Yerushalmi Yevamot 3:9 ירושלמי יבמות ג׳:ט׳

MISHNAH: In all cases¹¹⁹If the relationship with any one of the 15 categories of prohibited women enumerated in Mishnah 1:1 was predicated on a marriage whose validity or dissolution was questionable, the co-wife cannot automatically be freed since the relationship might be nonexistent but she cannot have levirate since the relationship might be valid. in which there were questionable qiddushin or divorces, the [co-wives] must perform ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate. What are questionable qiddushin? If he threw the betrothal gift to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that are questionable qiddushin¹²⁰Qiddushin have two parts: Delivery of a gift to the prospective bride and a declaration by the groom that the gift is intended to make the woman his bride. If a person stands in the public domain, it is assumed that any object within a circle of radius of 4 cubits with her in the center is acquired by that person upon expression of her will to receive that object. If now both stand in the public domain exactly 8 cubits apart and he throws the gift to her in the presence of two witnesses and it lands in the middle, it is impossible to determine up to the last micron whether most of it landed within her domain. {If both stand on his property, the gift must be properly delivered; if on her property, her property will acquire for her if she wants it. If they are more than 8 cubits apart and the gift is not completely inside her circle of acquisition, there are no qiddushin.}
In the Tosephta, 5:7, qiddushin are questionable because it was not established that the gift had the monetary value of at least a peruṭa.. What is a questionable divorce? If [the divorce document] was written in his handwriting but without witnesses, or there are witnesses but no date, or there is a date but only one witness, these are questionable divorces¹²¹These are all cases of illegal divorces which can be validated only in urgent cases (if the woman remarried on the basis of the document and is now pregnant.).

HALAKHAH: ¹²²The entire Halakhah is copied in Giṭṭin 9:2.“In all cases in which there were questionable qiddushin or divorces, the [co-wives] must perform ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate,” etc. There really is no questionable divorce here¹²³As noted, the divorce documents are formally defective but can be validated in hardship cases. Therefore, if the forbidden woman has remarried based on such a document and now has children from another man, there is no reason why Mishnah 8 should not be invoked by the former co-wife. Therefore, for matters of levirate such a divorce is valid under all circumstances. The corresponding text in Giṭṭin 9:2 (fol. 50b) reads: “There really is no questionable divorce but a real divorce.” See the next paragraph.. What are questionable qiddushin? If he threw the betrothal gift to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that are questionable qiddushin. And here, if he threw the divorce document to her¹²⁴A divorce document can be valid by biblical standards only when delivered to the woman (or her duly appointed representative), Deut. 24:1. This is a condition which cannot be waived. and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that is a questionable divorce.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa¹²⁵The place name is corrupt in most sources. In the Babli, Giṭṭin 86 b, the statement appears in very abbreviated form.: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave¹²⁶Her marriage based on the flawed document should not be terminated to avoid tainting her children from the second husband as bastards. in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father¹²⁷If his daughter was married to his brother and divorced by one of these questionable documents, if later her ex-husband dies childless, her co-wife is permitted to her father in levirate. If the rabbinical establishment would force the termination of a second marriage, the co-wife would have to perform ḥalîṣah as possible co-wife of his daughter.. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave¹²⁸If his daughter was married to his brother and divorced by one of these questionable documents, if later her ex-husband dies childless, her former co-wife is permitted to her father and any outside marriage she contracts without ḥalîṣah is null and void.. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave¹²⁹If his daughter was married to his brother and divorced by one of these questionable documents, if later her ex-husband dies childless, any marriage of this daughter to one of the other paternal uncles is incestuous.. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave¹²⁷If his daughter was married to his brother and divorced by one of these questionable documents, if later her ex-husband dies childless, her co-wife is permitted to her father in levirate. If the rabbinical establishment would force the termination of a second marriage, the co-wife would have to perform ḥalîṣah as possible co-wife of his daughter..

It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents¹³⁰A bill of debt executed in the manner of any of the three types of bills of divorce declared questionable in the Mishnah. In talmudic practice, mortgages were usually not executed for specified pieces of real estate but were liens on all real estate of the debtor (in his possession at the date of the document) to be satisfied in the order of execution (except for the money due to a wife at the dissolution of a marriage by divorce or death of the husband, which always takes precedence). Therefore, the date of a bill of debt determines its rank as a mortgage.
The problem is touched on very lightly in Babli, Baba Batra 176a. can be collected only from unincumbered property¹³¹Real estate acquired after any other bill of debt was executed., not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect¹³²No mortgage can be foreclosed unless the document and its signatures have been found to be genuine by a competent court.. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed, he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership¹³³Greek κοινωνία, used by LXX as translation (Lev. 5:21) of Hebrew תְשׂוּמֶת יָד, derived from the verb κοινωνέω, one of whose meanings is “to act in partnership”. In talmudic literature, the word always has a pejorative meaning, “a criminal conspiracy”. The lender and the borrower might conspire to defraud an earlier mortgage holder by predating the document. A sale of real estate cannot invalidate mortgage liens executed before the time of the sale. The lender and the borrower might also conspire to defraud any buyer of unincumbered real estate by pretending that the later loan predates the earlier sale. Since they would not find witnesses in good standing to sign a predated document (and to testify before a court), they take their chance with an undated bill in the borrower’s hand.. Rebbi Abun said, because it is invalid. So far, if the old man took the loan and [later] the old man mortgaged¹³⁴There might be a conspiracy if the borrower and the writer of the bill of debt are one and the same person. But if the borrower was the parent and the writer an heir, the baraita should have validated the document in this exceptional case just as the defective divorce document is validated in an exceptional case.. But if the old man took the loan and [later] the son mortgaged, can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun said, and was it not stated¹³⁵Quoted in slightly different form in Babli, Baba Batra 176a. This is all part of R. Abun’s argument.: The same holds for bills of divorce. Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here¹³⁶In the case of a bill of debt., because it is invalid.