מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּסוּלִין.
MISHNAH: If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side and two Hebrew-writing witnesses signed from one column to the next, and two Greek-writing witnesses signed from one column to the next, the one whose witnesses are read with it is valid. If one Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, all are invalid102The scribe wrote two bills of divorce in two parallel columns. When the witnesses came to sign, they used the space under both columns. Then only the bill whose witnesses sign directly under it is valid since for the other bill the first witness is at least two lines too far away to be counted. The additional complication is that the Hebrew text starts at the right but the Greek text on the left. For example:
bill bill
יצחק בן אברהם
משה בן עמרם
Ενως υἱὸς Σηθ
Σημ υἰὸς Νωε
In this case, if the first two signatures apply to the bill on the right hand side, that bill is valid. If they applied to the bill at the left, both bills would be invalid since the bill is read from the left but the signatures from the right. If each bill carries two signatures, one to be read from the right, the other from the left:
bill bill
יצחק בן אברהם
Ενως υἱὸς Σηθ
משה בן עמרם
Σημ υἰὸς Νωε
no bill can be read with its signatures and both are invalid. If both Hebrew signatures belong to one bill and both Greek to the other, both bills are still invalid since the second signature is only on the fourth line..
MISHNAH: If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side and two Hebrew-writing witnesses signed from one column to the next, and two Greek-writing witnesses signed from one column to the next, the one whose witnesses are read with it is valid. If one Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, all are invalid102The scribe wrote two bills of divorce in two parallel columns. When the witnesses came to sign, they used the space under both columns. Then only the bill whose witnesses sign directly under it is valid since for the other bill the first witness is at least two lines too far away to be counted. The additional complication is that the Hebrew text starts at the right but the Greek text on the left. For example:
bill bill
יצחק בן אברהם
משה בן עמרם
Ενως υἱὸς Σηθ
Σημ υἰὸς Νωε
In this case, if the first two signatures apply to the bill on the right hand side, that bill is valid. If they applied to the bill at the left, both bills would be invalid since the bill is read from the left but the signatures from the right. If each bill carries two signatures, one to be read from the right, the other from the left:
bill bill
יצחק בן אברהם
Ενως υἱὸς Σηθ
משה בן עמרם
Σημ υἰὸς Νωε
no bill can be read with its signatures and both are invalid. If both Hebrew signatures belong to one bill and both Greek to the other, both bills are still invalid since the second signature is only on the fourth line..
הלכה: שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין שֶׁכְּתָבָן זֶה בְצַד זֶה כול׳. הִרְחִיק אֶת הָעֵדִים מִן הַכְּתָב. מְקוֹם שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִּין פָּסוּל. פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן כָּשֵׁר. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חָלָק מְקוֹם שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִּין לְעִנְיָין אֶחָד. אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָונִי עֵד אֶחָד יְוָונִי וְעֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי בָּאִין מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּסוּלִין. וְעִבְרִי גַּבֵּי יְוָונִי לֹא כְעִנְיָין אֶחָד הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הִתְחִיל בְּסוֹף שְׁתַּיִם וְגָמַר בְּסוֹף אַרְבַּע כָּשֵׁר. כַּמָּה יְהוּ הָעֵדִים רְחוֹקִין מִן הַכְּתָב. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ נִיקְרִין עִמּוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. מְלֹא שִׁיטָּה. רִבִּי דּוֹסִתַּי בֵּירִבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר. בלא חֲתִימַת יַד הָעֵדִים. בְּאֵי זֶה כְתָב מְשָׁעֲרִין. רִבִּי יָסָא בֵּירִבִּי שַׁבָּתַי. מְלֹא חֲתִימַת יְדֵי עֵדִים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלָא כְּדֵי לך ולך. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. חֲתִימַת יוֹסֵי בֶּן יַנַּאי כַּחֲתִימַת שָׁאוּל בֶּן בָּרוּךְ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה. חֲתִימַת יוֹסֵי בֶּן יַנַּאי כַּחֲתִימַת שָׁאוּל בֶּן בָּרוּךְ.
