Beyond the Border Chutz L'Aretz in the Mishnah

The following things must be tithed as demai in all places: pressed figs, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin. As to rice from outside the land [of Israel], whoever uses it is exempt from tithing it.

The potter may sell five oil-jars and fifteen wine-jars, for this is the usual amount one collects from ownerless produce. But if he brought more, it is still permitted. He may also sell [more jars] to Gentiles in the land of Israel and to Jews outside of the land.

One may not take oil [of terumah] that had to be burned, nor produce of the seventh year, from the land [of Israel] to other countries. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it expressly stated that they may be exported to Syria, but not to any other country outside the land.

They may not import terumah from outside the land of Israel into Israel. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it expressly stated that they may be bring from Syria, but not from any other country outside the land.

They do not take terumah from ‘gleanings’, from ‘the forgotten sheaf’, from peah or from ownerless produce. [Neither is it taken] from first tithe from which terumah had already been taken, nor from second tithe and dedicated produce that had been redeemed. [Nor is it taken] from that which is subject [to terumah] for that which is exempt [from terumah], nor from that which is exempt for that which is subject. Nor from produce already plucked [from the soil] for that attached to it, nor from that attached [to the soil] for that already plucked. Nor from new produce for old, nor from old for new. Nor from produce from the land of Israel for produce grown outside the land, nor from that grown out of the land for that grown in the land. [In all these cases] if they did take terumah, their terumah is not terumah.

One who feeds [terumah] to his small children, or to his slaves whether they are of majority age or minors, or one who eats terumah from outside the land, or less than an olive’s bulk of terumah, must repay the value, but not the fifth; and the repayment remains hullin. Therefore, if the priest wishes to forgive the repayment, he may.

What grows from terumah is terumah, but that which grows from growths [of terumah] is hullin. As for untithed produce, first tithe, after-growths from the sabbatical year, terumah grown outside the land, mixtures of hullin with terumah (medumma) and first-fruits what grows from them is hullin. What grows from dedicated produce and second tithe is hullin and it is to be redeemed [at its value] at the time when it was sown.

A fig tree which stands in a courtyard, and hangs over into a garden: one may eat in his customary fashion and be exempt [from tithes]. If it stands in the garden and hangs over into the courtyard, one may eat [the figs] one at a time and be exempt, but if he gathers them together, he is liable [for tithes]. If it stands in the land [of Israel] and hangs over [into the territory] outside the land, or if it stands outside the land, and hangs over into the land, [in all these cases the law is] decided according to the position of the root. And as regards houses in walled cities, everything is decided according to the position of the root. But as regards cities of refuge, everything is decided [also] according to the location of the branches. And in what concerns Jerusalem, everything is decided by the location of the branches.

Produce [grown] outside the land [of Israel] that came into the land is subject to Hallah. [If it] went out from here to there: Rabbi Eliezer makes it liable, But Rabbi Akiva makes it exempt.

Earth from outside the land has come to the land [of Israel] in a boat, [the produce grown in it] is subject to tithes and to the [law relating to] the seventh year. Rabbi Judah: when does this apply? When the boat touches [the ground]. Dough which has been kneaded with fruit-juice is subject to hallah, and may be eaten with unclean hands.

Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it. A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand. New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places. And orlah is a halachah. And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.

If a man sells his slave to a Gentile or [to someone living] outside the land [of Israel] the slave goes free. Captives should not be redeemed for more than their value, because of tikkun olam. Captives should not be helped to escape, because of tikkun olam. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says [that the reason is] to prevent the ill-treatment of fellow captives. Torah scrolls of the law, tefillin and mezuzoth are not bought from Gentiles at more than their value, because of tikkun olam.

Every commandment which is dependent on the land is practiced only in the land [of Israel]; and every commandment which is not dependent on the land is practiced both in and outside the land, except orlah and kilayim. Rabbi Elazar says: also [the prohibition of] new produce.

If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed. [Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it. A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked: “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.”

One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down. One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold.

All the sacrifices communal or individual may be offered from [produce grown] in the Land [of Israel] or outside the Land, from new [produce] or from the old, except for the omer and the two loaves, which must be offered only from new produce and from [produce grown] in the land. All [offerings] must be offered from the choicest produce. And which is the choicest? That from Michmas and Zanoha are “alpha” for the quality of their fine flour; second to them is Hafaraim in the valley. The [produce of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it from these places.

