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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 31, 2015 | 讬状讟 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 18

What if time elapses between the writing of the get and the giving of the get? 聽How does that affect the number of months a woman needs to wait after a divorce before remarrying? 聽Does the lcokc start ticking from the signing or from the giving? 聽From what point does the financial obligation of the husband to the wife in a ketuba go from being an obligation to being a loan, in whcih case it would then be cancelled during a shmita year? 聽There is a聽disagreement about in which case Rabbi Shimon allows time to elapse between the writing of the get and the signing. 聽What if more than one day elapsed? 聽 Another disagreement about a case where someone asked 10 people to all write the get – what is the function of all of their signatures – are two viewed as witnesses and the others as fulfilling the husban’ds stipulation or are all considered witnesses? 聽What are the ramifications of the two opinions?

Study Guide Gittin 18

讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讻讬住转讬讛 讚讗讬 诪驻讬讬住讛 转讬驻讬讬住 诪讗讬

and puts it in his pocket without giving it to her, as he thought that if she appeases [mippayyesa] him he will be appeased, what is the halakha when he then does give it to her? Since the date on the document is incorrect, did the Sages institute an ordinance that such a bill of divorce should not be used?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪拽讚讬诐 讗讬谞砖 驻讜专注谞讜转讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛

Rava said to him: A person does not hasten a calamity on himself and will not ordinarily prepare a bill of divorce in advance. Rather, he will wait until he is ready to divorce his wife. Since this scenario is unlikely, the Sages did not see a need to institute an ordinance pertaining to it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讚诪讬讻转讘讬 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诪讟讜 注讚 转砖专讬 诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: When there are bills of divorce that come from a country overseas which are written, for example, in the month of Nisan, and they do not reach the woman until the month of Tishrei, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance to date the bill of divorce? All of the concerns about an undated bill of divorce still apply. He said to him: Concerning these bills of divorce from overseas, it is public knowledge that they do not take effect from the date on which they were written. Therefore, if there is a conflict over produce the husband has sold, the woman must bring witnesses to testify as to when she received her bill of divorce.

讗讬转诪专 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讙讟 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛

搂 The Sages decreed that it is prohibited for a woman to remarry within three months of her divorce or her becoming a widow, in order to prevent a situation of doubt concerning the paternity of a child. It was stated: From when does one begin counting the three months with regard to a bill of divorce? Rav says: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and Shmuel says: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬讗诪专讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讝讜 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讝讜 讝诪谉 讙讬讟讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讛 讜讝讜 讝诪谉 讙讬讟讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讛

Rav Natan bar Hoshaya objects to this: According to the statement of Shmuel, now people will say: If two women who live in one courtyard received their bills of divorce at the same time, but the first document was written at the time of the divorce and the second one was written earlier, then this woman is still prohibited from remarrying, as three months have not yet passed from when her bill of divorce was written; and that woman is already permitted to remarry. This does not seem reasonable. Abaye said to him: This is not difficult. With regard to this woman, the date of her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may not remarry yet; and with regard to that woman, the date on her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may remarry already.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛砖讜诇讞 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜谞砖转讛讛 砖诇讬讞 讘讚专讱 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讻砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讙讟 讬砖谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖讛专讬 诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the three-month count begins from when the bill of divorce is given: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife, and the agent tarries on the way for three months, once the bill of divorce reaches her hand she must wait three months before remarrying. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, i.e., that the husband and wife were secluded after it was written, rendering the bill of divorce invalid, because he was not secluded with her during the time the bill of divorce was being delivered.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪砖诇讬砖 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转转谞讛讜 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚 讜诇讙讟 讬砖谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖讛专讬 诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that the count begins from the time of the writing: In the case of one who is about to travel and deposits a bill of divorce for his wife with a trustee and says to him: Give it to her only after three months, once he gives it to her, she is permitted to marry immediately and is not required to wait an additional three months. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, as he was not secluded with her in the interim.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 驻驻讬 讜专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚讬 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讚讬 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛

It is told that Rav Kahana and Rav Pappi and Rav Ashi would in practice count three months from the time of the writing, but Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would in practice count these three months from the time of the giving. And the halakha is that the counting begins from the time of the writing.

