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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 30, 2015 | 讬状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Gittin 17

If two messengers deliver a get do they need to say “it was written before us and signed before us?” 聽Rabbi Ami tries to derive it from our mishna that they do need to say it, but ends up changing his mind and concluding the opposite. 聽The mishna brings a case where the get was written on one day and signed at night – on a different date. 聽The gemara uses this as a springboard to disucss why in general a date is needed on a get.

讞讘专讗 砖拽诇讛 诇砖专讙讗 诪拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜 讘讟讜诇讱 讗讜 讘讟讜诇讗 讚讘专 注砖讜

Persian priest [岣bbara] and took the lamp [sheragga] from before them. It was a Persian holiday on which the Persians prohibited the public from maintaining light outside their temple. Rabba, who was from Eretz Yisrael, said: Merciful One! Let us live either in Your shadow or in the shadow of the descendants of Esau, the Romans.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讜诪讗讬 诪注诇讜 诪驻专住讗讬 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛讬诐 讛讘讬谉 讚专讻讛 讜讛讜讗 讬讚注 讗转 诪拽讜诪讛 讬讜讚注 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讙讝讬专转 专讜诪讬讬诐 注诪讚 讜讛讙诇讛 讗讜转诐 诇讘讘诇

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the Romans are preferable to the Persians? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淕od understands its way and He knows its place鈥 (Job 28:23)? This means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows with regard to the Jewish people that they are unable to accept and live under Roman decrees, and therefore He arose and exiled them to Babylonia. This indicates that living under Babylonian rule is preferable to living under Roman rule.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讬转讜 讞讘专讬 诇讘讘诇 讛讗 诇讘转专 讚讗转讜 讞讘专讬 诇讘讘诇

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as this interpretation of Rabbi 岣yya refers to the period before the Persians reached Babylonia, when life there was very comfortable. That statement of Rabba was issued after the Persians reached Babylonia, when the situation changed and living there became more difficult.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚 注讚 讻转讬讘讛 讚谞注砖讜 讻砖谞讬诐 注诇 讝讛 讜讻砖谞讬诐 注诇 讝讛 讗讘诇 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna taught that if one person says: It was written in my presence, and two say: It was signed in our presence, it is valid. Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught that the document is valid only when the bill of divorce is produced by the witness to the writing, i.e., the one who observed the writing is the agent of the bill of divorce, as they become as two witnesses for this act, the writing, and two for that act, the signing. The agent for the bill of divorce is considered like two witnesses when he testifies with regard to the writing. However, if the bill of divorce was produced by the signatory witnesses it is invalid. This is because only one witness, who is not an agent for the bill of divorce, testifies with regard to its writing.

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 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 专讬砖讗 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 讜讗驻讬诇讜 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

The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas are required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, and if they do not state this declaration the bill of divorce is invalid. Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so, how do you explain the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, then it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid? But do the Rabbis invalidate the document even when the bill of divorce is produced by both of them? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 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

The Gemara relates: Another time Rabbi Asi found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying that even if the bill of divorce is produced by the signatory witnesses it is valid. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan, in whose name Rabbi Ami stated this halakha, holds that in the case of two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, they are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 专讬砖讗 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 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

Rabbi Asi said to him: However, if that is so, how do you explain the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid? The Gemara elaborates: The reason it is valid is that the bill of divorce is not produced by both of them, from which it may be inferred that if the bill of divorce is produced by both of them the Sages would deem it valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬转讚 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 转诪讜讟

Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes. Rabbi Asi replied: But the other time you did not say this to us. You issued a ruling that indicated the opposite conclusion, and when I asked if that was the correct inference you affirmed that my reasoning was correct. Rabbi Ami said to him: What I am now telling you is a spike that will not move; you can rely on this ruling, and I retract my previous statement.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讻转讘 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诐 讘讬讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讞转诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讞转诐 讘讬讜诐 讻砖专 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诐 讘诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专

MISHNA: If a bill of divorce was written during the day and signed on the same day; or if it was written at night and signed on that same night; or if it was written at night and signed on the following day, then it is valid. The new calendar day begins at night, so that in all of these cases the writing and the signing were performed on the same date. However, if it was written during the day and signed on that same night, it is invalid, as the writing and the signing were not on the same calendar day. Rabbi Shimon deems the bill of divorce valid.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讙讬讟讬谉 砖谞讻转讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诪讜 讘诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

