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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 1, 2016 | 讻壮 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 19

With what types of ink can you write 聽a get? 聽In a case where one can’t find witnesses who know how to sign, what possible solutions are there?

Study Guide Gittin 19

讻讚讗讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

Rabbi Shimon, who permitted using a bill of divorce that was written during the day and signed at night, is worthy of being relied upon in exigent circumstances. Therefore, once such a bill of divorce has been written and given, the woman is divorced.

讜讛讗诪专 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 讘讛讛讬讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: Rabbi Shimon deemed such a bill of divorce valid only if it was signed immediately, but after a delay from now until ten days, no. The Gemara answers: With regard to that question, whether the others must sign immediately, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that they may sign after a delay.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讘讛讛讬讗 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation? It is clear that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is concerned about the other witnesses and deems the bill of divorce valid only due to exigent circumstances. The Gemara answers: With regard to this, i.e., why the additional people must sign, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that all of them function as witnesses.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻诇 讻讜转讘讬诐 讘讚讬讜 讘住诐 讘住讬拽专讗 讜讘拽讜诪讜住 讜讘拽谞拽谞转讜诐 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转拽讬讬诐

MISHNA: One may write a bill of divorce with any material that can be used for writing: With deyo, with paint [sam], with sikra, with komos, with kankantom or with anything that produces permanent writing. However, one may not write with other liquids, nor with fruit juice, nor with anything that does not produce permanent writing.

注诇 讛讻诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇 讛注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讜注诇 讛拽专谉 砖诇 驻专讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讗转 讛驻专讛 注诇 讬讚 砖诇 注讘讚 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讗转 讛注讘讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬诐

Similarly, with regard to the document itself, one may write on anything, even on an olive leaf, or on the horn of a cow. And the latter is valid if he gives her the entire cow. Likewise, one may write a bill of divorce on the hand of a slave, and that is valid if he gives her the slave. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagrees and says: One may not write a bill of divorce on any living thing, nor may it be written on food.

讙诪壮 讚讬讜 讚讬讜转讗 住诐 住诪讗 住讬拽专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住拽专转讗 砖诪讛 拽讜诪讜住 拽讜诪讗 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞专转讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by explaining the terms used in the mishna: Deyo refers to what is called deyota, ink, in Aramaic. Sam refers to samma, arsenic. With regard to sikra, Rabba bar bar 岣na said: Its name in Aramaic is sikreta, red dye, derived from minium, which is also known as red lead. Komos, tree resin, is known as kuma in Aramaic. With regard to kankantom, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Shmuel said: This is the black substance used by cobblers, iron sulfate.

讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪转拽讬讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讘讜 讘诪讬 讟专讬讗 讜讗驻爪讗 讻砖专 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻转讘讜 讘讗讘专 讘砖讞讜专 讜讘砖讬讞讜专 讻砖专

The mishna taught that one is allowed to write a bill of divorce with anything that produces permanent writing. The Gemara asks: This statement is meant to add what? The Gemara answers: To add what Rabbi 岣nina taught: If he wrote it with mei teriya or water in which gallnuts [aftza] were soaked, then it is valid, as the writing is permanent. Rabbi 岣yya teaches: If he wrote it with lead, with coals, or with black paint then it is valid.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪注讘讬专 讚讬讜 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬拽专讗 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讻讜转讘 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪讜讞拽 讚讬讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬讜 住讬拽专讗 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬拽专讗 驻讟讜专 住讬拽专讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻讟讜专

It was stated that there was a related discussion about different types of writing: In the case of one who passes ink over letters written in red dye on Shabbat, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings for this: One due to violating the prohibition against writing on Shabbat, because he is now writing letters in ink, and one due to violating the prohibition against erasing on Shabbat, because as he writes he erases what is written in red dye. They also agree in the case of ink written on top of ink, or red dye on top of red dye, that according to everyone he is exempt, because he changed nothing with his writing. However, if he wrote with red dye on top of ink, then some say that he is liable and some say that he is exempt.

讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讞拽 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara explains these opinions: Some say that he is liable because it is erasing, as he erases the higher-quality, original writing. Some say that he is exempt because he is destroying and one who acts destructively is exempt, as he has not performed planned, constructive labor on Shabbat.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇讞转讜诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 诇讛诐 讘住讬拽专讗 讜讬讞转诪讜 讻转讘 注诇讬讜谉 讻转讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讻转讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讻转讘

This dispute pertains to the halakhot of Shabbat. With regard to the signing of documents, Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: If there are witnesses who do not know how to sign their names, what is the halakha: May their names be written for them with red dye, and afterward they will sign on top of it in ink? The question is: Is the upper writing, which was not directly on the document but on top of other ink, considered to be writing, or is it not writing? He said to him: It is not writing. Consequently, this may not be done for witnesses who do not know how to sign.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讻转讘 注诇讬讜谉 讻转讘 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讜 诪讚诪讬谉 谞注砖讛 诪注砖讛

Reish Lakish said to him: Didn鈥檛 our master, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, teach us that the upper writing is considered to be writing with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: And because we compare the halakhot pertaining to bills of divorce to the halakhot of Shabbat, shall we perform an action and teach that a bill of divorce may be written in this manner?

讗讬转诪专 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇讞转讜诐 专讘 讗诪专 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜诪诪诇讗讬诐 讗转 讛拽专注讬诐 讚讬讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗讘专

It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to the following question: What should be done for witnesses who do not know how to sign? Rav says: One tears blank paper for them, meaning that a stencil of their names is fashioned from blank paper and placed on the bill of divorce. The witnesses then fill in the gaps with ink so that their names appear on the document. And Shmuel says: One first writes their names on the document with lead, and the witnesses write over those letters.

讘讗讘专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻转讘讜 讘讗讘专 讘砖讞讜专 讜讘砖讬讞讜专 讻砖专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讘专讗 讛讗 讘诪讬讗 讚讗讘专讗

The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind to say that they actually write for them with lead? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: If he wrote it with lead, with coals, or with black paint, then it is valid? It can be seen from this baraita that writing with lead is considered to be a valid form of writing, and, as Rabbi Yo岣nan taught, if one writes on top of other writing then the second writing is not accepted for the signing of documents. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, that Shmuel allowed the witnesses to sign on top of lead writing, applies only when the first writing was done with lead itself, which is not considered to be writing on its own. That, Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement that it is valid for writing a bill of divorce, applies only when the first writing was done using lead water, i.e., water colored black with lead.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讘诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讘讜 讘诪讬 讟专讬讗 讜讗驻爪讗 讻砖专

Rabbi Abbahu said: A solution would be to write the names for these witnesses with gall water [mei milin] and have them trace their names with ink. The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina teach that if he wrote a bill of divorce with mei teriya or water in which gallnuts were soaked it is valid? As this is so, any additional writing over the writing in gall water should not be accepted as a valid signature.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗驻讬抓 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗驻讬抓 砖讗讬谉 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This suggestion of Rabbi Abbahu, that the document be prepared with the names of the witnesses written with gall water, refers to a case where the parchment was processed with gallnuts. That statement of Rabbi 岣nina, that gall water may be used on its own to write a bill of divorce, refers to a case where the parchment was not processed with gallnuts. The reason for the difference is because gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water, i.e., on parchment that was processed with gallnuts. Therefore, if the parchment was processed using gallnuts, the writing of the names of the witnesses, done with gall water, will not be permanent, and the witnesses may sign their names on top of that writing. When the baraita states that witnesses may sign their names with gall water, it is referring to a case where the parchment was not processed with gallnuts, so the gall water signature will be permanent.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘专讜拽 讜讻谉 讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇驻驻讗 转讜专讗讛 讘专讜拽 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专讜转 诇讗

Rav Pappa said: A solution would be to write the names for these witnesses with saliva and have them trace their names with ink. And so Rav Pappa instructed Pappa the ox herder, who did not know how to sign his name, that the court should write his name with saliva and he should trace it with ink. The Gemara comments: This matter, the leniency to have the witnesses trace their names, applies only to bills of divorce, as there is a concern that witnesses will not be found, and the woman will be unable to remarry. However, for financial documents, the Sages did not allow this, and one must instead find witnesses who know how to sign their names.

