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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 24, 2015 | 讬状讘 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 11

Discussions continue about documents coming from non Jewish courts. Study Guide Gittin 11


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉

We are dealing with unambiguous gentile names, in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 讛讜专诪讬讝 讜讗讘讜讚讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬讘转讗讬 讜讘专 拽讬讚专讬 讜讘讗讟讬 讜谞拽讬诐 讗讜谞讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.

讗讘诇 砖诪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara infers: However, if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with ambiguous names, what is the halakha? Is this not a valid document? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: These two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of gentile courts itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, in a case of ambiguous names, no, gentile witnesses are not valid.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖诪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟 讜驻住讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying, i.e., Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: In what case is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names, the document becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and therefore such documents are invalid.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讙讬讟讬 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 讙讬讟讬 诪诪讜谉 讚驻住讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟

And if you wish, say a different answer: In the last clause of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, we arrive at the case of financial documents. Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first tanna. And this is what the mishna is saying: Financial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person, whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘爪讬讚谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讛注讜诇讬谉 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜转诪讬讛谉 讙讜讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in the city of Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, these documents are valid, even in the case of bills of divorce and bills of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, outside a court, as Rabbi Akiva deems a document of this kind valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 诇讗

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, bills of divorce and manumission, are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. In other words, the halakha that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. However, in a place where Jews sign, no, these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.

诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝讜专 讗讟讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 砖诪讗 讘砖诪讗 诪讞诇讬祝 讗转专讗 讘讗转专讗 诇讗 诪讞诇讬祝

The Gemara suggests: Let us also decree in a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign. The Gemara answers: One might confuse one name with another name. It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is not likely to confuse one place with another place. Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.

专讘讬谞讗 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讘讻谞讜驻讬讗转讛 讚讗专诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专驻专诐 注专讻讗讜转 转谞谉

搂 The Gemara relates that Ravina thought to deem valid a document that was written by a group of gentiles [arma鈥檈i]. Rafram said to him that we learned: Gentile courts, in the mishna, i.e., these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 驻专住讗讛 讚诪住专讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬

Similarly, Rava said: With regard to this Persian document [shetara parsa鈥檃] written by the Persian authorities that was transferred to the recipient in the presence of Jewish witnesses, he can collect with it non-liened property, i.e., property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬 诇诪讬拽专讗 讘讚讬讚注讬

The Gemara asks: But the witnesses for the transmission of this document do not know how to read Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation where the witnesses know how to read Persian.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讻转讘 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讝讬讬祝 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚讗驻讬爪谉 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 爪专讬讱 砖讬讞讝讬专 诪注谞讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚诪讛讚专

The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But I require that the document be written in a manner that cannot be forged, and it is not so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava鈥檚 statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). But I require that a document review the essential topic of the document in its last line, and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava鈥檚 statement applies in a case where it returned to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, he should be able to collect from liened property as well, as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn鈥檛 Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does not generate publicity, i.e., a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan:

注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛讙讟 讜砖诪讜转谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讜住 讜诇讜住 讜讛讻砖专谞讜

With regard to witnesses who signed a bill of divorce and whose names are like the names of gentiles, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: There came before us bills of divorce that were signed only with names such as Lukos and Los, and we deemed them valid by means of the witnesses of transmission.

讜讚讜拽讗 诇讜拽讜住 讜诇讜住 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪住拽讬 讘砖诪讛转讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 砖诪讛转讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪住拽讬 讘砖诪讛转讬讬讛讜 诇讗

The Gemara infers: And this applies specifically to names such as Lukos and Los, as it is uncommon to find Jews who are called by these names. However, with regard to other gentile names, concerning which it is common to find Jews who are called by these names, no, the documents are not valid, as people might mistakenly rely on the signatures of gentiles.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讬讟讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注讚讬诐 讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐 讻砖讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐

Reish Lakish raised an objection to this ruling from a baraita (Tosefta 4:8): With regard to bills of divorce that come from a country overseas, and witnesses are signed upon them, even though the names of the witnesses are like the names of gentiles, they are valid, because the names of most Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael are like the names of gentiles. This indicates that a bill of divorce is valid even when the names are not clearly those of gentiles.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara answers: There the halakha is different, as it teaches the reason explicitly: Because the names of most Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael are like the names of gentiles. Consequently, it can be assumed that the court examined the matter at the time of the signing, and that the document was signed by Jews. However, in Eretz Yisrael it is more likely that ambiguous names are actually those of gentiles, and therefore a document of this kind is valid only when it is clear it was signed by gentiles, to avoid mistakes.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜驻砖讟 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讗