The mishna explains the ruling of Rabbi Shimon: As Rabbi Shimon would say: All documents that were written during the day and signed at night are invalid because the date recorded in the document is a day prior to the day the document takes effect, except for women鈥檚 bills of divorce. Since a bill of divorce is not used to collect money, it is of no concern if the date that appears on it is before the time when it was signed.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转讬拽谞讜 讝诪谉 讘讙讬讟讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗讞讜转讜

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following question: For what reason did the Sages institute the writing of a date on bills of divorce? Why must the date be written if this document is not intended to be used to collect money? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Due to the daughter of his sister. The Sages were concerned that a man may claim that his divorce occurred earlier than it actually did. For example, if one was married to his niece, and she committed adultery, he may nevertheless desire to protect her judicial sanction and claim that they were already divorced at the time of her infidelity. In order to prevent this from happening, the Sages instituted an ordinance that bills of divorce must be dated.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讜转

Reish Lakish says: The ordinance was instituted due to the produce of her usufruct property. A husband owns the produce of the fields belonging to his wife up to the moment the divorce takes effect. The Sages instituted an ordinance that bills of divorce must be dated because she needs to be able to establish the time of the divorce in case the husband sold or consumed the produce of fields that belong to her after the divorce. If there is no date on the bill of divorce, he will be able to claim that the produce was sold or consumed before the divorce took place.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Reish Lakish did not say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you:

讝谞讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

Adultery is infrequent, and the Sages would not institute the dating of a bill of divorce to avoid an infrequent problem.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽住讘专 讬砖 诇讘注诇 驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖注转 谞转讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say in accordance with the reason of Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers that he holds the produce belongs to the husband until the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and only afterward does the woman have the rights to the produce of her property. If she attempts to collect the value of the produce sold after her divorce, she will be asked to prove when she received the bill of divorce. Therefore, in terms of assisting her to collect these monies, the dating of the bill of divorce does not serve any purpose.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara continues and asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, due to that reason Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce that was signed on the day after it was written, because he holds that the rights to the produce of usufruct property revert to the woman the moment the bill of divorce is written. She is therefore within her rights to collect these monies from the date written in the bill of divorce, even if it was given at a later date. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that the reason for writing the date is to prevent the husband from shielding his wife from punishment for her infidelity, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems it valid? There is still a concern that he will have the bill of divorce written and dated earlier in order to protect her.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: I am not speaking in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he clearly is not concerned with the husband鈥檚 shielding his wife from punishment. When I speak, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that if the bill of divorce was signed on the night following its writing, it is invalid.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and the opinion of the Rabbis. However, according to Reish Lakish, what difference is there between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis?

驻讬专讬 讚诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讜注讚 砖注转 讞转讬诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them pertains to the produce of the wife鈥檚 property from the time of the writing until the time of the signing. According to the Rabbis, the rights to the produce revert to the wife only once the bill of divorce is signed, and the bill of divorce must be dated then. According to Rabbi Shimon, the woman鈥檚 rights to the produce go into effect the moment the bill of divorce is written, and the date on which it was signed is irrelevant.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚讗转诪专 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻讬专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛

The Gemara challenges the explanation as to why Rabbi Yo岣nan does not agree with Reish Lakish: But didn鈥檛 we hear Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish say the opposite of this? As it is stated that they had a dispute with regard to the question: From when does the court remove the property from the possession of the husband, i.e., when does he lose his right to the produce? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce, and Reish Lakish said: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce. This does not accord with what was stated above, that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the husband retains the rights to the produce until the bill of divorce is given and Reish Lakish holds that the wife regains the rights beforehand. Here, their opinions are the opposite of the way the Gemara explained earlier.

讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in this final dispute so that it is Reish Lakish who holds that the rights to the produce revert to the woman at the time of writing and it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who holds that it is at the time of giving the divorce.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讬住转 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转谉 讗讛谞讜 讚诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 转讬谞砖讗

搂 The Gemara records a series of questions with regard to the parameters of the ordinance that bills of divorce should be dated. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It was taught in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid, but if a woman married after she received one of these bills of divorce then the offspring is of unflawed lineage, meaning that the husband and wife are divorced after the fact. One of the three bills of divorce listed is a bill of divorce that does not have a date. Abaye asks: Being that the divorce does take effect, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring that the date appear on a bill of divorce? Either way the bill of divorce is valid after the fact without a date. The Gemara answers: It is effective in that she may not marry ab initio as a result of receiving this bill of divorce, which consequently limits the usage of such a bill of divorce.

讙讝讬讬讛 诇讝诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专诪讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Abaye continued to ask of Rav Yosef: If the husband cut out its date after the dated bill of divorce was written and gave it to her, what is the halakha? May the bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: We are not concerned about a deceiver. The ordinance requiring that the bill of divorce be dated does not apply in this case, as it was dated when it was written.

讻转讜讘 讘讜 砖讘讜注 砖谞讛 讞讚砖 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专 讜诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转谉

Abaye continued and asked: If the date written in the bill of divorce made reference only to the seven-year Sabbatical cycle in which it was written, or only to the year, or only to the month, or only to the week, but the precise date was not recorded, then what is the halakha? May such a bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: It is valid to be used ab initio. Abaye asked him: If so, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring the dating of the bill of divorce? Regardless of the reason for recording the date, such vague dating will not ameliorate the problem.

讗讛谞讜 诇砖讘讜注 讚拽诪讬讛 讜诇砖讘讜注 讚讘转专讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讬讜诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 诪爪驻专讗 讗讬 诪驻谞讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讬讜诪讗 讚拽诪讬讛 讜诇讬讜诪讗 讚讘转专讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讛谞讬 诇砖讘讜注 讚拽诪讬讛 讜诇砖讘讜注 讚讘转专讬讛

Rav Yosef answered: It helps for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it. If witnesses testify that the woman committed adultery before this seven-year period, then she is liable; if the husband sells produce after this seven-year period, then the woman can recover it. The reason for this is because if you do not say so, i.e., that a limited benefit is enough to justify the ordinance, then on that day itself, do we know if it was written in the morning or in the evening? All of the issues that were mentioned before could apply also to that day itself. Rather, the date is effective for the day before it and the day after it. Here also, writing the seven-year period is effective for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讻转讘讬讛

Ravina said to Rava: If he writes the bill of divorce,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 17

讞讘专讗 砖拽诇讛 诇砖专讙讗 诪拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讜 讘讟讜诇讱 讗讜 讘讟讜诇讗 讚讘专 注砖讜

Persian priest [岣bbara] and took the lamp [sheragga] from before them. It was a Persian holiday on which the Persians prohibited the public from maintaining light outside their temple. Rabba, who was from Eretz Yisrael, said: Merciful One! Let us live either in Your shadow or in the shadow of the descendants of Esau, the Romans.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讜诪讗讬 诪注诇讜 诪驻专住讗讬 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛讬诐 讛讘讬谉 讚专讻讛 讜讛讜讗 讬讚注 讗转 诪拽讜诪讛 讬讜讚注 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讙讝讬专转 专讜诪讬讬诐 注诪讚 讜讛讙诇讛 讗讜转诐 诇讘讘诇

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the Romans are preferable to the Persians? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淕od understands its way and He knows its place鈥 (Job 28:23)? This means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows with regard to the Jewish people that they are unable to accept and live under Roman decrees, and therefore He arose and exiled them to Babylonia. This indicates that living under Babylonian rule is preferable to living under Roman rule.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讬转讜 讞讘专讬 诇讘讘诇 讛讗 诇讘转专 讚讗转讜 讞讘专讬 诇讘讘诇

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as this interpretation of Rabbi 岣yya refers to the period before the Persians reached Babylonia, when life there was very comfortable. That statement of Rabba was issued after the Persians reached Babylonia, when the situation changed and living there became more difficult.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚 注讚 讻转讬讘讛 讚谞注砖讜 讻砖谞讬诐 注诇 讝讛 讜讻砖谞讬诐 注诇 讝讛 讗讘诇 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna taught that if one person says: It was written in my presence, and two say: It was signed in our presence, it is valid. Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught that the document is valid only when the bill of divorce is produced by the witness to the writing, i.e., the one who observed the writing is the agent of the bill of divorce, as they become as two witnesses for this act, the writing, and two for that act, the signing. The agent for the bill of divorce is considered like two witnesses when he testifies with regard to the writing. However, if the bill of divorce was produced by the signatory witnesses it is invalid. This is because only one witness, who is not an agent for the bill of divorce, testifies with regard to its writing.