[The law of] “It and its young” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated animals. How so? If a person slaughtered an animal and its young, both animals being unconsecrated, [and they slaughtered them] outside [the sanctuary], they are both valid, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet, both animals are invalid, and each incurs forty lashes. If both animals were unconsecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], both animals are invalid, and [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not culpable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes, and it is invalid.

[The law of] “covering up the blood” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, It applies to unconsecrated animal, but not consecrated animals. It applies [only] to wild animals and birds, whether they are at one's disposal or not. It applies also to a koy, for it is an animal about which there is a doubt. It may [therefore] not be slaughtered on a festival; and if it was slaughtered [on a festival] one may not cover up its blood.

[The prohibition of] the sciatic nerve is in force both within the land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated [animals]. It applies to cattle and to wild animals, to the right and left hip. But it does not apply to a bird because it does not have a socket [on its hip]. It applies to a fetus. Rabbi Judah says: it does not apply to a fetus. And its [forbidden] fat is permitted. Butchers are not trustworthy with regard to the [removal of the] sciatic nerve, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: they are trustworthy with regard to it as well as with regard to the [forbidden] fat.

The [law of] the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach is in force both within the Land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated animals but not consecrated animals. For it might have been argued thus: if unconsecrated animals, which are not subject to the law of the breast and the thigh, are subject to these dues, how much more are consecrated animals, with are subject to the law of the breast and the thigh, subject also to these dues! Scripture states, “And I have given them to Aaron the priest and his sons as a due for ever” (Leviticus 7:34) only what is mentioned in this passage shall be his.

The law of the first of the fleece is in force both within the Land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated animals but not consecrated animals. The law of the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach is of stricter application than the law of the first of the fleece; for the law of the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach applies both to herds and flocks, whether they are many or few, whereas the law of the first of the fleece applies only to sheep, and only when there are many.

The law of letting [the mother bird] go from the nest is in force both within the holy land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated birds but not consecrated birds. The law of covering up the blood is of broader application than the law of letting [the mother bird] go; for the law of covering up the blood applies to wild animals as well as to birds, whether they are at one's disposal or not, whereas the law of letting [the mother bird] go from the nest applies only to birds and only to those which are not at one's disposal. Which are they that are not at one's disposal? Such as geese and fowls that made their nests in the open field. But if they made their nests within a house or in the case of Herodian doves, one is not bound to let [the mother bird] go.

The law concerning the tithe of cattle is in force in the Land and outside the Land, in the days when the Temple exists and when it does not exist, [It applies] to hullin (non-sacred) animals only but not to consecrated animals. It applies both to cattle and flock animals, but they are not tithed together. To lambs and to goats, and they are tithed together. To the new and the old, but they are not tithed together. Now it might be logical: seeing that new and old animals which are not treated as kilayim in regard to one another are yet not tithed one for the other, lambs and goats which are treated as kilyaim in regard to one another, all the more should not be tithed one for the other. Scripture therefore states: “And of the flock” all kinds of flock are considered one [for purposes of tithing].

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

[With regard to] a field in which a grave had been lost, and upon which a house had been built with an upper story above it: If the entrance of the upper room was directly above the entrance of the house, the upper story remains clean; But if not the upper story becomes unclean. [With regard to] soil from a bet peras, or soil from a foreign country that came in with vegetables, the pieces of the soil combine together [to transmit impurity if they form a portion] the size of a packing-bag seal, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; But the sages say: there must be one portion of the size of a packing-bag seal. Rabbi Judah says: It happened once that letters came from overseas for the sons of the high priests and they had on them about a se'ah or two se'ahs of seals [of dirt], but the sages were not concerned on account of uncleanness.

[And how much] wood [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Enough to be set under the lintel. Rabbi Judah says: it must suffice to make the support at the back of the lintel. [And how much] earth [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Such as would suffice to fill up the space between one row of stones and another. The walls of a cattle-trough or the walls of a partition are not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. A house in Jerusalem or in any place outside the land of Israel is not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a [red] cow for the hatat that is pregnant is valid, But the sages say: it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says: it may not be bought from non-Jews, But the sages say: it is valid. And not only this, but all sacrifices of the congregation or the individual may be brought from the land of Israel and from outside the land, from new produce and from the old; Except the omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from new produce and from within the land.

