Talmud su Deuteronomio 24:1

Is there no difference, whether according to his²⁵As follows from the sequel, the question is about interpreting R. Aqiba’s position, where there is a dispute between Rebbi (referred to as “he”) and the majority of the rabbis of his generation. opinion or that of the rabbis, only if it came to rest from a public domain into a private domain? In Rebbi’s opinion, even if it did not come to rest²⁶Since the airspace over a private domain belongs to that domain up to an indeterminate height, Rebbi considers the entry of an object into this airspace as valid delivery; the rabbis read the statement that “a person’s courtyard acquires for him” to refer only to the soil, not to the airspace over it. The disagreement essentially refers to matters of civil law; its applicability to the laws of the Sabbath is questioned later in the paragraph. (Šabbat 1 Note 107, Babli 4a, 5a, Giṭṭin 79a).
In the Babli (4b) it is stated that one who threw from a public domain to another over a private domain is not liable for the Sages but twice liable for Rebbi. Since the Yerushalmi does not quote this statement, it cannot be presupposed here.; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rebbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rebbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed²⁷Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, ²⁸From here on the text is copied from Giṭṭin 8:3 (ט, Notes 54–57). The topic of divorce at the end is referred to as “here”. for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions²⁹This refers to the last sentence in Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3. If the husband throws the bill of divorce from his roof to her courtyard, it is possible to say that the bill was delivered the moment it cleared the roof only if the walls of the wife’s courtyard are higher than the husband’s roof. Otherwise it would be legally delivered only if the bill fell below the level of the courtyard walls. (The same argument is quoted in Samuel’s name in the Babli, Giṭṭin 79a.). Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up²⁷Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion³⁰The Babli agrees, Giṭṭin 79a, that the delivery of bills of divorce is governed by the rules of property rights, not those of the Sabbath.. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed?³¹For the rules of the Sabbath. What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: You shall not do any work³²Ex. 20:10.; it may make itself automatically³⁴Deut. 24:1.. But here he shall deliver into her hand³⁴Deut. 24:1., into her domain.

By money, from where? “After he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money.¹¹Babli 2a. In rabbinic Hebrew, לקח means “to buy”. The Babli shows from Gen. 23:13 that לקח in biblical Hebrew may mean “to accept a deal involving money”. By the talmudic doctrine of invariability of lexemes in biblical language, the same meaning must apply in all cases. By marital relations, from where? “And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse¹²Babli 9b. Deut. 24:1: “After a man takes a wife and has marital relations with her” is the preamble to the rules of divorce. The verse is read to mean: “After a man buys and/or has marital relations with a woman, if he desires to terminate the relationship he is required to follow the rules of divorce.” Since there is no divorce without a preceding marriage, it follows that acquiring a wife by money and/or intercourse establishes marriage by biblical standards.. I would say, by both together. Money without intercourse and intercourse without money, from where? ¹³This elliptic statement is shortened from Ketubot 3:6 (Notes 88–92). The man who sleeps with a virgin preliminarily married to another man is stoned; one who sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin is strangled. Since the verse mentions only intercourse, it is deduced that even if no money was given, the girl is legally bound to her husband and the seducer or rapist is executed for adultery. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is written: “If a man is found lying with a woman having had intercourse with her husband.” Think of it, even if he did only acquire her by intercourse, the one coming after him is [executed] by strangulation. Not only regular intercourse but even perverse¹⁴Sex play which leads to satisfaction without penetration and ejaculation.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband¹⁵If the verse was simply intended to state that the punishment of the adulterer with a non-virgin is different from that with a virgin, it would not have mentioned “her husband”. The husband makes his wife a non-virgin even by perverse intercourse, any other man only by penetration.? As we have stated there¹⁶Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:15.: “If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled¹⁷If the first one penetrated her..”

Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Samuel: But with bills of divorce, thought is not written and his action cannot prove his intention! As we have stated¹³Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:5.: “Everybody is permitted to write a bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, and a minor.” Rebbi Huna said, if a sane person directs him. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is that (Deut. 24:1,3): “he writes for her”, for her personally¹⁴This is an echo of the very short discussion in Giṭṭin 2:5. Rebbi Joḥanan points out that the divorce document must be written specifically for the woman in question. If two men with identical names are married to two women who have the same name, and both want to divorce them on the same day, the two divorce documents will have identical wording. Nevertheless, if the husbands switch the documents before they are handed to the respective wives, both divorces will be invalid. In both Talmudim, Samuel narrows down the meaning of the Mishnah in that he allows the incompetent only to write the formulaic portion under the direction of a competent person; but the data which make the document valid, date and names of the two persons involved, must be written by a competent person as agent of the husband. The argument here does not consider this restriction, except that R. Yose (Rav Assi of the first generation Amoraïm in Babylonia) is of the opinion that, since a document containing only date and names cannot be signed by witnesses and is not a divorce document, the writing of the incompetent is necessary for the validity of the document and one has to wonder why this is accepted.? Rebbi Yose came back and said, there one person writes¹⁵Writing a valid divorce document and using it for the divorce are two distinct actions; one may be valid without the other. But taking heave is valid only if the taking is intended for heave; the action itself needs thinking; this parallels the action of divorce, not the writing of part of the document. and another person divorces. But here, the same person thinks and takes heave. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there, if he¹⁶A competent person. Even if he writes all by himself there are two actions. This argument is valid only for R. Eleazar (ben Shamua, the Tanna) who holds that a divorce is validated by handing over the document before two witnesses. But according to R. Meїr who holds that a document is invalid if it has not been signed by two trustworthy witnesses, the writing of the document is not important, only the signing is, and this must be done by two competent persons unrelated to the husband. would write himself and divorce, would that not be a divorce? But here, he thinks and takes heave.