משנה: מְעִידִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר וּלְאוֹר הַלְּבָנָה וּמַשִּׂיאִין עַל פִּי בַת קוֹל. מַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁעָמַד עַל רֹאשׁ הָהָר וְאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי מֵת הָֽלְכוּ וְלֹא מָֽצְאוּ שָׁם אָדָם וְהִשִּׁיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְשׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְצַלְמוֹן בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר אֲנִי אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נְשָׁכַנִי נָחָשׁ וַהֲרֵי אֲנִי מֵת וְהָֽלְכוּ וְלֹא הִכִּירוּהוּ וְהִשִּׁיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. MISHNAH: One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon117In judicial proceedings, testimony is accepted only during daytime. and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice118This is a source of information without any standing in judicial proceedings.. It happened that one stood on a hilltop and called out that the man X from place Y died. They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry. It also happened at Ṣalmon119An unidentified place, possibly Kafr Ṣalmeh in lower Galilee. that somebody said, I am X, son of Y; a snake bit me and I am dying. They went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry.
הלכה: מְעִידִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. לִימְּדַנִי רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וְהֵן שֶׁרָאוּ בּוּבְיָה שֶׁל אָדָם. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִנָא. תַּמָּן תַּנִינָן. מִי שֶׁהָיָה מוּשְׁלָךְ בַבּוֹר וְאָמַר כָּל־הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ אֶת קוֹלִי יִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. וָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וְהֵן שֶׁרָאוּ בּוּבְיָה שֶׁל אָדָם. רִבִּי אָחָא בַּר חֲנִינָה חִנְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. הָדָה דְתֵימַר בַּשָּׂדֶה. אֲבָל בָּעִיר אֲפִילוּ לֹא רָאוּ בּוּבְיָה שֶּׁל אָדָם. וְהֵן תַּנִּינָן. מִי שֶׁהָיָה מוּשְׁלָךְ בַבּוֹר וְאָמַר כָּל מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵעַ אֶת קוֹלִי יִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וְהוּא שֶׁרָאוּ בּוּבְיָה שֶׁל אָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. הַמַּזִּיקִין מְצוּיִין בַּבּוֹרוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן מְצוּיִין בַּשָּׂדוֹת. HALAKHAH: “One testifies by the light of a candle.” 122This paragraph is copied from Giṭṭin 6:6. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jonathan taught me, only if they saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There123Gittin 6:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.6.4.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:6., we have stated: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if the saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That means, in the fields, but in town even without a man’s shadow. But did we not state: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern and said, anybody who hears my voice should write a bill of divorce to my wife, they should write and deliver,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow? Rebbi Abun said, damaging spirits124In the opinion of the Gittin.66a">Babli, Giṭṭin 66a, they can take on human shapes and even have a shadow. But since that shadow is the work of the spirit and not of physics, they have no half shadows (meaning that the shadows of spirits follow the rules of geometric, not of wave, optics.) are as frequent in cisterns as they are frequent on the fields.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַמֵּסִית זֶה הַהֶדְיוֹט וְהַנִּיסֵּית זֶה הֶדְיוֹט. הָא חָכָם לֹא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא נִיסֵּית אֶין זֶה חָכָם. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא מֵסִית אֶין זֶה חָכָם. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא נִיסֵּית אֶין זֶה חָכָם. כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין לוֹ לְהַעֲרִים עָלָיו. מַכְמִינִים עָלָיו שְׁנֵי עֵדִים בְנֵי אָדָם בַּבַיִת הַפְּנִימִית וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אֹתוֹ בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן וּמַדְלִיקִין נֵר עַל גַּבָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ וְשׁוֹמְעִין אֶת קוֹלוֹ. שֶׁכֵּן עָשׂוּ לְבֶן סַטְרָא בְּלוֹד שֶׁהִכְמִינוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים וְהֶבִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית דִּין וּסְקָלוּהוּ. וְכֹה תֹמַר אָכֵן. שַׁנְייָה הִיא דָמַר אֲנִי. אַף הָכָא אֲנִי. שֶׁלֹּא יִבְרַח וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ וְיֵלֵךְ וְיַסִּית אֶת אֲחֵרִים עִמּוֹ. 125The parallel is in Sanhedrin 7:12:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.12.2-3">Sanhedrin 7:16. The Mishnah states that there are two kinds of missionaries for idolatry, the seducer (Deuteronomy.13.7-12">Deut. 13:7–12) and the expeller (Deuteronomy.13.13-19">Deut. 13:13–19). The seducer is the one who tries to bring individuals to idolatry whereas the expeller adresses himself to the public. They go under different rules and one cannot try a seducer as an expeller and vice-versa. The first part of the paragraph has no relevance for the topics of this Halakhah, only the second part does.