讗讬转诪专 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪砖诪讟转

搂 The Gemara discusses another dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to documents. According to the terms of a marriage contract, a widow is entitled to payment of its value upon the death of her husband. By Torah law, all outstanding debts are canceled at the close of the Sabbatical Year. A woman need not take her marriage settlement as soon as her husband dies. The issue at hand is at what point the marriage contract generates a concrete debt that will be canceled by the Sabbatical Year. It was stated: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled in the Sabbatical Year?

专讘 讗诪专 诪砖转驻讙讜诐 讜转讝拽讜祝 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讙诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讝拽驻讛 讝拽驻讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻讙诪讛

Rav says: The marriage contract becomes like a debt and will be canceled in the Sabbatical Year from the time when the woman collects partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. And Shmuel says: This occurs when she either collects partial payment although she did not establish it as debt, or she established the entire value of the marriage contract as a debt in court although she did not collect partial payment.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪砖诪讟转 诪砖转驻讙讜诐 讜转讝拽讜祝 驻讙诪讛 讜诇讗 讝拽驻讛 讝拽驻讛 讜诇讗 驻讙诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诪讟转 注讚 砖转驻讙讜诐 讜转讝拽讜祝

With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled? From when she accepts partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. However, if she accepted partial payment but did not establish the debt, or established the debt but did not accept partial payment, then it is not canceled until she accepts partial payment and establishes the debt.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜谞住 讜拽谞住 讜驻讬转讜讬 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 砖讝拽驻谉 讘诪诇讜讛 诪砖诪讟讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诪讟讬谉 诪讗讬诪转讬 谞讝拽驻讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 诪砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If the fine and damages paid by one who commits rape; or the fine paid by one who falsely claims his wife was not a virgin at the time of their wedding; or the fine paid for seduction; or the debt established by a woman鈥檚 marriage contract was established as a loan, then the Sabbatical Year cancels it. And if one did not establish these payments as loans, then the Sabbatical Year does not cancel them. From when is it considered that these payments have been established as a loan? From the time of standing trial, because the abstract obligation to pay becomes a debt once the court ruled that one is required to pay.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻转讜讘讛 讻诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诪讬讗 诪讛 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞讻转讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诪讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗祝 讻转讜讘讛 谞讻转讘转 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诪转 讘诇讬诇讛 讻转讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗讬讻转讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬讞转讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讜讛 专讘 讛转诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

搂 The Gemara discusses other aspects of the marriage contract. Shmuel said: A marriage contract is considered to be like a court enactment. Just as court enactments may be written during the day and then signed at night, and the fact that the writing and signing were not performed on the same day does not present a problem, so too, a marriage contract may be written during the day and then signed at night. It is told: Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav鈥檚 marriage contract was written during the day and then signed at night, and Rav was there and he did not say anything to the people who wrote and signed it. This indicates that Rav agrees with the ruling of Shmuel.

诇讬诪讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻砖讗讬谉 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讗讘诇 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讻砖专

The Gemara asks: Shall we say he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be proven from here because the scribe and witnesses were continuously engaged in that matter of writing the marriage contract, from when it was written in the day until they signed it at night, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok said: The Sages taught that a document written during the day and signed at night is invalid only when the scribe and witnesses were not continuously engaged in that matter, but if they were continuously engaged in that matter until nightfall, then it is valid.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽住讘专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 驻讬专讜转

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce written during the day and signed at night. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? He holds that once the husband has decided to divorce her, he no longer has the rights to the produce from his wife鈥檚 property, and it is clear that he has decided to divorce her when he writes a bill of divorce. Consequently, the woman obtains the rights to the produce from the moment the bill of divorce was written, regardless of when it was signed.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讗诇转专 讗讘诇 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讗

Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon deems such a bill of divorce valid only if it is signed immediately, when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce during the night after it was written. However, if the delay in signing was from now, i.e., when the bill of divorce was written, until ten days have elapsed, i.e., when there is an extended delay, he does not deem it valid.

讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻讬讬住 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇转讗

Why not? Because we are concerned that perhaps he appeased his wife and engaged in sexual intercourse with her, thereby invalidating the bill of divorce. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if the delay in signing was from now until ten days later Rabbi Shimon deems it valid. There is no concern that he appeased her because if it is so that he appeased her, then the matter becomes public knowledge, and all would hear of it.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐

It was stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagreed with regard to the following case: If the husband says to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He means that all of them should sign the bill of divorce. Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation that the husband had stated. He made the bill of divorce dependent upon all of them signing, but he did not mean that ten men need to actually function as witnesses. And Reish Lakish says: All of them function as witnesses.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讜诇讻诐

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which all of them have to sign? If we say that he did not say to them: All of you, but just said to them: You should write a bill of divorce for my wife, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (66b) that if one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then one would write, and two would sign, and not all ten of them are required to sign. Rather, the case of their dispute is when he said to them: All of you write a bill of divorce for my wife, and in this instance is was taught later on in that mishna that one person writes the bill of divorce and everyone else must sign it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讞转讜诐 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讜讗讬谞讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讻砖专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish; what is the difference if the rest of the men function as witnesses or just in order to fulfill the man鈥檚 stipulation? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where two of them signed on that day and the rest signed not on the day it was written but from now until ten days later. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, the bill of divorce is valid, because two witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the same day that it was written, and the stipulation was also fulfilled. And according to the one who says that all these people sign due to his wish that they all function as witnesses, it is invalid because not all the witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the day it was written.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讻砖专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 驻住讜诇

Alternatively, there is another difference between them, in a case where one of these ten people is found to be a relative of the husband or wife, or is otherwise found to be disqualified to serve as a witness. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, this bill of divorce is valid because the disqualified person did not serve as a witness. He just signed the bill of divorce in order to fulfill the stipulation, and the bill of divorce has the signature of two qualified witnesses. According to the one who says that all these people sign due to the man鈥檚 wish that they all function as witnesses, the bill of divorce would be invalid, as is the case whenever one member of a group of witnesses is disqualified.

讗讬 讞转讜诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻砖专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻砖专 转谞讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara adds another point of dispute: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that the other witnesses sign due to the husband鈥檚 stipulation, if a relative or other disqualified witness signed at the beginning, before two valid witnesses had signed, then some say the bill of divorce is valid and some say that it is invalid. Some say that it is valid because the request for ten signatures is a stipulation. Since these ten people are not meant to serve as witnesses and are meant only to fulfill the stipulation, it makes no difference if they signed at the beginning or at the end. Some say that it is invalid because there is a concern that the courts will come to confuse it with typical documents, and they will rely on disqualified witnesses in those cases.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讞转讜诐 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讜讗讬谞讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

It is told: There was a certain person who said to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Two of them signed that day and the others signed after a delay from now until ten days later. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to ask what the halakha is with regard to such a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him:

  • 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 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 18

讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讻讬住转讬讛 讚讗讬 诪驻讬讬住讛 转讬驻讬讬住 诪讗讬

and puts it in his pocket without giving it to her, as he thought that if she appeases [mippayyesa] him he will be appeased, what is the halakha when he then does give it to her? Since the date on the document is incorrect, did the Sages institute an ordinance that such a bill of divorce should not be used?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪拽讚讬诐 讗讬谞砖 驻讜专注谞讜转讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛

Rava said to him: A person does not hasten a calamity on himself and will not ordinarily prepare a bill of divorce in advance. Rather, he will wait until he is ready to divorce his wife. Since this scenario is unlikely, the Sages did not see a need to institute an ordinance pertaining to it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讚诪讬讻转讘讬 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诪讟讜 注讚 转砖专讬 诪讛 讛讜注讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘转拽谞转诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: When there are bills of divorce that come from a country overseas which are written, for example, in the month of Nisan, and they do not reach the woman until the month of Tishrei, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance to date the bill of divorce? All of the concerns about an undated bill of divorce still apply. He said to him: Concerning these bills of divorce from overseas, it is public knowledge that they do not take effect from the date on which they were written. Therefore, if there is a conflict over produce the husband has sold, the woman must bring witnesses to testify as to when she received her bill of divorce.