讚讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗

It is told that there was a certain person who performed an action and allowed witnesses to trace their names in a case of other documents, which were not bills of divorce, and Rav Kahana ordered that he be flogged for doing so.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讞转讜诐 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛谉 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜诪诪诇讗讬诐 讗转 讛拽专注讬诐 讚讬讜

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of witnesses who do not know how to sign, one tears a blank piece of paper for them, and they fill in the gaps with ink.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讞转讜诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? For bills of divorce. However, for bills of manumission and for all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and how to sign, then they sign, and if they do not know how to read and sign they do not sign.

拽专讬讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 拽讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讞讜转诪讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讞转讜诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讞转讜诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to reading, who mentioned anything about it? Why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mention the need for witnesses to be able to read when the discussion is about a witness who does not know how to sign? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: In the case of witnesses who do not know how to read, one reads the document in their presence and they sign. And in the case where they do not know how to sign, then one tears paper in the form of a stencil and they fill in the gaps with ink. With regard to this, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? For bills of divorce. However, for bills of manumission and for all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and how to sign, then they sign, and if not they do not sign.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 注讙讜谞讜转

Rabbi Elazar says: What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permitted this only for bills of divorce? He holds that there is reason to be lenient with bills of divorce, so that the daughters of Israel should not be deserted. Requiring literate witnesses for bills of divorce could lead to a scenario in which a husband wishes to travel and wants to give his wife a bill of divorce in case he shall not return, but if he does not find literate witnesses he may leave without divorcing her, leaving her unable to remarry.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘 讙诪讚讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讜讗诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Gemara asks: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is the halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is permitted to do this for any document?

讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 转专讙诪讗 讗拽专讬讗讛

But wasn鈥檛 there a certain person who performed an action, and allowed witnesses to trace their names in a case of other documents that were not bills of divorce, and Rav Kahana ordered that he be flogged for doing so? The Gemara answers: Rav Gamda interpreted the statement of Rava only with regard to reading, meaning that the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis and not Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only with regard to the question of whether other documents may be read to the witnesses, but not with regard to whether they may sign other documents by means of a stencil.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬爪讟注专 拽专讬 讜讞转讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽专讜 拽诪讬讛 讜讞转讬诐 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽专讜 拽诪讬讛 住驻专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讜讞转讬诐 讜讚讜讜拽讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜住驻专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗讬诪转讗 讗讘诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜住驻专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 住驻专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讜讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

It is told that Rav Yehuda was nearly blind in his old age. He could barely read and he took great pains to read and sign documents as a witness or a judge. Ulla said to him: It is not necessary for you to do this, as the court scribes would read in the presence of Rabbi Elazar the master, i.e., the halakhic authority of Eretz Yisrael, and he would sign; and the court scribes would read documents before Rav Na岣an and he would sign; and you may do the same. The Gemara notes: And this was done specifically in a case like that of Rav Na岣an and the court scribes, as they had fear of him because he was a great man and a judge to whom they were subservient. Therefore, there was no concern that they would not read it correctly. However, for Rav Na岣an and other scribes, or the court scribes and another person, no; the document may not be read to the witness, as the scribes may read it incorrectly to him.