The land of Israel is clean and its mikvaot are clean. The mikvaot of the nations outside the land are valid for those who had a seminal emission even though they have been filled by a pump-beam; Those in the land of Israel: when outside the entrance [to the city] are valid even for menstruants, and those within the entrance [to the city] are valid for those who had a seminal emission but invalid for all [others] who are unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: those which are near to a city or to a road are unclean because of laundering; but those at a distance are clean.

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

One who sells produce in Syria and declared “It was grown in the land of Israel,” the purchaser must tithe it. [But if he also said], “It has been tithed,” he may be trusted, because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted. [If he said: The produce is] from my own field,” the purchaser must tithe it. [But if he added:] “It has already been tithed,” he may be trusted, because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted. If it was known that he had a field in Syria, the purchaser must tithe it.

In Syria, one may perform work on produce that has been detached, but not on produced attached [to the soil]. They may thresh, winnow, and tread [the grapes], or make [the grain] into sheaves, but they may not harvest [the crops], nor cut the grapes, nor harvest the olives. Rabbi Akiva said this principle: the kind of work that is permitted in Eretz Israel may also be done in Syria.

One may not take oil [of terumah] that had to be burned, nor produce of the seventh year, from the land [of Israel] to other countries. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it expressly stated that they may be exported to Syria, but not to any other country outside the land.

They may not import terumah from outside the land of Israel into Israel. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it expressly stated that they may be bring from Syria, but not from any other country outside the land.

They may not import terumah from outside the land of Israel into Israel. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it expressly stated that they may be bring from Syria, but not from any other country outside the land.

One who buys a field of vegetables in Syria: If before the season for tithing arrived, then he is liable to tithe. If after the season for tithing he is exempt, and he may go on gathering in his usual manner. Rabbi Judah says: he may even hire workers and gather. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: When does this apply? If he has bought the land. But if, he has not bought the land, even before the season for tithing arrived he is exempt. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] says: he must also tithe according to calculation.

An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt. Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion. They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects.

Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him. Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him. He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation. Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.

Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it. A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand. New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places. And orlah is a halachah. And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.

On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed. When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day.

It is forbidden to rear small herd animals in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. It is forbidden to rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place.

They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated.

One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down. One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold.

If one buys a field in Syria near to the land of Israel: If he can enter it in cleanness, it is deemed clean and is subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce]; But he cannot enter it in cleanness, it [is deemed] unclean, but it is still subject to [the laws of] tithes and sheviit [produce]. The dwelling-places of non-Jews are unclean. How long must [the non-Jew] have dwelt in [the dwelling-places] for them to require examination? Forty days, even if there was no woman with him. If, however, a slave or [an Israelite] woman watched over [the dwelling-place], it does not require examination.

The Birrus blanket or Brindisian blanket, or Dalmatian cloth, or felt shoes, may not be worn until one has examined them. Rabbi Yose says: ones that come from the coast or from lands beyond the sea, do not require examination, since the presumption with regard to them is [that they are sewn] with hemp. Felt-lined shoes are not subject to the laws of kilayim.

Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth].

And these may shave during the festival: one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released. And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released, and a nazirite or a leper on emerging from his state of impurity to his state of purification.

These may launder [their clothes] during the festival: one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released. And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released. Hand-towels, barber’s towels and bath-towels [may be laundered]. Zavim and zavot, menstruants, and women who have given birth, and anyone going from a state of purity to impurity, are permitted [to launder their clothes]. But everyone else is prohibited.

A man who brings a bill of divorce from a country beyond the sea and states, “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”, must not marry the [divorcer’s] wife. [Similarly, if one states] “he died”, “I killed him”, or “We killed him”, he must not marry his wife. Rabbi Judah said: [If he says], “ I killed him”, the woman may not marry [any one]; [If, he states], “We killed him”, the woman may marry.

If he wished to suspend [his decision] until a minor becomes of age, or until the eldest returns from a country beyond the sea or [until a brother who was] a deaf-mute or an imbecile [should recover], he is not to be listened to, but is told, “the commandment is upon you; either perform halitzah or yibbum.”

A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization, she may return to him.