讗讬转诪专 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讙讟 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛

搂 The Sages decreed that it is prohibited for a woman to remarry within three months of her divorce or her becoming a widow, in order to prevent a situation of doubt concerning the paternity of a child. It was stated: From when does one begin counting the three months with regard to a bill of divorce? Rav says: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and Shmuel says: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬讗诪专讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讝讜 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讝讜 讝诪谉 讙讬讟讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讛 讜讝讜 讝诪谉 讙讬讟讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讛

Rav Natan bar Hoshaya objects to this: According to the statement of Shmuel, now people will say: If two women who live in one courtyard received their bills of divorce at the same time, but the first document was written at the time of the divorce and the second one was written earlier, then this woman is still prohibited from remarrying, as three months have not yet passed from when her bill of divorce was written; and that woman is already permitted to remarry. This does not seem reasonable. Abaye said to him: This is not difficult. With regard to this woman, the date of her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may not remarry yet; and with regard to that woman, the date on her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may remarry already.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛砖讜诇讞 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜谞砖转讛讛 砖诇讬讞 讘讚专讱 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讻砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜诇讙讟 讬砖谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖讛专讬 诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the three-month count begins from when the bill of divorce is given: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife, and the agent tarries on the way for three months, once the bill of divorce reaches her hand she must wait three months before remarrying. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, i.e., that the husband and wife were secluded after it was written, rendering the bill of divorce invalid, because he was not secluded with her during the time the bill of divorce was being delivered.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪砖诇讬砖 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转转谞讛讜 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚 讜诇讙讟 讬砖谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖讛专讬 诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that the count begins from the time of the writing: In the case of one who is about to travel and deposits a bill of divorce for his wife with a trustee and says to him: Give it to her only after three months, once he gives it to her, she is permitted to marry immediately and is not required to wait an additional three months. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, as he was not secluded with her in the interim.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 驻驻讬 讜专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚讬 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讚讬 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛

It is told that Rav Kahana and Rav Pappi and Rav Ashi would in practice count three months from the time of the writing, but Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would in practice count these three months from the time of the giving. And the halakha is that the counting begins from the time of the writing.

讗讬转诪专 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪砖诪讟转

搂 The Gemara discusses another dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to documents. According to the terms of a marriage contract, a widow is entitled to payment of its value upon the death of her husband. By Torah law, all outstanding debts are canceled at the close of the Sabbatical Year. A woman need not take her marriage settlement as soon as her husband dies. The issue at hand is at what point the marriage contract generates a concrete debt that will be canceled by the Sabbatical Year. It was stated: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled in the Sabbatical Year?

专讘 讗诪专 诪砖转驻讙讜诐 讜转讝拽讜祝 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讙诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讝拽驻讛 讝拽驻讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻讙诪讛

Rav says: The marriage contract becomes like a debt and will be canceled in the Sabbatical Year from the time when the woman collects partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. And Shmuel says: This occurs when she either collects partial payment although she did not establish it as debt, or she established the entire value of the marriage contract as a debt in court although she did not collect partial payment.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻转讜讘讛 诪砖诪讟转 诪砖转驻讙讜诐 讜转讝拽讜祝 驻讙诪讛 讜诇讗 讝拽驻讛 讝拽驻讛 讜诇讗 驻讙诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诪讟转 注讚 砖转驻讙讜诐 讜转讝拽讜祝

With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled? From when she accepts partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. However, if she accepted partial payment but did not establish the debt, or established the debt but did not accept partial payment, then it is not canceled until she accepts partial payment and establishes the debt.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜谞住 讜拽谞住 讜驻讬转讜讬 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 砖讝拽驻谉 讘诪诇讜讛 诪砖诪讟讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诪讟讬谉 诪讗讬诪转讬 谞讝拽驻讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 诪砖注转 讛注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If the fine and damages paid by one who commits rape; or the fine paid by one who falsely claims his wife was not a virgin at the time of their wedding; or the fine paid for seduction; or the debt established by a woman鈥檚 marriage contract was established as a loan, then the Sabbatical Year cancels it. And if one did not establish these payments as loans, then the Sabbatical Year does not cancel them. From when is it considered that these payments have been established as a loan? From the time of standing trial, because the abstract obligation to pay becomes a debt once the court ruled that one is required to pay.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻转讜讘讛 讻诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诪讬讗 诪讛 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞讻转讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诪讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗祝 讻转讜讘讛 谞讻转讘转 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诪转 讘诇讬诇讛 讻转讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗讬讻转讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬讞转讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讜讛 专讘 讛转诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

搂 The Gemara discusses other aspects of the marriage contract. Shmuel said: A marriage contract is considered to be like a court enactment. Just as court enactments may be written during the day and then signed at night, and the fact that the writing and signing were not performed on the same day does not present a problem, so too, a marriage contract may be written during the day and then signed at night. It is told: Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav鈥檚 marriage contract was written during the day and then signed at night, and Rav was there and he did not say anything to the people who wrote and signed it. This indicates that Rav agrees with the ruling of Shmuel.