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 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 专讬砖讗 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 讜讗驻讬诇讜 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

The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas are required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, and if they do not state this declaration the bill of divorce is invalid. Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so, how do you explain the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, then it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid? But do the Rabbis invalidate the document even when the bill of divorce is produced by both of them? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 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

The Gemara relates: Another time Rabbi Asi found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying that even if the bill of divorce is produced by the signatory witnesses it is valid. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan, in whose name Rabbi Ami stated this halakha, holds that in the case of two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, they are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 专讬砖讗 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 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

Rabbi Asi said to him: However, if that is so, how do you explain the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid? The Gemara elaborates: The reason it is valid is that the bill of divorce is not produced by both of them, from which it may be inferred that if the bill of divorce is produced by both of them the Sages would deem it valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬转讚 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 转诪讜讟

Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes. Rabbi Asi replied: But the other time you did not say this to us. You issued a ruling that indicated the opposite conclusion, and when I asked if that was the correct inference you affirmed that my reasoning was correct. Rabbi Ami said to him: What I am now telling you is a spike that will not move; you can rely on this ruling, and I retract my previous statement.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讻转讘 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诐 讘讬讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讞转诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讞转诐 讘讬讜诐 讻砖专 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诐 讘诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专

MISHNA: If a bill of divorce was written during the day and signed on the same day; or if it was written at night and signed on that same night; or if it was written at night and signed on the following day, then it is valid. The new calendar day begins at night, so that in all of these cases the writing and the signing were performed on the same date. However, if it was written during the day and signed on that same night, it is invalid, as the writing and the signing were not on the same calendar day. Rabbi Shimon deems the bill of divorce valid.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讙讬讟讬谉 砖谞讻转讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诪讜 讘诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

The mishna explains the ruling of Rabbi Shimon: As Rabbi Shimon would say: All documents that were written during the day and signed at night are invalid because the date recorded in the document is a day prior to the day the document takes effect, except for women鈥檚 bills of divorce. Since a bill of divorce is not used to collect money, it is of no concern if the date that appears on it is before the time when it was signed.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转讬拽谞讜 讝诪谉 讘讙讬讟讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗讞讜转讜

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following question: For what reason did the Sages institute the writing of a date on bills of divorce? Why must the date be written if this document is not intended to be used to collect money? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Due to the daughter of his sister. The Sages were concerned that a man may claim that his divorce occurred earlier than it actually did. For example, if one was married to his niece, and she committed adultery, he may nevertheless desire to protect her judicial sanction and claim that they were already divorced at the time of her infidelity. In order to prevent this from happening, the Sages instituted an ordinance that bills of divorce must be dated.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讜转

Reish Lakish says: The ordinance was instituted due to the produce of her usufruct property. A husband owns the produce of the fields belonging to his wife up to the moment the divorce takes effect. The Sages instituted an ordinance that bills of divorce must be dated because she needs to be able to establish the time of the divorce in case the husband sold or consumed the produce of fields that belong to her after the divorce. If there is no date on the bill of divorce, he will be able to claim that the produce was sold or consumed before the divorce took place.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Reish Lakish did not say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you:

讝谞讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

Adultery is infrequent, and the Sages would not institute the dating of a bill of divorce to avoid an infrequent problem.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽住讘专 讬砖 诇讘注诇 驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖注转 谞转讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say in accordance with the reason of Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers that he holds the produce belongs to the husband until the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and only afterward does the woman have the rights to the produce of her property. If she attempts to collect the value of the produce sold after her divorce, she will be asked to prove when she received the bill of divorce. Therefore, in terms of assisting her to collect these monies, the dating of the bill of divorce does not serve any purpose.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara continues and asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, due to that reason Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce that was signed on the day after it was written, because he holds that the rights to the produce of usufruct property revert to the woman the moment the bill of divorce is written. She is therefore within her rights to collect these monies from the date written in the bill of divorce, even if it was given at a later date. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that the reason for writing the date is to prevent the husband from shielding his wife from punishment for her infidelity, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems it valid? There is still a concern that he will have the bill of divorce written and dated earlier in order to protect her.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: I am not speaking in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he clearly is not concerned with the husband鈥檚 shielding his wife from punishment. When I speak, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that if the bill of divorce was signed on the night following its writing, it is invalid.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and the opinion of the Rabbis. However, according to Reish Lakish, what difference is there between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis?