If a woman whose husband and son went to a country beyond the sea was told, “Your husband died and your son died afterwards”, and she married again, and later she was told, “the [deaths] happened in the opposite order” she must leave, and any child born before or after is a mamzer. If she was told “Your son died and your husband died afterwards”, and she had yibbum, and afterwards she was told, “the [deaths] happened in the opposite order” she must leave, and any child born before or after is a mamzer. If she was told, “Your husband died”, and she married, and afterwards she was told, “He was alive but is now dead”, she must leave, and any child born before [the death of her first husband] is a mamzer, but one born after it is not a mamzer. If she was told, “Your husband died”, and she was betrothed, and afterwards her husband appeared, she is permitted to return to him. Although the second one gave her a get he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying a priest. This Rabb Elazar ben Mathia expounded: “A woman divorced from her husband” (Leviticus 21:7) not from a man who is not her husband.

If a man’s wife had gone to a country beyond the sea and he was told, “Your wife is dead”, and he married her sister, and afterwards his wife came back, [the latter] is permitted to return to him. He is permitted to marry the relatives of the second woman, and the second woman is permitted to marry his relatives. If the first wife died he is permitted to marry the second. If he was told that his wife was dead, and he married her sister, and then he was told that she was then alive but had since died, any child born before [his first wife’s death] is a mamzer, but anyone born after [her death] is not a mamzer. Rabbi Yose says: whoever disqualifies for others disqualifies for himself and whoever does not disqualify for others does not disqualify for himself.

If a woman and her husband went to a country beyond the sea [at a time when there was] peace between him and her and [when there was also] peace in the world, and she came back and said, “My husband is dead”, she may marry again; and if she said, “My husband is dead [and he had no children]” she may contract yibbum. If there was peace between him and her, but war in the world, [or if there was] discord between him and her, but peace in the world, and she came back and said, ‘My husband is dead”, she is not believed. Rabbi Judah says: she is never believed unless she comes weeping and her garments are rent. They said to him: she may marry in either case.

If a woman and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, and she returned and stated, “my husband is dead”, she may be married again and she also receives her ketubah. However, her rival wife is forbidden to remarry.If [her rival wife] was the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, she is permitted to eat terumah, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead her away from transgression, unless [it be enacted that] she shall be forbidden both to marry and to eat terumah.

A woman who went with her husband to a country beyond the sea, and her son was with her, and who came back and stated, “my husband died and afterwards my son died”, is believed. [If she stated] “my son died and afterwards my husband died”, she is not believed, but we are concerned that her words [might be true] and she must, therefore, perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum.

[If a woman states], “A son was given to me [while I was] in a country beyond the sea” and she also states, “my son died and afterwards my husband died”, she is believed. [If she states], “my husband died and afterwards my son died”, she is not believed, but we are concerned that her words [might be true] and she must, therefore, perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum.

[If a woman states] “a brother-in-law was given to me [while I was] in a country beyond the sea”, and afterwards she states, “my husband died and afterwards my brother-in-law died” or “my brother-in-law died and afterwards my husband died”, she is believed. If a woman and her husband and her brother-in-law went to a country beyond the sea, and she [on returning home] stated, “my husband died and afterwards my brother-in-law [died]” or “my brother-in-law [died] and afterwards my husband [died]” she is not believed; For a woman is not to be believed when she asserts “my brother-in-law is dead”, in order that she may marry again; Nor [is she believed when she states that] her sister is dead, in order that she may enter his house. A man also is not believed when he states “my brother is dead”, so that he may have yibbum with his wife, nor [when he states that] his wife is dead, in order that he may marry her sister.

A woman whose husband and rival wife went to a country beyond the sea, and to whom people came and said, “your husband is dead”, must neither marry nor contract yibbum until she has ascertained whether her rival wife is pregnant.Rabbi Joshua says: she need not be concerned. If she had a mother-in-law she need not be concerned [she had another son]. But if [the mother-in-law] departed while pregnant she must be concerned [that another son was born.

“A woman who impairs her kethubah”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your kethubah”, and she says, “I received only a maneh”, she is not paid [the balance] except by an oath. “If one witness testifies against her that [her kethubah] has been paid”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your ketubah”, and she says, “I have not received it” and one witness testifies against her that [the ketubah] has been paid, she is not paid except by an oath. “From property with a lien on it”: How is this so? He had sold his property to others and she seeks to recover payment from the buyers, she is not paid except by an oath. “From the property of orphans”: How is this so? He died and left his estate to his orphans and she seeks to recover payment from the orphans, she is not paid except by an oath. “An husband who is not present” How is this so? If her husband went to a country beyond the sea and she seeks to recover payment in his absence, she is not paid except by an oath. Rabbi Shimon says: whenever she claims her ketubah the heirs may impose an oath upon her but whenever she does not claim her ketubah the heirs can not impose an oath upon her.