专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 诇拽诪讬讛 砖讟专讗 驻专住讗讛 讚注讘讬讚 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪拽专讬 诇讛讜 诇砖谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讝讛 讘诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜诪讙讘讬 讘讬讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬

The Gemara recounts the behavior of another amora who had documents read to him: When documents that were written in Persian and that were produced in gentile courts came before Rav Pappa, who did not know how to read Persian, he would have it be read by two gentiles, each one not in the presence of the other and in a way that each one would speak offhandedly, without knowing that they were giving testimony. Once he clarified what was written in the document he would collect payment with it even from liened property that had been sold, as he held that such a document is entirely valid with regard to monetary law.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 驻专住讗讛 讚讞转讬诪讬 注诇讬讛 住讛讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬

Rav Ashi said that Rav Huna bar Natan said to me that so said Ameimar: With regard to this Persian document, on which Jews are signed as witnesses, the court is able to collect payment with it, even from liened property that had been sold.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬 诇诪讬拽专讬 讘讚讬讚注讬 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻转讘 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讚讬讬祝 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚讗驻讬爪谉 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇讞讝讜专 诪注谞讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚诪讛讚专

The Gemara asks: But they don鈥檛 know how to read, as most Jews did not read Persian. The Gemara answers: Ameimar鈥檚 statement applies when they know how to read Persian. The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But don鈥檛 we require all legal documents to be written in a writing that cannot be forged; and it is not so in documents produced by Persians, as the Persians were not particular about this when writing their legal documents. The Gemara answers: His statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing. But we require a document to recap the essential topic of the document in its last line; and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Ameimar鈥檚 statement applies in a case where the document recapped the essential topic of the document in the final line.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讻砖专 转谞讬谞讗 讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜注讚讬讜 讬讜谞讬转 讬讜谞讬转 讜注讚讬讜 注讘专讬转 讻砖专

The Gemara asks: But if Ameimar鈥檚 statement applies only when all these conditions are met, then what is he teaching us, that a document that is properly written in any language is valid? We already learned in a mishna (87b): In the case of a bill of divorce that he wrote in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or one that he wrote in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, it is valid. If this is written in the mishna, Ameimar鈥檚 statement would not simply repeat it.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This cannot serve as a clear proof, because if the only source for this halakha were from that mishna then I would say: This statement applies only for bills of divorce, where the Sages were lenient so that a woman would not be unable to remarry. However, for other documents, no. Consequently, Ameimar teaches us that other types of documents are valid if they are written in other languages as well.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞转谉 诇讛 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讙讜专砖转 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 讻转讘讜

Shmuel says: If a man gave his wife a blank piece of paper and said to her: This is hereby your bill of divorce, then she is divorced. Why? We are concerned that perhaps he wrote it with gall water, rendering it a valid bill of divorce, and the writing was subsequently absorbed into the paper so that it was no longer visible.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讜谞讟诇转讜 讜讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛讗讘讚 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讙讜专砖转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗讜住专讛

The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:2): If a husband said to his wife: This is hereby your bill of divorce, and instead of opening it and looking at it she took it and threw it into the sea, or into a fire, or into anything that destroys it; and he later said: It wasn鈥檛 actually a bill of divorce, rather it is a document of appeasement [shetar passim], a symbolic promissory note meant only for display so that the person holding it will be considered to be wealthy; or he said: It is a document of trust, which is a false promissory note given by one person to another, trusting that he will not make use of it until there has been an actual loan; then she is divorced. And he does not have the power to make her forbidden to everyone else as a married woman by saying that it was not a bill of divorce and they are still married.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻转讘 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻转讘 诇讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讘讚拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讚谞专讗 讗讬 驻诇讬讟 驻诇讬讟 讜讗讬 诇讗 驻诇讬讟 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara makes an inference from the baraita: The reason she is divorced is because this bill of divorce has writing, and there is no way to ascertain what was written, but if it did not have writing, then no, there is no concern that perhaps it was a valid bill of divorce written with gall water. This runs counter to the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the woman was divorced with a blank piece of paper, it was in a case where we check the paper with a colored liquid [maya denara]. If the paper expels the writing, then it expels it and it is a valid bill of divorce. And if it does not expel it, then the document is nothing and she is not divorced.

