Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 23, 2015 | 讬状讗 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Gittin 10

Explanation of the opinions in the mishna regarding a Samaritan witness signing on a divorce or emancipation document. 聽Also about documents effected in a non Jewish court. 聽Shmuel’s famous statement regarding the聽halachic聽obligation to hold by the court system of the country dina demalchuta dina, appears on this page as an explanation for the law mentioned in the mishna.

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉

The Gemara explains: It is possible that even the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that the witnesses who observe its transmission effect the divorce, and he does not dispute Rabbi Shimon on this point. Instead, the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon concerns a case where the signatures on the bill of divorce are unambiguous [muvhakin] gentile names. The first tanna holds that although a bill of divorce is valid if it was transmitted in the presence of valid witnesses, there is always a concern that it might have been transmitted in the presence of the same gentile witnesses who signed it. Therefore, it is rendered invalid by rabbinic law. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon holds that if it contained names that clearly belonged to gentiles it can be assumed that the bill of divorce was transmitted in the presence of two valid witnesses, and therefore it is valid.

讜讛讗 讞讝专讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But the halakha of retraction applies by Torah law, as according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the husband can retract his instruction to give the bill of divorce and the master can retract his instruction to give the bill of manumission by Torah law, thereby canceling the agency. And yet the baraita teaches it among the ways in which bills of divorce are equal to bills of manumission. This indicates that the tanna does not distinguish between a case that applies by Torah law and one that applies by rabbinic law.

讗诇讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rather, the Gemara retracts from the previous explanation in favor of the following: When the baraita teaches the ways in which the two are equal it teaches only a matter that does not apply with regard to the halakhot of betrothal; however, it does not teach a matter that does apply with regard to the halakhot of betrothal.

讜讛讗 讞讝专讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬转讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讘砖诇讬讞讜转 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讛 讚讘讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗讬转讗 讜讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讬转讗

The Gemara challenges: But retraction itself is also applicable with regard to betrothal, as one who sent a betrothal document with an agent can retract it. The Gemara says: The halakha of agency in the case of betrothal is not the same as that of divorce, as there is a difference with regard to agency undertaken to enact a matter against the recipient鈥檚 will. If one appointed an agent for a matter that the recipient does not want, e.g., to betroth a woman against her will or to free a slave against his will, as with regard to divorce, it is a valid agency, as a bill of divorce need not be given with the woman鈥檚 consent, but with regard to betrothal it is not a valid agency, as a woman can be betrothed only with her consent.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讙讟 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚 讻讜转讬 驻住讜诇 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讜讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 注讚讬 讻讜转讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专

MISHNA: Any document that has a Samaritan witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of the first tanna, nor that of Rabbi Elazar, nor that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cited in the following baraita.

讚转谞讬讗 诪爪转 讻讜转讬 诪讜转专转 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讚拽讚讜拽讬 诪爪讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讛 讻讜转讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讬砖专讗诇

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesa岣m 1:15): The matza of a Samaritan is permitted on Passover, as there is no concern that it might be leaven, and a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with it. Rabbi Elazar prohibits the consumption of the matza of a Samaritan because the Samaritans are not well-versed in the details of mitzvot. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: On the contrary, with regard to any mitzva that the Samaritans embraced and accepted, they are more exacting in its observance than are Jews.

诪谞讬 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara elaborates: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, then even other documents should be valid when signed by Samaritan witnesses. By ruling that one can fulfill his obligation with Samaritan matza, this tanna apparently holds that the status of Samaritans is the same as that of Jews. If so, that should be their status with regard to their testimony on any document. If the opinion in the mishna is that of Rabbi Elazar, who expresses the concern that Samaritans are not well versed in the details of mitzvot, they should not be fit to sign even a bill of divorce.