诇讬诪讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻砖讗讬谉 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讗讘诇 注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讻砖专

The Gemara asks: Shall we say he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be proven from here because the scribe and witnesses were continuously engaged in that matter of writing the marriage contract, from when it was written in the day until they signed it at night, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok said: The Sages taught that a document written during the day and signed at night is invalid only when the scribe and witnesses were not continuously engaged in that matter, but if they were continuously engaged in that matter until nightfall, then it is valid.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽住讘专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 驻讬专讜转

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce written during the day and signed at night. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? He holds that once the husband has decided to divorce her, he no longer has the rights to the produce from his wife鈥檚 property, and it is clear that he has decided to divorce her when he writes a bill of divorce. Consequently, the woman obtains the rights to the produce from the moment the bill of divorce was written, regardless of when it was signed.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讗诇转专 讗讘诇 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讗

Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon deems such a bill of divorce valid only if it is signed immediately, when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce during the night after it was written. However, if the delay in signing was from now, i.e., when the bill of divorce was written, until ten days have elapsed, i.e., when there is an extended delay, he does not deem it valid.

讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻讬讬住 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇转讗

Why not? Because we are concerned that perhaps he appeased his wife and engaged in sexual intercourse with her, thereby invalidating the bill of divorce. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if the delay in signing was from now until ten days later Rabbi Shimon deems it valid. There is no concern that he appeased her because if it is so that he appeased her, then the matter becomes public knowledge, and all would hear of it.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐

It was stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagreed with regard to the following case: If the husband says to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He means that all of them should sign the bill of divorce. Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation that the husband had stated. He made the bill of divorce dependent upon all of them signing, but he did not mean that ten men need to actually function as witnesses. And Reish Lakish says: All of them function as witnesses.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讜诇讻诐

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which all of them have to sign? If we say that he did not say to them: All of you, but just said to them: You should write a bill of divorce for my wife, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (66b) that if one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then one would write, and two would sign, and not all ten of them are required to sign. Rather, the case of their dispute is when he said to them: All of you write a bill of divorce for my wife, and in this instance is was taught later on in that mishna that one person writes the bill of divorce and everyone else must sign it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讞转讜诐 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讜讗讬谞讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讻砖专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish; what is the difference if the rest of the men function as witnesses or just in order to fulfill the man鈥檚 stipulation? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where two of them signed on that day and the rest signed not on the day it was written but from now until ten days later. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, the bill of divorce is valid, because two witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the same day that it was written, and the stipulation was also fulfilled. And according to the one who says that all these people sign due to his wish that they all function as witnesses, it is invalid because not all the witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the day it was written.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讻砖专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 驻住讜诇

Alternatively, there is another difference between them, in a case where one of these ten people is found to be a relative of the husband or wife, or is otherwise found to be disqualified to serve as a witness. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, this bill of divorce is valid because the disqualified person did not serve as a witness. He just signed the bill of divorce in order to fulfill the stipulation, and the bill of divorce has the signature of two qualified witnesses. According to the one who says that all these people sign due to the man鈥檚 wish that they all function as witnesses, the bill of divorce would be invalid, as is the case whenever one member of a group of witnesses is disqualified.

讗讬 讞转讜诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻砖专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻砖专 转谞讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara adds another point of dispute: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that the other witnesses sign due to the husband鈥檚 stipulation, if a relative or other disqualified witness signed at the beginning, before two valid witnesses had signed, then some say the bill of divorce is valid and some say that it is invalid. Some say that it is valid because the request for ten signatures is a stipulation. Since these ten people are not meant to serve as witnesses and are meant only to fulfill the stipulation, it makes no difference if they signed at the beginning or at the end. Some say that it is invalid because there is a concern that the courts will come to confuse it with typical documents, and they will rely on disqualified witnesses in those cases.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讞转讜诐 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讜讗讬谞讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

It is told: There was a certain person who said to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Two of them signed that day and the others signed after a delay from now until ten days later. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to ask what the halakha is with regard to such a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him:

Scroll To Top