The expression תמן תנינן introduces a Mishnah. Here, it introduces a paraphrase of the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “The seducer is a common person, the seduced is a common person.” Therefore, not a Sage126Is a thoroughly educated person immune from prosecution for idolatry?? (Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage.)127Sentence out of place, missing in Sanhedrin. Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to be sly about him? One hides two witnesses, people128A marginal gloss that entered the text, missing in Sanhedrin., in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Satra129In Sanhedrin: Ben Sôtĕdā, in the Sanhedrin.67a">Babli, Sanhedrin 67a, and Sanhedrin 10:5" href="/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.10.5">Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:11: Ben Sātĕdā, explained there as “son of the adultress” (known as Miriam the women’s hairdresser). in Lod, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so130In the case in Sanhedrin, the single person whom the Seducer wants to convert to idolatry is unable to testify since a single witness is insufficient in criminal proceedings. Therefore, he had to find supporting witnesses in secret. But if voice identification is sufficient to permit a woman to marry even though up to now she was a married woman forbidden under the penalties of adultery to everybody except her husband, then voice identification should be enough also in other criminal proceedings.? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”?131If the intended victim could get the seducer to identify himself as “I am …” then voice identification should be enough. That he should not flee, go away, and continue to seduce others with him132The previous argument is correct; also for the court it would have been enough to hide a single witness who would be the second witness after the intended victim. One chooses two hidden witnesses to have enough manpower to arrest the seducer and haul him into court..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ. אִם מְצָאוֹ עַל אָתָר כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם לָאו פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ עַל אָתָר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּל־שֶׁלֹּא עָֽבְרוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה בְנֵי אָדָם. עָבַר גּוֹי מָהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אַבָא בַר בַּר חָנָה אַייתֵי גִיטָא וָבַד מִינֵּיהּ. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ חַד סִרְקִיי. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִן וְאַכְשְׁרוּן. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה עָבַר גּוֹי כָּשֵׁר. נֹאמַר. סֵימָן הָיָה לוֹ בָהּ. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. אֵין סֵימָנִין בְּגִיטִּין. בְּהַהוּא דְאָמַר. תַּרְתֵּי תְּלַת שׁוּרִין. בְּרַם הָכָא הֵ״י שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה נָקוּד. רִבִּי עֶזְרָא בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. הָכָא לָמָּה הוּא פָסוּל. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אַחֵר הָיָה שָׁם וְהָיָה שְׁמוֹ כִשְׁמוֹ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁבָּֽדְקוּ אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וְלֹא מָֽצְאוּ שָׁם אַחֵר שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ כִשְׁמוֹ. אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם חוֹמֶר הוּא בָּעֲרָיוֹת. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הָֽלְכוּ וְלֹא מָֽצְאוּ שָׁם אָדָם וְהִשִּׁיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. הָֽלְכוּ וְלֹא הִכִּירוּהוּ וְהִשִּׁיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנַא. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ. אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר וְאֶחָד פָּסוּל. אִיבֵּד אֶת הַכָּשֵׁר וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַפָּסוּל. בְשָׁעָה שֶׁמָּצָא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר הַפָּסוּל מָצָא. 135This is a slightly defective copy of the text in Gittin 3:3:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.3.2-4">Giṭṭin 3:3 (fol. 44d). There, we have stated: “If somebody was bringing a bill of divorce and lost it, if he found it again immediately, it is valid; otherwise it is invalid.” What is immediately? Rebbi Joḥanan said,136In Giṭṭin: R. Joḥanan said, as long as nobody passed by. R. Jacob bar Idi, R. Simeon bar Abba in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: as long as three people did not pass by. In the Gittin.27b-28a">Babli, Giṭṭin 27b/28a, the first opinion is quoted in the names of the Tanna R. Simeon ben Eleazar and the Amora R. Abba bar bar Ḥana. The most lenient opinion in the Babli allows for a caravan to come there and encamp. as long as less than three people passed by. 137From here to the end of the Tractate, the Leiden ms. is again available. If a Gentile passed by, what is the rule138The question is not asked in the Babli; that Talmud must hold that a Gentile is included under the notion of “person”.? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana139He insists in the Babli that the presence of another person invalidates the bill of divorce. was bringing a bill of divorce when he lost it. A Saracen found it. The case came before the rabbis and they declared [the bill] valid. That means, if a Gentile passed by, it is valid. May we say that he had an identifying mark on [the bill]? But was it not stated that there are no identifying marks on bills of divorce? That means, two or three lines. But here it had a heh which was pointed140In the Babli: If there was a hole in the parchment near a certain letter, that is a convincing mark. But one does not testify about shape, color, type of material, etc. The argument shows that the story of Rabba bar bar Ḥana does not imply that the Gentile is not a person.. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana, why should it be invalid in that case? I would say, it was another bill executed for a person with the same name141If there were two couples in the same town where both husbands and wives had, respectively, the same names and patronymics, then it might be possible that both husbands divorced their wives at the same time and the bills of divorce were switched. Since a bill of divorce has to be written for a specific woman (Deuteronomy.24.1">Deut. 24:1) the switch invalidates both bills.. Think of it, if they investigated and did not find there another person with the same name! It must be that one is very strict in matters of possible incest142In this case, possible adultery if an invalid bill of divorce was delivered and the still married wife remarried as a divorcee.. But did we not state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry?143How can one be super-strict in cases of bills of divorce when one is super-lenient in confirming the husband’s death?” Rebbi Mana said to him: So says Rebbi Shammai, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: This man144The one who lost the bill of divorce. In view of the Mishnah in Yebamot, the Mishnah in Giṭṭin is explained away by being reduced to a very special case unlikely to be realized. had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid and one invalid. He lost the valid one after he had thrown away the invalid one. When he found it, I am saying that he found the invalid one.