驻讬专讬 讚诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讜注讚 砖注转 讞转讬诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them pertains to the produce of the wife鈥檚 property from the time of the writing until the time of the signing. According to the Rabbis, the rights to the produce revert to the wife only once the bill of divorce is signed, and the bill of divorce must be dated then. According to Rabbi Shimon, the woman鈥檚 rights to the produce go into effect the moment the bill of divorce is written, and the date on which it was signed is irrelevant.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚讗转诪专 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇驻讬专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛

The Gemara challenges the explanation as to why Rabbi Yo岣nan does not agree with Reish Lakish: But didn鈥檛 we hear Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish say the opposite of this? As it is stated that they had a dispute with regard to the question: From when does the court remove the property from the possession of the husband, i.e., when does he lose his right to the produce? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce, and Reish Lakish said: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce. This does not accord with what was stated above, that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the husband retains the rights to the produce until the bill of divorce is given and Reish Lakish holds that the wife regains the rights beforehand. Here, their opinions are the opposite of the way the Gemara explained earlier.

讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in this final dispute so that it is Reish Lakish who holds that the rights to the produce revert to the woman at the time of writing and it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who holds that it is at the time of giving the divorce.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讬住转 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转谉 讗讛谞讜 讚诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 转讬谞砖讗

搂 The Gemara records a series of questions with regard to the parameters of the ordinance that bills of divorce should be dated. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It was taught in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid, but if a woman married after she received one of these bills of divorce then the offspring is of unflawed lineage, meaning that the husband and wife are divorced after the fact. One of the three bills of divorce listed is a bill of divorce that does not have a date. Abaye asks: Being that the divorce does take effect, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring that the date appear on a bill of divorce? Either way the bill of divorce is valid after the fact without a date. The Gemara answers: It is effective in that she may not marry ab initio as a result of receiving this bill of divorce, which consequently limits the usage of such a bill of divorce.

讙讝讬讬讛 诇讝诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专诪讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Abaye continued to ask of Rav Yosef: If the husband cut out its date after the dated bill of divorce was written and gave it to her, what is the halakha? May the bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: We are not concerned about a deceiver. The ordinance requiring that the bill of divorce be dated does not apply in this case, as it was dated when it was written.

讻转讜讘 讘讜 砖讘讜注 砖谞讛 讞讚砖 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专 讜诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转谉

Abaye continued and asked: If the date written in the bill of divorce made reference only to the seven-year Sabbatical cycle in which it was written, or only to the year, or only to the month, or only to the week, but the precise date was not recorded, then what is the halakha? May such a bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: It is valid to be used ab initio. Abaye asked him: If so, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring the dating of the bill of divorce? Regardless of the reason for recording the date, such vague dating will not ameliorate the problem.

讗讛谞讜 诇砖讘讜注 讚拽诪讬讛 讜诇砖讘讜注 讚讘转专讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讬讜诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 诪爪驻专讗 讗讬 诪驻谞讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讬讜诪讗 讚拽诪讬讛 讜诇讬讜诪讗 讚讘转专讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讛谞讬 诇砖讘讜注 讚拽诪讬讛 讜诇砖讘讜注 讚讘转专讬讛

Rav Yosef answered: It helps for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it. If witnesses testify that the woman committed adultery before this seven-year period, then she is liable; if the husband sells produce after this seven-year period, then the woman can recover it. The reason for this is because if you do not say so, i.e., that a limited benefit is enough to justify the ordinance, then on that day itself, do we know if it was written in the morning or in the evening? All of the issues that were mentioned before could apply also to that day itself. Rather, the date is effective for the day before it and the day after it. Here also, writing the seven-year period is effective for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讻转讘讬讛

Ravina said to Rava: If he writes the bill of divorce,

Scroll To Top