משנה: מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ קוֹרְדְּייַקּוֹס וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתִּי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתִּי וַאֲחָזוֹ קוֹרְדְּייַקּוֹס וְחָזַר וְאָמַר אַל תִּכְתּוֹבוּ אֵין דְּבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם. נִשְׁתַּתַּק אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתָּךְ וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים. אִם אָמַר עַל לָאו לָאו וְעַל הֵן הֵן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. MISHNAH: If somebody had an attack of seizures1The word קורדייקוס is taken as Greek κορδακικός “staggering, making drunken movements,” derived from κόρδαξ, Latin cordax, “extravagant dance in Greek comedy.” The nature of the seizures is not described in either Talmud, but it is implied that during an attack the person is not of sane mind. and said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, he did not say anything. If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are nothing. If somebody became paralyzed2He is of clear mind but has lost his power of speech., one asks him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nods his head, one checks him out three times. If he answers no for no, yes for yes3If he repeatedly shakes his head sideways when asked whether not to write the bill but nods if asked whether to write the bill, his intentions and instructions are confirmed., they shall write and deliver.
הלכה: מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ קוֹדְּייָקוֹס כול׳. סֵימָן שׁוֹטֶה. הַיּוֹצֵא בַלָּיְלָה וְהַלָּן בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת וְהַמְּקַרֵעַ כְּסוּתוֹ וְהַמְּאַבֵּד מַה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ. רִבִּי חוּנָא אָמַר. וְהֵן שֶׁיְּהוּ כוּלְּהֶם בּוֹ. דִּלָ כֵן הַיּוֹצֵא בַלָּיְלָה קֻנִיטְרוֹפִּיס. וְהַלָּן בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת הַמְקַטֵּר לַשֵּׁדִים. וְהַמְּקַרֵעַ אֶת כְּסוּתוֹ וְהַמְּאַבֵּד מַה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ קִינוֹקוֹס. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מֵהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְמַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מֵהֶן. וּבִלְבַד בִּמְאַבֵּד מַה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ. שֶׁאֲפִילוּ שׁוֹטֶה שֶׁבְּשׁוֹטִין אֵין מְאַבֵּד מַה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ. קוֹרְדְייַקּוֹס אֵין בּוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵילּוּ. מָהוּ קוֹרְדְייַקּוֹס. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הִמִּים. אָתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּחַד טַרְסִיי דַּהֲווֹן יְהָבִין לֵיהּ סִימוּק גַּו אָכִים וַהֲוָה לָעֵי. אָכִים גַּו סְמִיק וַהֲוָה לָעֵי. זֶהוּ קוֹרְדְייַקּוֹס שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים. HALAKHAH: “If somebody had an attack of seizures”, etc. 4This text is from Terumot 1:1, Notes 38–50. In the variants, ת denotes the Leiden ms. of Terumot and ר the Rome ms. The symptoms of an insane person: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog5Cf. E. Guggenheimer and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic vocabulary,gndryps-qntrwpys, Lešonenu 35 (1971) 201–207 (Hebrew); Talmudic evidence for Greek spelling, Studi classici in onore di Quintino Cataudella, vol. iv, U. Catania (1972) 1981, 313–314.; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is [a choleric person]6From the text in Terumot, missing here., and he who destroys what one gives to him is a Cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these symptoms is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these by itself is reasonable for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The one attacked by seizures does not exhibit any of these signs. What is one attacked by seizures? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. This is the cordiacus described by the Sages.
