Today's Daf Yomi
June 1, 2023 | 讬状讘 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讙
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.
Gittin 16
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in memory of Sara’s mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, Leah bat HaRav Yehuda Leib Chaikel and Chaya Masha, who showed us to love Hashem, klal Yisrael, Medinat Yisrael, and learning Torah, b’chol levaveinu, b’chol nafsheinu, u’b’chol meodeinu.聽
Today’s daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Shifra’s father, Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzchak on his yahrzeit.
Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Ilana Miriam in honor of her birthday and in admiration of her perseverance in her learning.聽
How is Ilfa’s question regarding splitting up washing one’s hands for impurity purposes explained? The rabbis decreed that a tvul yom who goes into drawn water (even just the head and majority of the body) or pours three log of water over one’s body after going in a mikveh will be considered impure. Likewise, a pure person who pours three log of water over one’s body is deemed impure. Rabbi Yirmia asks what if half the body was in a mikveh and one poured water over the other half? A man who had a seminal emission is impure and from the times of Ezra, they also were not allowed to learn Torah. In order to permit Torah learning to one who was too sick to go into a mikveh, they permitted them to pour nine kav of water over their body. What if half the body was in a mikveh and they poured water on the other half?聽 There are two versions are brought to understand the machloket between Tanna Kama and Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna where two different people come and one testifies about the signing and the other about the writing. Is the case (and the cases that follow) one where two messengers brought the get or only one? What does this tell us about the need for the declaration when two messengers are sent to deliver the get?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝-讬讜诪讬-诇谞砖讬诐): Play in new window | Download
讛谞爪讜拽 讜讛拽讟驻专住 讜诪砖拽讛 讟讜驻讞 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇讟讛专讛
A stream of water, and water descending an incline [katafres], and liquid that rendered an item moist do not connect, neither for ritual impurity nor for purity. These liquids do not connect for impurity, e.g., if impure water is in one place and becomes attached to another source of water pouring from above it, the water above is not considered attached to the impure water and is not rendered impure. They also do not connect for purity, e.g., if two collections of water are attached via the pouring of a stream, they do not join together to form the amount of water necessary to form a valid ritual bath, through which people and items can become ritually pure. If so, liquid that rendered a hand moist should not serve to attach the two halves of one鈥檚 hand when they are washed.
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讜驻讞 诇讛讟驻讬讞 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讟讜驻讞 诇讛讟驻讬讞 讞讬讘讜专
The Gemara answers: No, this dilemma is necessary in a case where there is liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist. In other words, the half of the hand that was washed is not merely slightly moist, it is moist enough to render something else moist. The Gemara asks: We already learned this as well: With regard to liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist, it connects with other liquid. What, then, is Ilfa鈥檚 dilemma?
讚诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讜讗讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讜讬专讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘诇讜 (砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讟讛讜专讬诐)
The Gemara suggests: Perhaps the halakha that liquid rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins with other liquid is stated only with regard to the issue of ritual baths, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:6): In the case of a ritual bath that contains precisely forty se鈥檃 of water, and two people descended and immersed in it, if both of them immersed at the same time they are ritually pure.
讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 专讗砖讜谉 讟讛讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 讟诪讗
If they immersed sequentially, then the first person is ritually pure, as he immersed in a ritual bath that contains the requisite amount of water, but the second person is impure, because some of the water must certainly have clung to the first individual as he left the ritual bath. Consequently, after the first person鈥檚 immersion the ritual bath contained slightly less than the requisite forty se鈥檃 of water.
专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讘诪讬诐 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟讛讜专
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the first person鈥檚 feet were still touching the water in the ritual bath when the second person immersed, then the second person is also ritually pure. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the water left on the body of the person who has immersed connects with the water in the ritual bath to constitute the requisite amount of water. Clearly, in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins together with other liquid. However, this halakha was stated only with regard to a ritual bath. It remains unclear whether liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins with the water used to wash the second half of one鈥檚 hand. Perhaps this is the dilemma raised by Ilfa.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜注诇 专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讟诪讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞爪讬讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谞驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜
The Gemara cites another question with regard to this issue. Rabbi Yirmeya says: They said in a mishna (Zavim 5:12): In the case of one whose head and most of his body enter into drawn water after he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify himself, and a ritually pure person concerning whom three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body, both of these people are ritually impure. With regard to this mishna, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If half of a person became purified by entering into drawn water and half of him became purified by having water fall on him, what is the halakha? Do these acts join together to render him ritually impure or not? No answer is found, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讘注诇 拽专讬 讞讜诇讛 砖谞转谞讜 注诇讬讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞爪讬讜 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜
Similarly, Rav Pappa says: They said in a mishna (Mikvaot 3:4): In the case of a sick person who experienced a seminal emission, who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, this is sufficient to render him ritually pure. He need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If half of him is purified by immersion and half of him through this act of pouring, what is the halakha? No answer is found for this dilemma either, and the Gemara says that it shall stand unresolved.
讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讘诇 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐
搂 The mishna taught that if one says: It was written in my presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, the bill of divorce is invalid. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught that the document is invalid only if the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them in court. In other words, this halakha applies only if they were not both agents for bringing this bill of divorce. Rather, one of them alone fulfilled this role and he did not say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, in accordance with the rabbinic decree. However, if the bill of divorce was produced by both of them,
讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐
it is valid. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专
Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: If that is so, if the mishna is referring specifically to a case where the document was not produced by both of them, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one person says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid.
讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讗 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讻砖专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉
The Gemara infers: The reason this document is invalid is specifically due to the fact that the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them, but if the bill of divorce was produced by both of them would the Rabbis deem it valid? Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Abaye: Yes, the Rabbis would deem this bill of divorce valid.
讜讻讬 讗讬谉 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉
The Gemara asks: And in a case where the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them, with regard to what underlying principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages decree that it is invalid lest people will come to confuse this case with the typical situation of ratification of legal documents. In other words, they will think it is possible to ratify other documents by the testimony of one witness. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the Sages do not decree that it is invalid for this reason.
诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐
Some say another version of this discussion: Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even a bill of divorce produced by both of them is invalid. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that if two people brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas they are required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住诇讬 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉
Abaye said to him: If that is so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one person says: It was signed in my presence, then the document is invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid. Is it true to say that even when the bill of divorce was produced by both of them the Rabbis deem it invalid? Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to him: Yes.
讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the tanna鈥檌m disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because the people who live overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. Consequently, it is necessary for them to testify about both the writing and the signing for her sake, in accordance with the rabbinic decree, even when two people bring the bill of divorce. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the reason for the declaration is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and when two people bring a bill of divorce there are people available to ratify it, and therefore the declaration is unnecessary.
诇讬诪讗 讚专讘讛 讜专讘讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讘讗 诪转专抓 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗
The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that the disagreement of Rabba and Rava with regard to the two reasons for the declaration is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, as Rava resolves this issue and explains it in accordance with the first version, that the Rabbis agree that two people who bring a bill of divorce are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence. Consequently, it is possible that both opinions concur that an agent is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that witnesses will be available to ratify it.
讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜
And Rabba could have said to you, in accordance with the second formulation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, i.e., two people who bring a bill of divorce are also required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, that everyone agrees that we require them to issue the declaration because people are not experts in the halakha that it must be written for her sake. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the period after they learned to write a bill of divorce for her sake even overseas.
讜讘讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讛讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉
And they disagree with regard to whether there is a rabbinic decree that the bill of divorce is invalid lest the matter return to its corrupt state, i.e., the residents overseas will forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. As one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages decree that it is invalid for this reason, and therefore the declaration is still required even after they learned. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The Sages do not decree that it is invalid lest they forget the halakha.
讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬砖讗 讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛
The Gemara asks: But if so, let Rabbi Yehuda disagree also with regard to the first clause of the mishna, concerning the case where one agent says: It was written in my presence, and the other agent says: It was signed in my presence. Why does he disagree only about a case where two say that the document was written in their presence? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees even with regard to the first clause, as it was already stated with regard to the mishna that Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement even with regard to the first clause.
诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇注讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讝讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐
Rav Oshaya raises an objection to the opinion of Ulla from the following baraita (Tosefta 2:2): Rabbi Yehuda deems the bill of divorce valid in this case but not in another case. What, is it not correct to say that this serves to exclude a case where one says: It was written in my presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence?
诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this serves to exclude a case where only one witness testified: It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to exclude this case? It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yehuda did not issue a rabbinic decree that it is invalid lest the matter return to its corrupt state, perhaps he also did not decree that it is invalid lest people will come to confuse this case with the typical situation of ratification of legal documents, which cannot be performed with one witness. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that although Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about people forgetting the halakha and therefore holds that there is no longer any reason to be worried about the document not being written for her sake ab initio, nevertheless he is still concerned that a bill of divorce might be confused with other legal documents.
讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉
It was also stated, similar to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, but in the name of a different amora, that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.
专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞诇砖 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讛 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讙讬专砖讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗
搂 The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar 岣na was weak, and Rav Yehuda and Rabba entered to visit him and to inquire about his well-being. While they were there, they raised a dilemma before him: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to issue this declaration? He said to them: They are not required to say it, for the following reason: What if they said: She was divorced in our presence, wouldn鈥檛 they be deemed credible? Therefore, they do not have to state the declaration. In the meantime, while they were sitting there, in came a certain
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Gittin: 14-21 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time
Gittin 16
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讛谞爪讜拽 讜讛拽讟驻专住 讜诪砖拽讛 讟讜驻讞 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇讟讛专讛
A stream of water, and water descending an incline [katafres], and liquid that rendered an item moist do not connect, neither for ritual impurity nor for purity. These liquids do not connect for impurity, e.g., if impure water is in one place and becomes attached to another source of water pouring from above it, the water above is not considered attached to the impure water and is not rendered impure. They also do not connect for purity, e.g., if two collections of water are attached via the pouring of a stream, they do not join together to form the amount of water necessary to form a valid ritual bath, through which people and items can become ritually pure. If so, liquid that rendered a hand moist should not serve to attach the two halves of one鈥檚 hand when they are washed.
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讜驻讞 诇讛讟驻讬讞 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讟讜驻讞 诇讛讟驻讬讞 讞讬讘讜专
The Gemara answers: No, this dilemma is necessary in a case where there is liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist. In other words, the half of the hand that was washed is not merely slightly moist, it is moist enough to render something else moist. The Gemara asks: We already learned this as well: With regard to liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist, it connects with other liquid. What, then, is Ilfa鈥檚 dilemma?
讚诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讜讗讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讜讬专讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘诇讜 (砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讟讛讜专讬诐)
The Gemara suggests: Perhaps the halakha that liquid rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins with other liquid is stated only with regard to the issue of ritual baths, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:6): In the case of a ritual bath that contains precisely forty se鈥檃 of water, and two people descended and immersed in it, if both of them immersed at the same time they are ritually pure.
讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 专讗砖讜谉 讟讛讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 讟诪讗
If they immersed sequentially, then the first person is ritually pure, as he immersed in a ritual bath that contains the requisite amount of water, but the second person is impure, because some of the water must certainly have clung to the first individual as he left the ritual bath. Consequently, after the first person鈥檚 immersion the ritual bath contained slightly less than the requisite forty se鈥檃 of water.
专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讘诪讬诐 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟讛讜专
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the first person鈥檚 feet were still touching the water in the ritual bath when the second person immersed, then the second person is also ritually pure. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the water left on the body of the person who has immersed connects with the water in the ritual bath to constitute the requisite amount of water. Clearly, in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins together with other liquid. However, this halakha was stated only with regard to a ritual bath. It remains unclear whether liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins with the water used to wash the second half of one鈥檚 hand. Perhaps this is the dilemma raised by Ilfa.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜注诇 专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讟诪讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞爪讬讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谞驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜
The Gemara cites another question with regard to this issue. Rabbi Yirmeya says: They said in a mishna (Zavim 5:12): In the case of one whose head and most of his body enter into drawn water after he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify himself, and a ritually pure person concerning whom three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body, both of these people are ritually impure. With regard to this mishna, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If half of a person became purified by entering into drawn water and half of him became purified by having water fall on him, what is the halakha? Do these acts join together to render him ritually impure or not? No answer is found, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讘注诇 拽专讬 讞讜诇讛 砖谞转谞讜 注诇讬讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞爪讬讜 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜
Similarly, Rav Pappa says: They said in a mishna (Mikvaot 3:4): In the case of a sick person who experienced a seminal emission, who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, this is sufficient to render him ritually pure. He need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If half of him is purified by immersion and half of him through this act of pouring, what is the halakha? No answer is found for this dilemma either, and the Gemara says that it shall stand unresolved.
讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讘诇 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐
搂 The mishna taught that if one says: It was written in my presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, the bill of divorce is invalid. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught that the document is invalid only if the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them in court. In other words, this halakha applies only if they were not both agents for bringing this bill of divorce. Rather, one of them alone fulfilled this role and he did not say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, in accordance with the rabbinic decree. However, if the bill of divorce was produced by both of them,
讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐
it is valid. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专
Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: If that is so, if the mishna is referring specifically to a case where the document was not produced by both of them, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one person says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid.
讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讗 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讻砖专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉
The Gemara infers: The reason this document is invalid is specifically due to the fact that the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them, but if the bill of divorce was produced by both of them would the Rabbis deem it valid? Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Abaye: Yes, the Rabbis would deem this bill of divorce valid.
讜讻讬 讗讬谉 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉
The Gemara asks: And in a case where the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them, with regard to what underlying principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages decree that it is invalid lest people will come to confuse this case with the typical situation of ratification of legal documents. In other words, they will think it is possible to ratify other documents by the testimony of one witness. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the Sages do not decree that it is invalid for this reason.
诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐
Some say another version of this discussion: Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even a bill of divorce produced by both of them is invalid. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that if two people brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas they are required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住诇讬 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉
Abaye said to him: If that is so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one person says: It was signed in my presence, then the document is invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid. Is it true to say that even when the bill of divorce was produced by both of them the Rabbis deem it invalid? Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to him: Yes.
讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the tanna鈥檌m disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because the people who live overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. Consequently, it is necessary for them to testify about both the writing and the signing for her sake, in accordance with the rabbinic decree, even when two people bring the bill of divorce. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the reason for the declaration is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and when two people bring a bill of divorce there are people available to ratify it, and therefore the declaration is unnecessary.
诇讬诪讗 讚专讘讛 讜专讘讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讘讗 诪转专抓 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗
The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that the disagreement of Rabba and Rava with regard to the two reasons for the declaration is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, as Rava resolves this issue and explains it in accordance with the first version, that the Rabbis agree that two people who bring a bill of divorce are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence. Consequently, it is possible that both opinions concur that an agent is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that witnesses will be available to ratify it.
讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜
And Rabba could have said to you, in accordance with the second formulation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, i.e., two people who bring a bill of divorce are also required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, that everyone agrees that we require them to issue the declaration because people are not experts in the halakha that it must be written for her sake. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the period after they learned to write a bill of divorce for her sake even overseas.
讜讘讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讛讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉
And they disagree with regard to whether there is a rabbinic decree that the bill of divorce is invalid lest the matter return to its corrupt state, i.e., the residents overseas will forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. As one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages decree that it is invalid for this reason, and therefore the declaration is still required even after they learned. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The Sages do not decree that it is invalid lest they forget the halakha.
讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬砖讗 讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛
The Gemara asks: But if so, let Rabbi Yehuda disagree also with regard to the first clause of the mishna, concerning the case where one agent says: It was written in my presence, and the other agent says: It was signed in my presence. Why does he disagree only about a case where two say that the document was written in their presence? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees even with regard to the first clause, as it was already stated with regard to the mishna that Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement even with regard to the first clause.
诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇注讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘讝讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐
Rav Oshaya raises an objection to the opinion of Ulla from the following baraita (Tosefta 2:2): Rabbi Yehuda deems the bill of divorce valid in this case but not in another case. What, is it not correct to say that this serves to exclude a case where one says: It was written in my presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence?
诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this serves to exclude a case where only one witness testified: It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to exclude this case? It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yehuda did not issue a rabbinic decree that it is invalid lest the matter return to its corrupt state, perhaps he also did not decree that it is invalid lest people will come to confuse this case with the typical situation of ratification of legal documents, which cannot be performed with one witness. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that although Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about people forgetting the halakha and therefore holds that there is no longer any reason to be worried about the document not being written for her sake ab initio, nevertheless he is still concerned that a bill of divorce might be confused with other legal documents.
讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉
It was also stated, similar to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, but in the name of a different amora, that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.
专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞诇砖 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讛 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讙讬专砖讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗
搂 The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar 岣na was weak, and Rav Yehuda and Rabba entered to visit him and to inquire about his well-being. While they were there, they raised a dilemma before him: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to issue this declaration? He said to them: They are not required to say it, for the following reason: What if they said: She was divorced in our presence, wouldn鈥檛 they be deemed credible? Therefore, they do not have to state the declaration. In the meantime, while they were sitting there, in came a certain