讜讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬 讚讗讞讝讜拽 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讞讝讜拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

And if the opinion in the mishna is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the halakha should depend on the following consideration: If they embrace and accept the mitzva associated with the subject of the document, even with regard to other documents their testimony should be valid; if they do not embrace and accept the mitzva associated with the subject of the document, they should not be rendered fit to sign even a bill of divorce.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讚讗讞讝讜拽 讘讛讗 讜诇讗 讗讞讝讜拽 讘讛讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讜转讬 讘诇讘讚

And if you would say that the opinion in the mishna is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the Samaritans embrace this mitzva of bills of divorce, but they do not embrace this mitzva associated with the subject of other documents, if so, why is a bill of divorce valid specifically in a case where only one Samaritan witness signed it? The same would hold true even if two Samaritan witnesses signed the bill of divorce as well. Why, then, does Rabbi Elazar say: The Sages deemed it valid only when there is just one Samaritan witness signed on the bill of divorce?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讞转讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 诇讘住讜祝

The Gemara answers: Actually, the opinion expressed in the mishna is that of Rabbi Elazar, and as a rule, one may not rely on the testimony of a Samaritan on a document. And the mishna is referring to a case where a Jew signed the document last,

讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻讜转讬 讞讘专 讛讜讛 诇讗 诪讞转讬诐 诇讬讛 诪拽诪讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬

as, if not for the fact that the Samaritan was one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot [岣ver], the Jew would not have allowed him to sign the document before him. Therefore, one may rely on this Samaritan in this particular case. The Gemara asks: If so, that the mishna is referring to that case, then even other documents should be valid as well, if a Jew signed after the Samaritan.

讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 专讜讜讞讗 砖讘拽 诇诪讗谉 讚拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 专讜讜讞讗 砖讘拽 诇诪讗谉 讚拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, this is not the case with regard to other documents, as we say that the fact that the Jew signed last does not prove that this Samaritan was a 岣ver, as perhaps in signing last he was leaving space above his signature for one who was older than he is in deference to the elder, and instead, a Samaritan came and signed the document. The Gemara asks: Here too, in the case of a bill of divorce, perhaps he was leaving space above his signature for one who was his elder. Why, then, are bills of divorce and bills of manumission valid while other documents are not?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讚讬 讛讙讟 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛

Rav Pappa says: That is to say, in explanation of the difference between bills of divorce and manumission and other documents, that the witnesses of a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission may not sign one without the other; rather, each witness signs in the presence of the other. A Jew would be aware that a Samaritan was signing with him, and he would not sign unless he knew that the Samaritan was a valid witness. However, with regard to other documents, witnesses are not required to sign such documents in each other鈥檚 presence. Therefore, the signature of the Jew indicates nothing about the fitness of the Samaritan witness.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讜诇讻诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission together? Rav Ashi says: It is a rabbinic decree issued due to a case where the husband says: All of you are witnesses on this bill of divorce. In that case, if any one of them fails to sign the bill of divorce, it is invalid. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce together in all cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讜转讬 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讙讟 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚 讻讜转讬 驻住讜诇 讻讜壮

搂 Since the Gemara mentioned the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar, it analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar says: They deemed a bill of divorce valid only when just one witness is a Samaritan. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by this statement? We already learned in the mishna: Any document that has a Samaritan witness on it is invalid except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. This indicates that those are valid only if they have the signature of one Samaritan witness, not two.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讘砖讟专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If it is learned from the mishna alone I would have said that even two Samaritan witnesses are also valid for a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission. And the fact that the mishna teaches one witness is because it wants to emphasize that for other documents even one Samaritan witness is also not valid. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer teaches us that in the case of bills of divorce only one Samaritan witness is valid, but if both witnesses are Samaritans the bill of divorce is not valid.

讜转专讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 诪注砖讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讜讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 注讚讬 讻讜转讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 注讚讜

The Gemara asks: And are two Samaritan witnesses not accepted on a bill of divorce? But the mishna teaches: An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid. Abaye said that one should teach the mishna so that it does not read: Its witnesses, but rather: Its witness, i.e., Rabban Gamliel deemed valid a bill of divorce that had the signature of one Samaritan witness, as even he would invalidate a bill of divorce that included the signatures of two Samaritans.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 转专讬 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讻砖讬专 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 砖讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讜讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 注讚讬 讻讜转讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专

Rava said: Actually, you do not need to say that the case was concerning one Samaritan witness, as it indeed is referring to two Samaritans witnesses, and Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the opinion of the first tanna. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: And Rabban Gamliel deems valid a bill of divorce that contains the signatures of two Samaritans, and an incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讛注讜诇讬诐 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜转诪讬讛诐 讙讜讬诐 讻砖讬专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟

MISHNA: With regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, even though their signatures are those of gentiles they are all valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid, as these two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court.