This was one version of the discussion. And there are those who say that Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan about the very same case as in the baraita, and he resolved the matter for him from the baraita, that even if the names signed on a bill of divorce brought from outside of Eretz Yisrael are like the names of gentiles, they are valid.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 转谉 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘砖谞讬讛谉 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who says to another: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, if before the document reaches the woman or the slave the giver wishes to retract his decision, then with regard to both of them, he can retract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

And the Rabbis say: One can retract his decision in the case of bills of divorce but not in the case of bills of manumission. The Rabbis explain the reason for their ruling: This is because one can act in a person鈥檚 interest in his absence, and therefore the agent acquires the document on behalf of the slave from the moment the owner hands the bill of manumission to the agent. But one can act to a person鈥檚 detriment only in his presence. The receipt of a bill of divorce is considered to be to a woman鈥檚 detriment, and therefore an agent cannot receive it for her without her consent.

砖讗诐 讬专爪讛 砖诇讗 诇讝讜谉 讗转 注讘讚讜 专砖讗讬 讜砖诇讗 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬

They explain further: The emancipation of a slave is in his interests, despite the fact that he receives sustenance from his master while a slave, as, if the master wishes not to sustain his slave he is allowed not to provide him with sustenance. This demonstrates that slavery is not in the interest of the slave, as he does not receive any guaranteed benefit. But if a husband wishes not to sustain his wife, he is not allowed to proceed in this manner. Consequently, marriage is in the interests of the woman.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讗转 注讘讚讜 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讬讬谞讜

Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But even so, it is not in the interest of a slave to be emancipated, as, if his master is a priest, he disqualifies his slave from partaking of teruma by emancipating him, just as a husband who is a priest disqualifies his Israelite wife from partaking of teruma by divorcing her. The Rabbis said to him: It is permitted for a priest鈥檚 slave to partake of teruma not because he has a right to sustenance, but rather because he is his master鈥檚 acquisition.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: Rav Huna and Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef were sitting before Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting and dozing while the other two Sages conversed. And Rav Huna was sitting and saying: With regard to the statement of the Rabbis that a master cannot retract a bill of manumission once he has given it to an agent, one can conclude from it that if a third party seizes a debtor鈥檚 property on behalf of a creditor, an act that is certainly in the interests of the creditor, he acquires this property on his behalf. This is similar to the case here, where the agent acquires the bill of manumission on behalf of the slave.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said to Rav Huna: Do you state this halakha even in a case when the seizure of property is to the detriment of others, e.g., if there are other creditors who would lose the opportunity to seize the property? Rav Huna said to him: Yes.

讗讚讛讻讬 讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖谞转讬谞讜

In the meantime Rabbi Yirmeya woke up, due to their conversation, as he was not sleeping deeply. He said to them: Children [dardekei], this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others does not acquire. And if you say that the mishna apparently teaches the opposite, as the agent acquires the bill of manumission on behalf of the slave despite the fact that this causes a loss for the master, that case is different.

讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讻讗讜诪专 讝讻讜 讚诪讬

Rabbi Yirmeya elaborates: The reason for the ruling in the mishna is that anyone who says: Give to so-and-so, is like one who says: Acquire on behalf of so-and-so. Since the master said: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, the agent immediately acquires it on the slave鈥檚 behalf, despite the fact that the bill is to the detriment of the master. However, this halakha has no bearing on a case where a person independently seizes property on behalf of another, and by doing so acts to the disadvantage of others.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讬拽讟 讗转 讛驻讗讛 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 讝讻讛 诇讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬转谞谞讜 诇注谞讬 讛谞诪爪讗 专讗砖讜谉

Rav 岣sda says: With regard to this issue of one who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. What is this dispute? As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 4:9): With regard to one who is not poor but collected produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], and said: This produce that I have collected is for so-and-so, who is a poor person, Rabbi Eliezer said: He has acquired it on his behalf, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired it on his behalf; rather, he gives the produce he gathered to whichever poor person appears first before him. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can gather pe鈥檃 on behalf of a poor person, despite the fact that he acts to the detriment of other paupers, while the Rabbis disagree.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗

Ameimar said, and some say that it was actually Rav Pappa who said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 11

讘砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉

We are dealing with unambiguous gentile names, in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 讛讜专诪讬讝 讜讗讘讜讚讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬讘转讗讬 讜讘专 拽讬讚专讬 讜讘讗讟讬 讜谞拽讬诐 讗讜谞讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.