פְּעָמִים שׁוֹטֶה פְעָמִים חָלוּם. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹטֶה הֲרֵי הוּא כְשׁוֹטֶה לְכָל־דָּבָר. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא חָלוּם הֲרֵי הוּא כְפִיקֵּחַ לְכָל־דָּבָר. אָתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. כַּד דְּהוּא חֲלִים יִתֵּן גֵּט. מַה. שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר לִכְשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּפֶּה. יֵיבָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל מֵרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דוּ אָמַר. חֲלוּם יִתֵּן גֵּט. וְתַחֲלִימֵנִי וַתְּחַיֵּינִי. 7From Terumot 1:1, Notes 52–55. The slightly different Terumot text is given in the second column.“If sometimes he is insane and sometimes healthy. When he is insane he is insane in all regards, when healthy he is normal in all regards.” A case came before Samuel who said, when he is of sound mind he should deliver the bill of divorce. Why? Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said8In the next paragraph., when he regains his sanity. It follows that Samuel acted according to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, only if he is of sound mind may he deliver the bill of divorce; (Is. 38:16) “make me healthy and let me live!9The verse is quoted correctly in Terumot.”
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. עוֹדֵהוּ קוֹרְדְּייַקּוֹס עָלָיו כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט וְנוֹתְנִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לִכְשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּפֶּה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. נִתְחָרֵשׁ אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטֶּה אוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּד אוֹ שֶׁהוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִדְחֵית חַטָּאתוֹ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לֹא נִדְחֵית חַטָּאתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵיחְלַף שְׁמוּעָתָא. דְּלֹא תְהֵא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְּלִיגָא עַל מִילְּתֵיהּ. דְּמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַגּוֹסֵס זוֹרְקִין עָלָיו מִדַּם חַטָּאתוֹ וּמִדַּם אֲשָׁמוֹ. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. רִבִּי חִייָה רִבִּי יָסָא חַד כְּהָדֵין וְחַד כְּהָדֵין. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even while he is suffering an attack of seizures, one writes the bill of divorce and delivers it to his wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he regains his sanity11In the Babli, 70b, the attributions are switched, following the later argument in this paragraph (Note 17).. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, since they disagreed: 12This quote is incomplete; the text has to be completed from Horaiot (Note 10) and a related text in the Babli, Zebaḥim 12b. The completed text must read: “If somebody had eaten forbidden fat and already had prepared his separation sacrifice when he became…” A purification sacrifice is personal; if its owner died it cannot be transferred to another owner or another use, nor can it be redeemed. The question is whether insanity makes a person lose his individuality; if the answer is positive then during the period of insanity the sacrificial animal was ownerless and cannot then or afterwards be of any use; it has to be put away until it dies a natural death. If he became deaf-mute13The illiterate deaf-mute has lost his legal personality; cf. Ketubot Chpater 1, Note 134, Yebamot 14:1., or insane, or became an apostate14Lev. 1:2: “If a person from among you present a sacrifice …” is interpreted to mean that the rules of obligatory sacrifices apply to converts but exclude apostates [Babli Ḥulin 5a, 13b; Erubin 69b; Sifra Wayyiqra Paršata 2(3)]., or the Court ruled that fat may be eaten15The High Court in the Temple ruled that the circumstances for which the person brings his purification offering do not imply that a sin was committed. Since a purification offering cannot be brought as a voluntary gift, the offering becomes unusable. It is stated here that if the court later reverses itself, R. Joḥanan holds that the sacrifice is not reinstated., Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside16If circumstances change, the sacrifice may be re-instated.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi (Joḥanan) [Aḥa]17It is obvious that the reading from Horaiot, R. Aḥa, is correct, since R. Joḥanan, who is quoted in the text here, has no influence over what future generations report in his name. R. Aḥa’s tradition is the source of the quote in the Babli (Note 11). switches traditions, to avoid that a word of Rebbi Joḥanan contradict his own word. For Rebbi Samuel18Since both R. Samuel bar Abba and R. Simeon bar Abba were students of R. Joḥanan, it is impossible to decide between the readings here and in Horaiot. bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person terminally ill19These sacrifices may not be offered for the deceased. The priest who was informed that the offering was for a terminally ill person can proceed under the assumption that the person is alive at the moment which validates the offering, when the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled on the wall of the altar.. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa20In Horaiot: R. Immi, the permanent companion of R. Yasa. It follows that the R. Ḥiyya mentioned here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, student and successor to R. Joḥanan., one follows the one, the other follows the other21It is not stated who followed R. Joḥanan and who R. Simeon ben Laqish; from the following it seems that the Yerushalmi does not accept R. Aḥa’s relabelling of the opinions..
מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אָמַר. כִּתְבוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. וַאֲחָזוֹ קוֹרְדְּייַקּוֹס וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. אַל תִּכְתְּבוּ. אֵין דְּבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ. לִכְשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּפֶּה אֵין דְּבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם. נָתַן לָהּ אֶת גִּיטָּהּ וְאָמַר. לֹא יְהֵא גֵט אֶלָּא לְמָחָר. וְנַעֲשֶׂה קוֹרְדְּייַקּוֹס. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. זָרַק לָהּ אֶת גִּיטָּהּ וְאָמַר. לֹא יְהֵא גֵט אֶלָּא לְמָחָר. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי. תָּרַם אֶת כְּרִייוֹ וְאָמַר. לֹא יְהֵא תְרוּמָה אֶלָּא לְמָחָר. וְנַעֲשֶׂה קוֹרְדְּייַקּוֹס. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְלֵית לֵיהּ קִיּוּם. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה צָלוּב אוֹ מְגוּייָד וְרָמַז וְאָמַר. כִּתְבוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ. וְאֵיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא נִטְרְפָה דַעְתּוֹ שָׁעָה אֶחָת. הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְלֵית לֵיהּ קִיּוּם. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he had said, write a bill of divorce for my wife, and afterwards had an attack of seizures and said, do not write, his later words are disregarded.” He explains it: After he regains his sanity, his later words are disregarded. If he gave her a bill of divorce saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish22For R. Joḥanan, the wife is divorced since the bill was delivered; for R. Simeon ben Laqish the attack of insanity invalidates the delivery. If the husband regains his sanity, he has to take back the bill from his wife and deliver it a second time.. If he threw her bill of divorce to her saying that it should be valid only the next day and then suffered an attack of seizures, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Eleazar said that Rebbi Abin asked: If he separated heave23The insane person cannot separate heave from grain; his actions are irrelevant in law (Mishnah Terumot 1:1). from his grain heap and said, it shall be heave only tomorrow but the next day he suffered an attack of seizures, is this the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it: If somebody had been crucified or mortally wounded24He is slowly but surely dying. when he signalled to write a bill of divorce to his wife, one writes and delivers on the assumption that his soul hangs on in him25A similar formulation is in the Tosephta (5:1): “If somebody had been crucified or mortally wounded when he signalled to write a bill of divorce to his wife, one writes and delivers as long as he is alive.”. Is it not impossible that his mind should not have been disturbed for an hour? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and he cannot explain it.
תַּנֵּי. חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁתָּרַם אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. בְּמַה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. שֶׁהָיָה חֵרֵשׁ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה פִּיקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ כּוֹתֵב וַאֲחֵרִים מְקַייְמִין כְּתַב יָדוֹ. 27This and the following paragraphs are from Terumot 1:1 (ת), Notes 19–32). The Rome ms. is indicated by ר. Variants which are introduced by the hand of the corrector in Terumot are indicated by מ. It was stated: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, to what does this refer? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf and dumb, he writes and others confirm his signature.”