讙诪壮 拽讗 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讻专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪转谞讛

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling of the mishna that all documents written in gentile courts are valid, the Gemara comments: The tanna categorically teaches a general halakha in the mishna, and it is no different if it is a document concerning a sale and it is no different if it is a document concerning a gift, the document is valid in both cases.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻专 诪讻讬 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讛 讜砖讟专讗 专讗讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪专注讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜讻转讘讬谉 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of a sale this is reasonable, as from when the buyer gave money to the seller in the presence of the gentile judges he has acquired the property, since he has performed an act of acquisition. And the document is merely a proof for the acquisition. It must be that he already acquired the property in question, as if he had not given money in their presence the court would not act to its own detriment and write a document for him, as the document detailing the sale would not be accurate, and writing such a document would reflect poorly on them. Therefore, the document clearly serves as proof that the acquisition was performed in the correct manner.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讛 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 拽谞讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讜讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

However, with regard to a gift, by what means does the one who receives the gift acquire it from the giver? Is it not via this document? And yet this document is merely a shard, as a document written by gentiles is not considered a legal document according to halakha. Shmuel said: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live. Consequently, every form of property transfer accepted by local law is valid according to halakha as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪讻讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

And if you wish, say that one should emend the text of the mishna, and teach: They are all valid except for documents that are like bills of divorce. In other words, the distinction is between different types of documents: Documents that are meant to serve only as proof are valid even if they were produced in gentile courts, whereas documents that effect a legal act, such as bills of divorce, are invalid if they were written in a gentile court.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻专讬转讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon says: Even these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are valid if they were written in a gentile court and were signed by gentiles. The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Shimon rule in this manner? But gentiles are not fit for this role, as they are not subject to the halakhot concerning scrolls of severance. Since the halakhot of marriage and divorce in the Torah are stated exclusively with regard to Jews, gentiles cannot serve in any capacity in cases of this kind.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬专讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇砖讬讟转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

Rabbi Zeira says: Rabbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that the witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. In other words, the signing of the bill of divorce is not essential to its effectiveness. Rather, the transfer of the bill of divorce completes the act of divorce, and therefore no attention is paid to who the signatories were.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖驻住讜诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that although he considers a bill of divorce valid even without the signature of witnesses, Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it that it is invalid despite the fact that it was properly transferred. In other words, notwithstanding the halakha that the signatures on a bill of divorce are unnecessary, a document that includes invalid signatures is thereby invalidated. The reason is that there is a concern that people will rely upon these witnesses. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 10

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉

The Gemara explains: It is possible that even the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that the witnesses who observe its transmission effect the divorce, and he does not dispute Rabbi Shimon on this point. Instead, the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon concerns a case where the signatures on the bill of divorce are unambiguous [muvhakin] gentile names. The first tanna holds that although a bill of divorce is valid if it was transmitted in the presence of valid witnesses, there is always a concern that it might have been transmitted in the presence of the same gentile witnesses who signed it. Therefore, it is rendered invalid by rabbinic law. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon holds that if it contained names that clearly belonged to gentiles it can be assumed that the bill of divorce was transmitted in the presence of two valid witnesses, and therefore it is valid.

讜讛讗 讞讝专讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But the halakha of retraction applies by Torah law, as according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the husband can retract his instruction to give the bill of divorce and the master can retract his instruction to give the bill of manumission by Torah law, thereby canceling the agency. And yet the baraita teaches it among the ways in which bills of divorce are equal to bills of manumission. This indicates that the tanna does not distinguish between a case that applies by Torah law and one that applies by rabbinic law.

讗诇讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rather, the Gemara retracts from the previous explanation in favor of the following: When the baraita teaches the ways in which the two are equal it teaches only a matter that does not apply with regard to the halakhot of betrothal; however, it does not teach a matter that does apply with regard to the halakhot of betrothal.

讜讛讗 讞讝专讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬转讗 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讘砖诇讬讞讜转 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讛 讚讘讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗讬转讗 讜讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讬转讗

The Gemara challenges: But retraction itself is also applicable with regard to betrothal, as one who sent a betrothal document with an agent can retract it. The Gemara says: The halakha of agency in the case of betrothal is not the same as that of divorce, as there is a difference with regard to agency undertaken to enact a matter against the recipient鈥檚 will. If one appointed an agent for a matter that the recipient does not want, e.g., to betroth a woman against her will or to free a slave against his will, as with regard to divorce, it is a valid agency, as a bill of divorce need not be given with the woman鈥檚 consent, but with regard to betrothal it is not a valid agency, as a woman can be betrothed only with her consent.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讙讟 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚 讻讜转讬 驻住讜诇 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讜讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 注讚讬 讻讜转讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专

MISHNA: Any document that has a Samaritan witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of the first tanna, nor that of Rabbi Elazar, nor that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cited in the following baraita.

