פֿאַרבונדענע פּסוקים אויף דברים 24:3

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: “A Hebrew slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you,” he bracketed the male Hebrew with the female¹⁵⁹Deut. 15:12. The Babli, 14b, points out that the verse only covers persons sold by others, the girl by her father and the man by the court, not the person who sells himself. Sifry Deut. 118 disputes the entire argument and holds that the female had to be mentioned separately from the male since the rules of her acquisition and liberation are distinct from those of the male. (E. g., the female cannot sell herself; the adult female cannot be a Hebrew slave.). Since the female Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract, also the male Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract. One understands money since it is written¹⁶⁰Ex. 21:11. Since after six years, or after she reached adulthood, she leaves without payment, it follows that her work was worth money; cf. Note 18.: “She leaves gratis, without money [due].” From where by contract? The female Hebrew is inferred from the free woman¹⁶¹Ex. 21:10 equates the marriage of the Hebrew slave girl to her master to the latter’s marriage with another, free, woman. (Babli 16a; Mechilta dR. Šimon b.Jochai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 167)., and the male Hebrew from the female. This is a combination of inferences. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who accepts combination of inferences¹⁶²Except for texts based on Lev. For the intricacies of his position, cf. H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164; Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, pp. 171–196.
The problem before the rabbis of the second and third generations of Tannaïm was to derive a consistent legal system which intellectually could compete with the Roman law from the scattered remarks offered in the Biblical text. R. Ismael allows no more than one intermediate step between biblical text and legal statement.. Following Rebbi Ismael who rejects combination of inferences? It was found that Rebbi Ismael stated: In the case of the word חֻפְשָׁה, “free” is inferred from חֻפְשָׁה¹⁶³The expression חפשי is used in Ex. 21:2,5 in reference to the male Hebrew slave. In R. Ismael’s opinion, the ḥâruphah slave girl is a former Gentile who needs manumission (Notes 147,148) and חֻפְשָׁה mentioned in Lev. 19:20 is her bill of manumission. Since the Gentile slave girl can be manumitted by a document, it is concluded that the Hebrew slave can be acquired by a document. As noted later, this is a non sequitur.. Everywhere Rebbi Ismael rejects combination of inferences and here, he accepts combination of inferences? Rebbi Ismael stated it in the name of the Sages¹⁶⁴This translation follows the sentence structure of A.. From where is it derived for Rebbi Ismael? “Sending away, sending away.” Since “sending away” mentioned there means by a contract, also “sending away” here means by a contract¹⁶⁵Divorce, which requires a written document, is called “sending away” (of the wife) in Deut. 24:1. Therefore, the “sending away” of the Hebrew slave (Deut. 15:12,13) also refers to a written document. As noted immediately, this only would prove that the master can terminate the indenture by a written document, not that he could acquire the Hebrew’s services by a document.. But it does not compare. There it is to gain autonomy, here it is to be acquired by others! Rebbi Mattaniah¹⁶⁶In A: “Rebbi said, a baraita.” This reading is preferable since a fifth-generation Amora is unlikely to appear in a Tannaïtic discussion. said, “sale, sale”¹⁶⁷In Lev. 25:42 it is stated that a Hebrew “shall not be sold as in the sale of a [Gentile] slave.” In Deut. 15:12 it says, “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you.” It is an accepted principle (Sifry Deut. 72, Yerushalmi Baba batra 8:5 (16b), Babli Temurah5a) that if the verse notes that “something shall not be done,” if it is done it is sinful but legally valid since an invalid action does not have to be forbidden. Since the Gentile slave can be bought by contract (Mishnah 3), the Hebrew slave also can be bought by contract. The question remains whether he can be bought by contract without the buyer sinning.. Since “sale” mentioned there means by a contract, “sale” here also means by a contract. But since there¹⁶⁸Since the laws regarding Gentile slaves in general follow the rules of real estate, undisturbed possession for three years accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition legally establishes ownership. Nobody claims that the same holds for Hebrew slaves. it is possible by possession, then here it should be possible by possession. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada¹⁶⁹A: R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (an Amora of the third generation). The reading of L is the only one acceptable, referring to R. Ḥiyya bar Ada I, of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm. said, the male Hebrew is like the female Hebrew¹⁷⁰This essentially is the argument given at the start of this paragraph, Note 159. The reason for the female to be mentioned in Deut. 15:12 at the start of rules mostly dealing only with the male, is to transfer the rules of acquisition from the female to the male..