讗讘诇 砖诪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara infers: However, if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with ambiguous names, what is the halakha? Is this not a valid document? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: These two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of gentile courts itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, in a case of ambiguous names, no, gentile witnesses are not valid.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诪讜转 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖诪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟 讜驻住讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying, i.e., Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: In what case is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names, the document becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and therefore such documents are invalid.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讙讬讟讬 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 讙讬讟讬 诪诪讜谉 讚驻住讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟

And if you wish, say a different answer: In the last clause of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, we arrive at the case of financial documents. Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first tanna. And this is what the mishna is saying: Financial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person, whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘爪讬讚谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讛注讜诇讬谉 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜转诪讬讛谉 讙讜讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖谞注砖讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in the city of Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, these documents are valid, even in the case of bills of divorce and bills of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, outside a court, as Rabbi Akiva deems a document of this kind valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 诇讗

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, bills of divorce and manumission, are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. In other words, the halakha that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. However, in a place where Jews sign, no, these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.

诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝讜专 讗讟讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖专讗诇 讞讜转诪讬谉 砖诪讗 讘砖诪讗 诪讞诇讬祝 讗转专讗 讘讗转专讗 诇讗 诪讞诇讬祝

The Gemara suggests: Let us also decree in a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign. The Gemara answers: One might confuse one name with another name. It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is not likely to confuse one place with another place. Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.

专讘讬谞讗 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讘讻谞讜驻讬讗转讛 讚讗专诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专驻专诐 注专讻讗讜转 转谞谉

搂 The Gemara relates that Ravina thought to deem valid a document that was written by a group of gentiles [arma鈥檈i]. Rafram said to him that we learned: Gentile courts, in the mishna, i.e., these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 驻专住讗讛 讚诪住专讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬

Similarly, Rava said: With regard to this Persian document [shetara parsa鈥檃] written by the Persian authorities that was transferred to the recipient in the presence of Jewish witnesses, he can collect with it non-liened property, i.e., property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬 诇诪讬拽专讗 讘讚讬讚注讬

The Gemara asks: But the witnesses for the transmission of this document do not know how to read Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation where the witnesses know how to read Persian.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讻转讘 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讝讬讬祝 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚讗驻讬爪谉 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 爪专讬讱 砖讬讞讝讬专 诪注谞讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚诪讛讚专

The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But I require that the document be written in a manner that cannot be forged, and it is not so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava鈥檚 statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). But I require that a document review the essential topic of the document in its last line, and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava鈥檚 statement applies in a case where it returned to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, he should be able to collect from liened property as well, as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn鈥檛 Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does not generate publicity, i.e., a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan:

注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛讙讟 讜砖诪讜转谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讜住 讜诇讜住 讜讛讻砖专谞讜

With regard to witnesses who signed a bill of divorce and whose names are like the names of gentiles, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: There came before us bills of divorce that were signed only with names such as Lukos and Los, and we deemed them valid by means of the witnesses of transmission.

讜讚讜拽讗 诇讜拽讜住 讜诇讜住 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪住拽讬 讘砖诪讛转讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 砖诪讛转讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪住拽讬 讘砖诪讛转讬讬讛讜 诇讗

The Gemara infers: And this applies specifically to names such as Lukos and Los, as it is uncommon to find Jews who are called by these names. However, with regard to other gentile names, concerning which it is common to find Jews who are called by these names, no, the documents are not valid, as people might mistakenly rely on the signatures of gentiles.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讬讟讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注讚讬诐 讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐 讻砖讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐

Reish Lakish raised an objection to this ruling from a baraita (Tosefta 4:8): With regard to bills of divorce that come from a country overseas, and witnesses are signed upon them, even though the names of the witnesses are like the names of gentiles, they are valid, because the names of most Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael are like the names of gentiles. This indicates that a bill of divorce is valid even when the names are not clearly those of gentiles.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讻砖诪讜转 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara answers: There the halakha is different, as it teaches the reason explicitly: Because the names of most Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael are like the names of gentiles. Consequently, it can be assumed that the court examined the matter at the time of the signing, and that the document was signed by Jews. However, in Eretz Yisrael it is more likely that ambiguous names are actually those of gentiles, and therefore a document of this kind is valid only when it is clear it was signed by gentiles, to avoid mistakes.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜驻砖讟 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讗