讚转谞讬讗 诪爪转 讻讜转讬 诪讜转专转 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讚拽讚讜拽讬 诪爪讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讛 讻讜转讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讬砖专讗诇

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesa岣m 1:15): The matza of a Samaritan is permitted on Passover, as there is no concern that it might be leaven, and a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with it. Rabbi Elazar prohibits the consumption of the matza of a Samaritan because the Samaritans are not well-versed in the details of mitzvot. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: On the contrary, with regard to any mitzva that the Samaritans embraced and accepted, they are more exacting in its observance than are Jews.

诪谞讬 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara elaborates: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, then even other documents should be valid when signed by Samaritan witnesses. By ruling that one can fulfill his obligation with Samaritan matza, this tanna apparently holds that the status of Samaritans is the same as that of Jews. If so, that should be their status with regard to their testimony on any document. If the opinion in the mishna is that of Rabbi Elazar, who expresses the concern that Samaritans are not well versed in the details of mitzvot, they should not be fit to sign even a bill of divorce.

讜讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬 讚讗讞讝讜拽 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讞讝讜拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

And if the opinion in the mishna is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the halakha should depend on the following consideration: If they embrace and accept the mitzva associated with the subject of the document, even with regard to other documents their testimony should be valid; if they do not embrace and accept the mitzva associated with the subject of the document, they should not be rendered fit to sign even a bill of divorce.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讚讗讞讝讜拽 讘讛讗 讜诇讗 讗讞讝讜拽 讘讛讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讜转讬 讘诇讘讚

And if you would say that the opinion in the mishna is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the Samaritans embrace this mitzva of bills of divorce, but they do not embrace this mitzva associated with the subject of other documents, if so, why is a bill of divorce valid specifically in a case where only one Samaritan witness signed it? The same would hold true even if two Samaritan witnesses signed the bill of divorce as well. Why, then, does Rabbi Elazar say: The Sages deemed it valid only when there is just one Samaritan witness signed on the bill of divorce?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讞转讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 诇讘住讜祝

The Gemara answers: Actually, the opinion expressed in the mishna is that of Rabbi Elazar, and as a rule, one may not rely on the testimony of a Samaritan on a document. And the mishna is referring to a case where a Jew signed the document last,

讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻讜转讬 讞讘专 讛讜讛 诇讗 诪讞转讬诐 诇讬讛 诪拽诪讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬

as, if not for the fact that the Samaritan was one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot [岣ver], the Jew would not have allowed him to sign the document before him. Therefore, one may rely on this Samaritan in this particular case. The Gemara asks: If so, that the mishna is referring to that case, then even other documents should be valid as well, if a Jew signed after the Samaritan.

讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 专讜讜讞讗 砖讘拽 诇诪讗谉 讚拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 专讜讜讞讗 砖讘拽 诇诪讗谉 讚拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, this is not the case with regard to other documents, as we say that the fact that the Jew signed last does not prove that this Samaritan was a 岣ver, as perhaps in signing last he was leaving space above his signature for one who was older than he is in deference to the elder, and instead, a Samaritan came and signed the document. The Gemara asks: Here too, in the case of a bill of divorce, perhaps he was leaving space above his signature for one who was his elder. Why, then, are bills of divorce and bills of manumission valid while other documents are not?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讚讬 讛讙讟 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛

Rav Pappa says: That is to say, in explanation of the difference between bills of divorce and manumission and other documents, that the witnesses of a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission may not sign one without the other; rather, each witness signs in the presence of the other. A Jew would be aware that a Samaritan was signing with him, and he would not sign unless he knew that the Samaritan was a valid witness. However, with regard to other documents, witnesses are not required to sign such documents in each other鈥檚 presence. Therefore, the signature of the Jew indicates nothing about the fitness of the Samaritan witness.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讜诇讻诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission together? Rav Ashi says: It is a rabbinic decree issued due to a case where the husband says: All of you are witnesses on this bill of divorce. In that case, if any one of them fails to sign the bill of divorce, it is invalid. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce together in all cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讜转讬 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讙讟 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚 讻讜转讬 驻住讜诇 讻讜壮