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חֲלוּקִין עַל [הַשּׁוֹנֶה הַזֶּה]. אָֽמְרִין וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין פְלִיגָא. נִתְחָרֵשׁ הוּא אוֹ נִשְּׁתַּטֶּה אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית. וְיִכְתּוֹב וִיקַייְמוּ אֲחֵרִים כְּתַב יָדוֹ. קִייְמָנֵיהּ בִּשְׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִכְתּוֹב. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא. הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ. אָמַר לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב וְלָעֵדִים וְחָֽתְמוּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּֽתְבוּהוּ וְחָֽתְמוּהוּ וְנָֽתְנוּהוּ לוֹ וְחָזַר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶי. אֱמֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. וְלֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא. אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ קוֹלוֹ. אָמַר לַסּוֹפֵר. כְּתוֹב. וְלָעֵדִים חֲתוֹמוּ. סוֹף דָּבָר עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹלוֹ. וְלֹא אֲפִילוּ הִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר לֵית כָּאן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אִית כָּן. הִיא שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל הִיא הַרְכָנַת רֹאשׁ. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others execute his written instructions? They upheld it, if he was illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the bill] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, (here also it is invalid). Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מָנָא. כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר. עַד שֶׁיָּֽרְכִין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְעָמִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לִשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל פַּעַם אַחַת. לְהַרְכָּנַת הָרֹאשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים. וְדִכְווָתָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹלוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים. Rebbi Ze‘ira28Since R. Ze‘ira lived too late to have known R. Mana I and was the teacher of R. Mana II’s teacher, the correct reading is that from Terumot: R. Ezra. asked before Rebbi Mana: Just as you say that three times he must give a sign with his head, (must one equally hear his voice three times)? He said to him, hearing his voice once, giving a sign with his head three times.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. בְּאוֹמֵר. כָּךְ וְכָךְ עָשִׂיתִי. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּאוֹמֵר. כָּךְ וְכָךְ עֲשׂוּ. רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר לֵוִי בָּעֵי. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ דַעַת לָבֹא יֵשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֵין בּוֹ דַעַת לָבֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. בְּחֵרֵשׁ אֲנָן קַייָמִין. וְאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְחֵרֵשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. בְּבָרִיא אֲנָן קַייָמִין. לָמָּה אֵינוֹ גֵט. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִתְעַסֵּק בִשְׁטָרוֹתָיו. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. בְּמַה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּזְמָן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֶּק מִתּוֹךְ בּוּרְייוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁתַּתֵּק מִתּוֹךְ חוֹלְייוֹ דַּייוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת. Rebbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such. Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: He should have understanding for the future if he has understanding for the past; (if he has no understanding for the past,) he would not have understanding for the future! Rebbi Abba Mari said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated thus: “When was this said? When he was paralyzed while being healthy. But if he was paralyzed by a prior sickness, once is enough.”
וּבִלְבַד בִּמְסָֽרְגִין לוֹ. נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתָּךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. הֵין. לְאִמָּךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לָאו. לְאִשְׁתָּךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. הֵין. לְבִתָּךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לָאו. לְאִשְׁתָּךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. הֵין. לַאֲחוֹתָךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לָאו. אַף בְּעֵדִיּוֹת כֵּן. אָתָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַף בְּעֵדִיּוֹת כֵּן. שֶׁאָדָם מֵעִיד עֵדוּתָוֹ מְיוּשָּׁב. אַף בִּנְדָרִינם כֵּן. תַּנֵּי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְגִיטִּין גֹ פְּעָמִים כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּירוּשׁוֹת וּבְמֶקַח וּמִמְכָּר וּבְמַתָּנוֹת. But only if it is intermittent29This refers to the last part of the Mishnah, about the bill of divorce to be written for a paralyzed man. As explained here, one asks questions in which the one which counts is alternating with other questions for which the answer must be “no” (or shaking of the head).. Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he says, yes. For your mother, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your daughter, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your sister, and he says, no30A paraphrase, not a parallel text, is quoted in Tosaphot 70b, s.v. בודקין.. Is it the same for testimony? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is the same for testimony, since a person may testify while sitting31Deut. 19:17 requires only that the parties to a suit stand before the judges, not the witnesses. Therefore there is no biblical impediment to ascertaining testimony from a paralyzed person.. The same holds for vows. Rav Sheshet stated: Just as one checks three times for bills of divorce, so one checks for inheritance, commercial transactions, and gifts32A similar text in the Babli, 71a, and Tosephta, 5:1. In both of these texts, testimony is explicitly included..