There were two judges of fines in Jerusalem, Admon and Hanan ben Avishalom. Hanan stated two rulings and Admon stated seven. If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance: Hanan says: she must take an oath at the end but not at the beginning. The sons of the high priests differed from him and ruled that she must take an oath both at the beginning and at the end. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas agreed with their ruling. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has spoken well; she need take an oath only at the end.

If a man went to a country beyond the sea and someone came forward and financially supported his wife, Hanan says: he lost his money. The sons of the high priests differed from him and said: let him take an oath as to how much he spent and recover it. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas agreed with their ruling. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has spoken well [the man] put his money on the horn of a deer.

If a man went to a country beyond the sea and [in his absence] the path to his field was lost, Admon ruled: let him walk [to his field] by the shortest way. But the Sages say: let him purchase a path for himself even if it costs him a hundred maneh or let him fly through the air.

One who brings a get from abroad [to the Land of Israel] must declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Gamaliel says: even one who brings it from Rekem or from Heger. Rabbi Eleazar says: even one who brings it from Kefar Ludim to Lud. The sages, however, say: declaration “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed” is required only from one who brings a get from abroad or who takes it there. One who brings [a get] from one province to another province in foreign lands is also required to declare, “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even from one hegemony to another hegemony.

One who brings a get within the land of Israel need not declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” If there are those who protest [its validity] it must be established through the signatures. If one who brings a get from abroad is not able to declare “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, if there are witnesses on it, its validity can be established through its signatures.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

One who brings a get and loses it on the way: If he finds it immediately it is valid, and if not it is not valid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a folder if he recognizes it, it is valid. If one brings a get and left [the husband] when [the husband] was an old man or sick, he should deliver it to her on the presumption that he is still alive. If the daughter of an ordinary Israelite is married to a priest and her husband goes abroad, she continues eating terumah on the presumption that he is still alive. If a man sends a sin-offering from abroad they sacrifice it on the presumption that he is still alive.

If one bringing a get from abroad becomes sick, he may arrange a court of law and send him [on with the get,] declaring before them, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” And the last agent is not required to say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, rather he declares, “I am the messenger of a court.”

[If a husband says,] "This is your get if I do not return within thirty days", and he was going from Judea to Galilee, if he got as far as Antipatras and then returned, his condition is broken. [If he says,] "This is your get if I do not return within thirty days", and he was going from Galilee to Judea, if he got as far as Kefar Otnai and then returned, the condition is broken. [If he said,] "This is your get if I do not return within thirty days", and he was going into foreign parts, if he got as far as Acco and then returned his condition is broken. [

If a man went overseas together with his wife, and then he, his wife, and his children returned, and he said, “Behold, this is she [who went with me overseas,] and these are her children”, he need not bring proof with regard to the woman or the children. [If he declares,] “She died [abroad] and these are her children,” he must bring proof with regard to the children, but not with regard to the woman.

[If he says,] “I married a woman overseas, and behold, this is she, and these are her children”, he must bring proof about the woman, but not about the children. [If he says,] “She died, and these are her children”, he must bring proof about the woman and about the children.

These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died [without children]” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the levir). But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” But Beth Hillel says: “She may be married again but may not take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai said to them: “You have permitted the graver matter of a forbidden marriage, should you not permit the lighter matter of property?” Beth Hillel said to them: “We have found that brothers do not inherit on her statement.” Beth Shammai said to them: “Do we not infer it from her marriage document in which he writes to her ‘That if you be married to another you shall take what is written for you’?” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.

If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful. Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.

[With regard to] a field in which a grave had been lost, and upon which a house had been built with an upper story above it: If the entrance of the upper room was directly above the entrance of the house, the upper story remains clean; But if not the upper story becomes unclean. [With regard to] soil from a bet peras, or soil from a foreign country that came in with vegetables, the pieces of the soil combine together [to transmit impurity if they form a portion] the size of a packing-bag seal, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; But the sages say: there must be one portion of the size of a packing-bag seal. Rabbi Judah says: It happened once that letters came from overseas for the sons of the high priests and they had on them about a se'ah or two se'ahs of seals [of dirt], but the sages were not concerned on account of uncleanness.