搂 Since the Gemara mentioned the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar, it analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar says: They deemed a bill of divorce valid only when just one witness is a Samaritan. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by this statement? We already learned in the mishna: Any document that has a Samaritan witness on it is invalid except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. This indicates that those are valid only if they have the signature of one Samaritan witness, not two.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讘砖讟专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If it is learned from the mishna alone I would have said that even two Samaritan witnesses are also valid for a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission. And the fact that the mishna teaches one witness is because it wants to emphasize that for other documents even one Samaritan witness is also not valid. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer teaches us that in the case of bills of divorce only one Samaritan witness is valid, but if both witnesses are Samaritans the bill of divorce is not valid.

讜转专讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 诪注砖讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讜讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 注讚讬 讻讜转讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 注讚讜

The Gemara asks: And are two Samaritan witnesses not accepted on a bill of divorce? But the mishna teaches: An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid. Abaye said that one should teach the mishna so that it does not read: Its witnesses, but rather: Its witness, i.e., Rabban Gamliel deemed valid a bill of divorce that had the signature of one Samaritan witness, as even he would invalidate a bill of divorce that included the signatures of two Samaritans.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 转专讬 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讻砖讬专 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 砖讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讜讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 注讚讬 讻讜转讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专

Rava said: Actually, you do not need to say that the case was concerning one Samaritan witness, as it indeed is referring to two Samaritans witnesses, and Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the opinion of the first tanna. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: And Rabban Gamliel deems valid a bill of divorce that contains the signatures of two Samaritans, and an incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讛注讜诇讬诐 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜转诪讬讛诐 讙讜讬诐 讻砖讬专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟

MISHNA: With regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, even though their signatures are those of gentiles they are all valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid, as these two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court.

讙诪壮 拽讗 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讻专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪转谞讛

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling of the mishna that all documents written in gentile courts are valid, the Gemara comments: The tanna categorically teaches a general halakha in the mishna, and it is no different if it is a document concerning a sale and it is no different if it is a document concerning a gift, the document is valid in both cases.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻专 诪讻讬 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讛 讜砖讟专讗 专讗讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪专注讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜讻转讘讬谉 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of a sale this is reasonable, as from when the buyer gave money to the seller in the presence of the gentile judges he has acquired the property, since he has performed an act of acquisition. And the document is merely a proof for the acquisition. It must be that he already acquired the property in question, as if he had not given money in their presence the court would not act to its own detriment and write a document for him, as the document detailing the sale would not be accurate, and writing such a document would reflect poorly on them. Therefore, the document clearly serves as proof that the acquisition was performed in the correct manner.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讛 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 拽谞讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讜讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

However, with regard to a gift, by what means does the one who receives the gift acquire it from the giver? Is it not via this document? And yet this document is merely a shard, as a document written by gentiles is not considered a legal document according to halakha. Shmuel said: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live. Consequently, every form of property transfer accepted by local law is valid according to halakha as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪讻讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

And if you wish, say that one should emend the text of the mishna, and teach: They are all valid except for documents that are like bills of divorce. In other words, the distinction is between different types of documents: Documents that are meant to serve only as proof are valid even if they were produced in gentile courts, whereas documents that effect a legal act, such as bills of divorce, are invalid if they were written in a gentile court.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻专讬转讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon says: Even these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are valid if they were written in a gentile court and were signed by gentiles. The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Shimon rule in this manner? But gentiles are not fit for this role, as they are not subject to the halakhot concerning scrolls of severance. Since the halakhot of marriage and divorce in the Torah are stated exclusively with regard to Jews, gentiles cannot serve in any capacity in cases of this kind.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬专讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇砖讬讟转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

Rabbi Zeira says: Rabbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that the witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. In other words, the signing of the bill of divorce is not essential to its effectiveness. Rather, the transfer of the bill of divorce completes the act of divorce, and therefore no attention is paid to who the signatories were.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖驻住讜诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that although he considers a bill of divorce valid even without the signature of witnesses, Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it that it is invalid despite the fact that it was properly transferred. In other words, notwithstanding the halakha that the signatures on a bill of divorce are unnecessary, a document that includes invalid signatures is thereby invalidated. The reason is that there is a concern that people will rely upon these witnesses. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?

Scroll To Top