Deuteronômio 24:1 Passagens Relacionadas

HALAKHAH: “If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. “He shall write,” “he shall deliver into her hand.” Not only into her hand; from where also into her garden or into her courtyard? The verse says “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.”⁴A shortened version of this argument is in the Babli, 77b. The argument follows R. Aqiba, who derives rules from every word which could be considered not absolutely necessary. Since “he shall deliver” is mentioned both in Deut. 24:1 and 24:3, he concludes that any legal delivery is acceptable. Is this following Rebbi Ismael? It is following Rebbi Aqiba. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael⁵R. Ismael holds that “the Torah speaks in everybody’s language.” Therefore, if “hand” is to be interpreted as “possession”, a verse has to be found in which this sense is documented. This is Num. 21:26 which notes that Siḥon the Amorite “took all the land from the Moabite king’s hand”. Since land cannot be grasped in one’s hand, “hand” must mean “possession”. (A hint of this argument is in Sifry Deut. 269. The Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 56b, following only R. Aqiba, accepts the interpretation of “hand” as “possession” only in extraordinary cases.), “he took all his land from his hand, up to the Arnon.” Did he take it out of his hand? What means “from his hand”? From his possession.

The declaration of jealousy, Rebbi Joshua said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, is obligatory⁹If the husband has reason to suspect his wife, he has no choice but is obligated to declare his jealousy. In the Babli, 3a, the position of R. Eliezer is ascribed to R. Aqiba and that of R. Joshua to R. Ismael. Since R. Joshua is the greater authority than R. Eliezer and R. Aqiba is greater than R. Ismael, in practice the Babli takes the position opposite to the Yerushalmi.; but Rebbi Joshua said, it is optional. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, it turns out that Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel¹⁰Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:11; Sifry Deut. #269.. As the House of Shammai say, a man may not divorce his wife except if he found in her a matter of nakedness¹¹Illegitimate nakedness: incest and adultery.. If he found her behavior ugly¹²“Ugly things” in a moral sense, from which one may presume that she was unfaithful but there is no proof. The Babli uses כעור in the same sense. In Ketubot 7:7 (fol. 31c), Babli Yebamot 24b/25a an example is given, that the husband comes home and sees a pedlar leave the house and his wife getting dressed. Our sources indicate that in such a case the husband may divorce his wife without paying, claiming the divorce is his wife’s fault. It is not mentioned that in the absence of witnesses to the presumed sex act, the House of Shammai prohibit the divorce. This may qualify the entire argument as homiletic., he cannot divorce her since he found no proof of adultery; he cannot keep her since he found her behavior ugly. Therefore, he says, it is obligatory. But was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare¹³In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a/b, this is a statement of R. Meïr, following the House of Hillel.? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this if there are witnesses, but not if there are no witnesses¹⁴If there are independent witnesses to the indecent behavior (Note 12), the House of Shammai agree that the husband must divorce his wife; but in the case of a declaration of jealousy they might not permit a divorce except if the ordeal proves the wife guilty..

²²The major source of this paragraph and the next is in Maʻaser Šeni 4:7, Notes 118–129. Since the introduction is different and some essential passages are missing here, it is clear that this passage is derivative. But since the text has suffered some rearrangement, it cannot be a direct copy (as noted in the Introduction.) Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: So far if she said, bring me, but [the agent] said [to the husband] “receive for me”²⁴Since the agent was not appointed by the husband, he cannot legally deliver the bill.. If she said, receive for me but [the agent] said [to the husband] “bring me”? If was found stated in both cases, this is a bill of divorce and if he wants to retract he cannot retract²⁵Probably a text similar to Tosephta 4:2 (Babli 63a) following the three main sources of the Tosephta (a text rejected by S. Lieberman.) While the bill is considered delivered only when the wife receives it, the agent is not empowered to return it to the husband. The Babli, 63a, explicitly states that the divorce is valid from the moment the agent receives the bill.. But did we not state²⁶This inference from the repetition of the expression וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ in Deut. 24:1,3 is missing in other sources; cf. Halakhah 8:1. The Babli, Qiddušin 41a, derives the possibility of divorce by agent (שָׁלִיחַ) from the expression וְשִׁלְּחָהּ in Deut. 24:1 For the general principle that “an agent takes the place of a principal” cf. Qiddušin 2:1 (62a 1.41), Babli 41b. It is not trivial that a bill of divorce can be delivered by an agent since ḥalîṣah cannot be performed by an agent.: “He shall deliver into her hand,” that includes not only her hand, from where through his agent’s hand, into her agent’s hand, from his agent to her agent, and from her agent to his agent; the verse says, “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Who said, “it is impossible for me”? Rebbi! ²⁷Here starts the text from Maʻaser Šeni, Notes 120 ff. The quote in Ma’aser Šeni is from Tosephta Giṭṭin 4:1; the text here, while almost identical, has a totally different meaning. In the Tosephta, the husband instructs the agent to act for him; in the text here, the husband does not say anything but gives the bill to the agent who delivers it to the wife. It then is stated that the act of delivery validates the divorce. As it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me: If he brought it to her, gave it to her, he acquired it for her, it was received for her; if he wants to retract, he may not²⁸In the Tosephta mss., “not” is missing. retract, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ ²⁹From the text in Maʻaser Šeni, missing here but essential for an understanding of the text. The omission from להחזיר to להחזיר is easily explained.[if he wants to retract, he may retract; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to retract, he may not retract. Rebbi says, in any of these cases] he may not retract except if he says, ‘It is impossible for me that you accept it for her, but give it to her.’³⁰If the husband explicitly appoints the agent as his own.” It is difficult for Rebbi, “here you have it from my word”, if he wants to retract, he may retract³¹If the husband gives the bill and tells the agent to deliver, it should automatically invalidate the wife’s commission and let him retract.. It is difficult for Rebbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word”, if he wants to retract, he may retract³²If the husband tells the agent to do for him what the wife instructed him to do, he did not accept the agent as her agent and should be able to retract.! Rav Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent³³In either case mentioned here, it is not clear whose agent he is; the divorce is questionable and does not permit the wife to remarry. (Babli 63b, Rav Huna in the name of Rav).. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent”, she is both divorced and not divorced.