לֹא־יוּכַ֣ל בַּעְלָ֣הּ הָרִאשׁ֣וֹן אֲשֶֽׁר־שִׁ֠לְּחָהּ לָשׁ֨וּב לְקַחְתָּ֜הּ לִהְי֧וֹת ל֣וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֗ה אַחֲרֵי֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֻטַּמָּ֔אָה כִּֽי־תוֹעֵבָ֥ה הִ֖וא לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וְלֹ֤א תַחֲטִיא֙ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָֽה׃ (ס)
maka suaminya yang pertama, yang telah menyuruhnya pergi, tidak boleh mengambilnya kembali menjadi istrinya setelah perempuan itu dinajiskan, sebab hal itu adalah kekejian di hadapan Yang Mahakekal. Janganlah engkau mendatangkan dosa atas negeri yang diberikan Yang Mahakekal, Allahmu, kepadamu sebagai milik pusaka.
Jerusalem Talmud Terumot
MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept1The entire harvest will be heave. In case of unintentional use of heave grain, if the error is discovered early enough, the farmer has a chance for a new crop. If it was intentional, the field cannot be used for commercial produce the entire growing season.. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally2As explained earlier, “one third ripe” means that the grains are well formed and one third ripe, not that only one third of the entire growing season has passed. The grain is heave and may not be destroyed.. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally3The reason is explained in the Halakhah: To avoid that the flax stalks (which are not food but the most valuable part of the plant) could be used..
But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah15Since the new crop grown from heave seed is heave only by rabbinic decree, it is not freed from the biblical obligations.. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs16What is collected must be treated as heave but since it is intrinsically profane, the proceeds are profane in the hand of the poor non-Cohen.. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths17The poor non-Cohen will incur guilt eating what was declared to be heave.. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect18Since eating heave when impure is a deadly sin..
Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor25Since the new crop grown from heave seed is heave only by rabbinic decree, it is not freed from the biblical obligations.. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs16What is collected must be treated as heave but since it is intrinsically profane, the proceeds are profane in the hand of the poor non-Cohen.. He who flails26He removes the grains from the ears by hitting with a flail. He is praiseworthy because he does not use an animal. Since grain is human food, its heave may not be used as animal feed. On the other hand, muzzling a threshing animal is forbidden (Deut. 25:4). is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind27So that the animal may eat from the basket while threshing.. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.
But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah15Since the new crop grown from heave seed is heave only by rabbinic decree, it is not freed from the biblical obligations.. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs16What is collected must be treated as heave but since it is intrinsically profane, the proceeds are profane in the hand of the poor non-Cohen.. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths17The poor non-Cohen will incur guilt eating what was declared to be heave.. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect18Since eating heave when impure is a deadly sin..
Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor25Since the new crop grown from heave seed is heave only by rabbinic decree, it is not freed from the biblical obligations.. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs16What is collected must be treated as heave but since it is intrinsically profane, the proceeds are profane in the hand of the poor non-Cohen.. He who flails26He removes the grains from the ears by hitting with a flail. He is praiseworthy because he does not use an animal. Since grain is human food, its heave may not be used as animal feed. On the other hand, muzzling a threshing animal is forbidden (Deut. 25:4). is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind27So that the animal may eat from the basket while threshing.. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
Since the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but not completely, so they say, a bill of divorce frees but not completely. 4The arguments of this paragraph (except the last one) are repeated in a few short lines in Babli Qiddushin 14a. Should not a bill of divorce completely free a sister-in-law by an argument de minore ad majus? Since ḥalîṣah does not free a wife5To marry another man. but a bill of divorce does, is it not logical that a sister-in-law, who is freed by ḥalîṣah, should be freed by a bill of divorce? The verse says, “she shall pull off.6Pulling off the levir’s shoe; Deut. 25:9. The Babli points to another part of the same verse, “so it should be done”, so and not otherwise.” By pulling off she is freed; she is not freed by a bill of divorce. So it should free anything! It is written7Deut. 25:5.: “She shall not belong … to a strange man.” Where do we hold? If he came upon her, she is his wife. If he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she should go and marry an outsider. So we must hold that he gave her a bill of divorce. Also Ḥizqiah stated thus: From where that the sister-in-law is forbidden to himself and his brothers if he gave her a bill of divorce? For him, I read “whom he had sent away8Deut. 24:4, speaking about the divorced wife.”. For the brothers, I read “whom he had sent away”. Then should not ḥalîṣah free a wife by an argument de minore ad majus? Since a bill of divorce does not free a sister-in-law but ḥalîṣah does, is it not logical that a wife, who is freed by a bill of divorce, should be freed by ḥalîṣah? The verse says, “9Deut. 24:1. he shall write her a bill of divorce.” By a bill of divorce she is freed; she is not freed by ḥalîṣah. So [ḥalîṣah] should free partially! There, it is written, “she shall not belong … to a strange man.” Here, what do you have10There is no verse indicating any action of ḥalîṣah on the status of a married woman.?
Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin
A student asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he gave it to her in the morning on condition that he divorce her in the afternoon55From the following it seems that the question was about a case in which A gave a wedding gift to a woman stating that she should be preliminarily married to him “from now after a specified time” but divorcing her before the end of the stated period. B preliminarily married the same woman after A’s conditional marriage but before the divorce. The Mishnah refers to the situation after the end of the 30 day period, when both preliminary marriages are in conflict. That situation may be rectified by at least one divorce. But in the situation described here, the question remains whether a divorce is possible for a marriage which has not yet started.? A certain David was of the opinion that anything acquires56Therefore, a divorce is possible also for a partial marriage.; Rebbi Ze‘ira said that after thirty days he acquires absolutely57He questions the possibility of divorce of a not yet existing marriage.
A Genizah fragment adds a sentence which was lost by the Leiden scribe by homeoteleuton:
ניתגרשה מזה מותר לזה. נית׳ מזה מותר לזה. ניתגרשה משניהן מותר׳ לאיזו … בשלא הוסיף בה השיני
קניין גמור.
If she was divorced by the first, she is permitted to the second; if she was divorced by the second, she is permitted to the first. If she was divorced by both of them, she is permitted to anybody [she likes]. If the second did not add absolute acquisition;
The first two sentences are the conclusion of the previous text. The last sentence is the introduction to the following text. The text does not add anything to the understanding of the Leiden text.. But if the second one added absolute acquisition, I am reading for her: “Her first husband who had sent her away cannot return to take her back.58Deut. 24:4. If the second preliminary marriage was unconditional and the second man died, the first who had given a divorce whose validity may be suspect cannot marry the woman, since for the rule that a divorcee married to another man may not be taken back by her first husband, the divorce and the preliminary marriage to the second man was real.”
A Genizah fragment adds a sentence which was lost by the Leiden scribe by homeoteleuton:
ניתגרשה מזה מותר לזה. נית׳ מזה מותר לזה. ניתגרשה משניהן מותר׳ לאיזו … בשלא הוסיף בה השיני
קניין גמור.
If she was divorced by the first, she is permitted to the second; if she was divorced by the second, she is permitted to the first. If she was divorced by both of them, she is permitted to anybody [she likes]. If the second did not add absolute acquisition;
The first two sentences are the conclusion of the previous text. The last sentence is the introduction to the following text. The text does not add anything to the understanding of the Leiden text.. But if the second one added absolute acquisition, I am reading for her: “Her first husband who had sent her away cannot return to take her back.58Deut. 24:4. If the second preliminary marriage was unconditional and the second man died, the first who had given a divorce whose validity may be suspect cannot marry the woman, since for the rule that a divorcee married to another man may not be taken back by her first husband, the divorce and the preliminary marriage to the second man was real.”