HALAKHAH: “If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side,” etc. 103There is a parallel in Baba batra 10:1, noted ב. Even though this is evidently from a different edition, the text (except for the last two lines) is close enough to be considered identical. The text is Tosephta 7:11 (Babli Baba batra 162b).“It is invalid if the witnesses are separated from the text by the width of two lines; less than that it is valid”104The witnesses cannot sign directly after the text since then they would not appear as witnesses. In commercial contracts, the distance cannot be two full lines since then the holder of the document could insert a line of text at the end after the signing. Since a commercial contract is invalid if the witnesses are too far from the text, the same standard is applied for bills of divorce and manumission.. 105A corresponding rule holds for lacunae in the text: Chapter 3:2, Notes 68, 69. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject106The text in Baba batra reads: “Another subject”. The parallel in 3:2 shows that this is an editorial difference, not a scribal error. makes invalid in any case. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, are all invalid.” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item107In Baba batra: “Is Hebrew relative to Greek not another subject?” The text here is preferable since for a single bill on a sheet of paper it is perfectly acceptable to have one witness sign in Hebrew and the other in Greek or Roman letters. The bills are invalid only because the signatures would be separated by more than one line, not because they are in different alphabets (cf. Tosephta ki F shutah Giṭṭin p. 910).? Rebbi Mana said, if he started at the end of the second line and ended at the fourth line, it is valid108If the first witness does not start to sign at the start of the second line but towards its end, extending his signature to the third line and forcing the second witness to write his patronymic on the fourth line, the document is valid since it cannot be adulterated.. 109Tosephta 7:11–12; an extended version is quoted in Baba batra.“How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Yannai110In Baba batra erroneously: Dositheos ben Jehudah. says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” What kind of writing does one use to estimate? Rebbi Yasa ben Rebbi Sabbatai111In Baba batra correctly: R. Yasa in the name of R. Sabbatai. says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting112In Baba batra: The largest of the writing of the scribe or one of the witnesses. This seems to be from the editors of Neziqin; the text here implies that the two lines are judged by the larger of the signatures. The Babli, Baba batra 163a, explicitly states that the handwriting of the scribe is irrelevant.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula: Corresponding to לך ולך113The empty line must be large enough as to accomodate separately the height of ל and the bottom of ך. The Babli agrees, Baba batra 163a.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does the signature of Yose ben Yannai have equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh114It seems that it was acceptable if ~ב was written for “son of”. In that case, “Yose ben Yannai” had no lengths above and below the line, but “Shaul ben Barukh” had both.? He said to him: For that it is needed, that the signature of Yose ben Yannai has equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh115In judging a document, the actual signatures count, not theoretical distances. It might be that “Yose ben Yannai” uses up more space than “Shaul ben Barukh”..
HALAKHAH: “If he wrote two bills of divorce side by side,” etc. 103There is a parallel in Baba batra 10:1, noted ב. Even though this is evidently from a different edition, the text (except for the last two lines) is close enough to be considered identical. The text is Tosephta 7:11 (Babli Baba batra 162b).“It is invalid if the witnesses are separated from the text by the width of two lines; less than that it is valid”104The witnesses cannot sign directly after the text since then they would not appear as witnesses. In commercial contracts, the distance cannot be two full lines since then the holder of the document could insert a line of text at the end after the signing. Since a commercial contract is invalid if the witnesses are too far from the text, the same standard is applied for bills of divorce and manumission.. 105A corresponding rule holds for lacunae in the text: Chapter 3:2, Notes 68, 69. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject106The text in Baba batra reads: “Another subject”. The parallel in 3:2 shows that this is an editorial difference, not a scribal error. makes invalid in any case. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness are under each of them, reaching from one column to the other, are all invalid.” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item107In Baba batra: “Is Hebrew relative to Greek not another subject?” The text here is preferable since for a single bill on a sheet of paper it is perfectly acceptable to have one witness sign in Hebrew and the other in Greek or Roman letters. The bills are invalid only because the signatures would be separated by more than one line, not because they are in different alphabets (cf. Tosephta ki F shutah Giṭṭin p. 910).? Rebbi Mana said, if he started at the end of the second line and ended at the fourth line, it is valid108If the first witness does not start to sign at the start of the second line but towards its end, extending his signature to the third line and forcing the second witness to write his patronymic on the fourth line, the document is valid since it cannot be adulterated.. 109Tosephta 7:11–12; an extended version is quoted in Baba batra.“How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Yannai110In Baba batra erroneously: Dositheos ben Jehudah. says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” What kind of writing does one use to estimate? Rebbi Yasa ben Rebbi Sabbatai111In Baba batra correctly: R. Yasa in the name of R. Sabbatai. says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting112In Baba batra: The largest of the writing of the scribe or one of the witnesses. This seems to be from the editors of Neziqin; the text here implies that the two lines are judged by the larger of the signatures. The Babli, Baba batra 163a, explicitly states that the handwriting of the scribe is irrelevant.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula: Corresponding to לך ולך113The empty line must be large enough as to accomodate separately the height of ל and the bottom of ך. The Babli agrees, Baba batra 163a.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does the signature of Yose ben Yannai have equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh114It seems that it was acceptable if ~ב was written for “son of”. In that case, “Yose ben Yannai” had no lengths above and below the line, but “Shaul ben Barukh” had both.? He said to him: For that it is needed, that the signature of Yose ben Yannai has equal weight with the signature of Shaul ben Barukh115In judging a document, the actual signatures count, not theoretical distances. It might be that “Yose ben Yannai” uses up more space than “Shaul ben Barukh”..
שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַחַק אוֹ תְלוּת. מִגּוּפוֹ פָּסוּל. שֶׁלֹּא מִגּוּפוֹ כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם הֶחֱזִירוֹ מִלְּמַטָָּה אֲפִילוּ מִגּוּפוֹ כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִיר שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִּין מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב. צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר עִנְיָינוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט עִמּוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב. לֹא הִזְכִּיר עִנְיָינוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט עִמּוֹ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי בָּא. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. עֵדִים פְּסוּלִין אֵינָן נַעֲשִׂין כְּהַרְחֵק עֵדוּת. שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ אֶלָּא לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָכָא בְשֵׁם רַב.
A document which has an erasure or insertion in its main part116Where the parties are identified and the sums of money specified. is invalid; in the routine matter it is valid; but if it was mentioned later117Reference is made to the erasure or the addition before the last line of text. it is valid even in the main part. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, one has to mention it at least in the second line before the end of the text. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav: One has to mention the essence of the document with it118In justifying erasure or addition, the purpose has to be stated.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: If one did not mention the essence of the document with it119This sentence is incomplete. The following discussion shows that one has to add: “it is invalid.”. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There, Rebbi Ba said in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity120If the first lines after the contract text were filled with the signatures of people invited for reasons other than testimony and the real witnesses sign only later, one validates the document even though the real signatures start more than one line after the text.. And here, he says so121If the essence of the document is not stated at the acknowledgment of a correction, the document is invalid.? There, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, here in the name of Rav.
A document which has an erasure or insertion in its main part116Where the parties are identified and the sums of money specified. is invalid; in the routine matter it is valid; but if it was mentioned later117Reference is made to the erasure or the addition before the last line of text. it is valid even in the main part. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, one has to mention it at least in the second line before the end of the text. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav: One has to mention the essence of the document with it118In justifying erasure or addition, the purpose has to be stated.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: If one did not mention the essence of the document with it119This sentence is incomplete. The following discussion shows that one has to add: “it is invalid.”. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There, Rebbi Ba said in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity120If the first lines after the contract text were filled with the signatures of people invited for reasons other than testimony and the real witnesses sign only later, one validates the document even though the real signatures start more than one line after the text.. And here, he says so121If the essence of the document is not stated at the acknowledgment of a correction, the document is invalid.? There, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, here in the name of Rav.