This was one version of the discussion. And there are those who say that Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan about the very same case as in the baraita, and he resolved the matter for him from the baraita, that even if the names signed on a bill of divorce brought from outside of Eretz Yisrael are like the names of gentiles, they are valid.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 转谉 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘砖谞讬讛谉 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who says to another: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, if before the document reaches the woman or the slave the giver wishes to retract his decision, then with regard to both of them, he can retract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

And the Rabbis say: One can retract his decision in the case of bills of divorce but not in the case of bills of manumission. The Rabbis explain the reason for their ruling: This is because one can act in a person鈥檚 interest in his absence, and therefore the agent acquires the document on behalf of the slave from the moment the owner hands the bill of manumission to the agent. But one can act to a person鈥檚 detriment only in his presence. The receipt of a bill of divorce is considered to be to a woman鈥檚 detriment, and therefore an agent cannot receive it for her without her consent.

砖讗诐 讬专爪讛 砖诇讗 诇讝讜谉 讗转 注讘讚讜 专砖讗讬 讜砖诇讗 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬

They explain further: The emancipation of a slave is in his interests, despite the fact that he receives sustenance from his master while a slave, as, if the master wishes not to sustain his slave he is allowed not to provide him with sustenance. This demonstrates that slavery is not in the interest of the slave, as he does not receive any guaranteed benefit. But if a husband wishes not to sustain his wife, he is not allowed to proceed in this manner. Consequently, marriage is in the interests of the woman.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讗转 注讘讚讜 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讬讬谞讜

Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But even so, it is not in the interest of a slave to be emancipated, as, if his master is a priest, he disqualifies his slave from partaking of teruma by emancipating him, just as a husband who is a priest disqualifies his Israelite wife from partaking of teruma by divorcing her. The Rabbis said to him: It is permitted for a priest鈥檚 slave to partake of teruma not because he has a right to sustenance, but rather because he is his master鈥檚 acquisition.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: Rav Huna and Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef were sitting before Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting and dozing while the other two Sages conversed. And Rav Huna was sitting and saying: With regard to the statement of the Rabbis that a master cannot retract a bill of manumission once he has given it to an agent, one can conclude from it that if a third party seizes a debtor鈥檚 property on behalf of a creditor, an act that is certainly in the interests of the creditor, he acquires this property on his behalf. This is similar to the case here, where the agent acquires the bill of manumission on behalf of the slave.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said to Rav Huna: Do you state this halakha even in a case when the seizure of property is to the detriment of others, e.g., if there are other creditors who would lose the opportunity to seize the property? Rav Huna said to him: Yes.

讗讚讛讻讬 讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖谞转讬谞讜

In the meantime Rabbi Yirmeya woke up, due to their conversation, as he was not sleeping deeply. He said to them: Children [dardekei], this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others does not acquire. And if you say that the mishna apparently teaches the opposite, as the agent acquires the bill of manumission on behalf of the slave despite the fact that this causes a loss for the master, that case is different.

讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讻讗讜诪专 讝讻讜 讚诪讬

Rabbi Yirmeya elaborates: The reason for the ruling in the mishna is that anyone who says: Give to so-and-so, is like one who says: Acquire on behalf of so-and-so. Since the master said: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, the agent immediately acquires it on the slave鈥檚 behalf, despite the fact that the bill is to the detriment of the master. However, this halakha has no bearing on a case where a person independently seizes property on behalf of another, and by doing so acts to the disadvantage of others.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛转讜驻住 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讬拽讟 讗转 讛驻讗讛 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 讝讻讛 诇讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬转谞谞讜 诇注谞讬 讛谞诪爪讗 专讗砖讜谉

Rav 岣sda says: With regard to this issue of one who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. What is this dispute? As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 4:9): With regard to one who is not poor but collected produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], and said: This produce that I have collected is for so-and-so, who is a poor person, Rabbi Eliezer said: He has acquired it on his behalf, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired it on his behalf; rather, he gives the produce he gathered to whichever poor person appears first before him. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can gather pe鈥檃 on behalf of a poor person, despite the fact that he acts to the detriment of other paupers, while the Rabbis disagree.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗

Ameimar said, and some say that it was actually Rav Pappa who said:

Scroll To Top