קָרָא עִרְעֵר עַל חֲתִימַת יְדֵי עֵדִים. וְעַל חֲתִימַת יְדֵי הַדַּיָינִין. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. שֶׁכֵּן אִם רָצָה לְקַיְימוֹ בִּכְתַב יַד הָעֵדִים מְקוּיָים. בִּכְתַב יְדֵי הַדַּיָינִין מְקוּיָים. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ בְעֵד אֶחָד מִדַּיָין אֶחָד מְקוּיָים. יְהַב רְשׁוּ לַכְּתוֹבָא שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב וְלַחַתִימַיָיא שֶׁיַּחְתִּימוֹן. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. צְרִיכִין הָעֵדִים לִכְתּוֹב. הַמִּלְוָה הַזֹּאת מֵאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן הוּא וְאָנוּ אִיחַרְנוּ אֶת זְמַנּוֹ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הַמְנוּנָא. אַשְּׁרַת הַדַּיָינִין אֲפִילוּ רְחוֹקָה כַּמָּה כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וְיֵאוּת. שֶׁכֵּן אִם רָצָה לְקַיְימוֹ אֲפִילוּ בִּכְתַב אֶחָד מְקַיֵים. רַב אָמַר. צְרִיכִין הַדַּיָינִין לִכְתּוֹב. אִישַּׁרְנוּהִי בְמַעֲמַד פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. לָמָּה. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְצוּיִין לְהַזִּים. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹם וּבְאֵי זֶה שָׁעָה וּבְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם. גְּזַר דִין נְפַק מִקּוֹמֵי רַב וְלֹא הֲוָה כָתוּב כָּךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. צְרִיכִין הַדַּיָינִים מַכִּירִין אֶת הַנִּידּוֹנִין. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְזִיְיפוּ.
If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges122A debtor whose property is attached following a decree of a court in another jurisdiction claims that the document is counterfeit and the signatures of the witnesses and the judges are fake.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified123The creditor can prove the document genuine either by proving the validity of the signatures of the witnesses or that of the judges.; I am saying124R. Abba adds that only two signatures have to be verified; they can also be those of one witness and one judge. that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.”125The debtor told the scribe and witnesses to execute a document of indebtedness. If it was not written on the same day, the fact has to be noted on the document even though a postdated document is valid (only a predated one is invalid). The Babli, Baba batra 170b, confirms the statement but notes that it is not enforced. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance126Judicial confirmation of the genuineness of a document does not have to be written immediately below the signatures of the witnesses; it can be anywhere on the document. The Babli, Baba batra 163b, forbids any space between signatures and confirmation, not even one line.. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting127R. Mana’s argument is that of the Babli: If there is an empty space, the creditor could insert text in between and create a fake document with genuine signatures.? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury128The root זמם, used to describe perjury, really means “to devise (a plot)”. It is used in Deut. 19:16–21 to characterize the perjurer. In Talmudic theory, a wrong testimony is not usually perjured testimony; it is up to the court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Perjury is impossible testimony, i. e., the witnesses pretend to have seen things they could not have seen since they were not present at the place at the time indicated. This leads to the notion that the validity of a document could be tested only if the exact time and place of the signing were indicated in the document.. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written129It was executed by the signatures of the judges alone.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified130A case of identity theft, where the signatures of the witnesses and the judges were all genuine but the presumed debtor gave a false identity, so that an innocent third party was hit with a decree of payment..
If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges122A debtor whose property is attached following a decree of a court in another jurisdiction claims that the document is counterfeit and the signatures of the witnesses and the judges are fake.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified123The creditor can prove the document genuine either by proving the validity of the signatures of the witnesses or that of the judges.; I am saying124R. Abba adds that only two signatures have to be verified; they can also be those of one witness and one judge. that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.”125The debtor told the scribe and witnesses to execute a document of indebtedness. If it was not written on the same day, the fact has to be noted on the document even though a postdated document is valid (only a predated one is invalid). The Babli, Baba batra 170b, confirms the statement but notes that it is not enforced. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance126Judicial confirmation of the genuineness of a document does not have to be written immediately below the signatures of the witnesses; it can be anywhere on the document. The Babli, Baba batra 163b, forbids any space between signatures and confirmation, not even one line.. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting127R. Mana’s argument is that of the Babli: If there is an empty space, the creditor could insert text in between and create a fake document with genuine signatures.? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury128The root זמם, used to describe perjury, really means “to devise (a plot)”. It is used in Deut. 19:16–21 to characterize the perjurer. In Talmudic theory, a wrong testimony is not usually perjured testimony; it is up to the court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Perjury is impossible testimony, i. e., the witnesses pretend to have seen things they could not have seen since they were not present at the place at the time indicated. This leads to the notion that the validity of a document could be tested only if the exact time and place of the signing were indicated in the document.. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written129It was executed by the signatures of the judges alone.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified130A case of identity theft, where the signatures of the witnesses and the judges were all genuine but the presumed debtor gave a false identity, so that an innocent third party was hit with a decree of payment..