讜讻讬 驻诇讬讟 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讟 砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: And if the paper expels the writing, what of it? It is possible that only now it expels the writing and the letters become visible, but from the beginning there was no legible writing and therefore the document should be considered invalid. The Gemara answers that even Shmuel said only: We are concerned, and he does not hold that it is a valid bill of divorce. Rather, the court takes into account the possibility that what he gave her in the beginning was a valid bill of divorce, and the halakha is that it is uncertain if she is divorced.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讛谞讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚讬讛讬讘 讙讬讟讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讬 诇诪讬拽专讬讬讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讜谞讟诇转讜 讜讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛讗讘讚 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讙讜专砖转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗讜住专讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪专讬讻讬 诇诪讬拽专讬讬讛 讘转专 讚拽专讬讜讛 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬

Ravina said: Ameimar said to me that so said Mareimar in the name of Rav Dimi: These two witnesses who testify that the bill of divorce was given in their presence are required to read it. The Gemara raises an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita: If a man says to a woman: This is hereby your bill of divorce, and instead of opening it and looking at it she took it and threw it into the sea, or into a fire, or into anything that destroys it, and he later said: It wasn鈥檛 actually a bill of divorce, but rather, it is a document of appeasement, or it is a document of trust; then she is divorced, and he does not have the power to make her forbidden to everyone else as a married woman by saying that it was not a bill of divorce and they are still married. And if you say that the witnesses need to read the bill of divorce, then is the husband able to say this to her after they read it?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘转专 讚拽专讬讜讛 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇讘讬 讬讚讬讛 讜讗驻拽讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞诇讜驻讬 讞诇驻讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Dimi to teach his halakha in a case where after they read it, the husband placed it under his arm, and later took it out, and gave it to the woman without it being read again. Lest you say that he switched it with another document, and what he gave her was not a bill of divorce but a document of appeasement or trust as he claims, Rav Dimi teaches us that the court need not be concerned that he switched it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝专拽 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 诇讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗砖转讻讞 诪讝讜讝转讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讝讜讝转讗 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara tells: There was a certain man who threw what he claimed was a bill of divorce to his wife, into her courtyard, among the barrels, and in the end a mezuza was found there. The question is: Is there a concern that he threw her a bill of divorce, and the bill of divorce was destroyed, and the mezuza happened to be in the same location? Or perhaps he threw her the mezuza and only claimed that it was a bill of divorce. Rav Na岣an said: A mezuza is infrequently placed among the barrels, and it can be assumed that he threw the mezuza and not a bill of divorce.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗砖转讻讞 讞讚讗 讗讘诇 砖谞讬诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讚讛讗 讛讜讗讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬 讜讙讬讟讗 讗讬诪讜专 注讻讘专讬诐 砖拽诇讜讛

The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only when one mezuza was found. However, if two or three mezuzot were found, then the assumption is that as this, the other mezuza, was there, this mezuza was also there before the husband came, and as to the bill of divorce, say that the mice later took it, and the woman was already divorced from the moment it reached her courtyard.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚注诇 诇讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 砖拽诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讗讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉

It is told: There was a certain man who entered the synagogue, took a Torah scroll, and gave it to his wife. And he said to her: This is your bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: For what is there to be concerned for it? If you say that there should be a concern due to gall water, that perhaps he wrote a bill of divorce on the outside of the Torah scroll鈥檚 parchment with gall water, and this writing is now invisible, gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water. Since parchment for the Torah scroll is processed with gall water, it is not possible to write something with gall water that will remain permanently on the parchment itself. Therefore, there is no concern that he wrote a bill of divorce on the parchment.

  • 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 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 19

讻讚讗讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

Rabbi Shimon, who permitted using a bill of divorce that was written during the day and signed at night, is worthy of being relied upon in exigent circumstances. Therefore, once such a bill of divorce has been written and given, the woman is divorced.

讜讛讗诪专 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 讘讛讛讬讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: Rabbi Shimon deemed such a bill of divorce valid only if it was signed immediately, but after a delay from now until ten days, no. The Gemara answers: With regard to that question, whether the others must sign immediately, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that they may sign after a delay.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 转谞讗讬 讘讛讛讬讗 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation? It is clear that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is concerned about the other witnesses and deems the bill of divorce valid only due to exigent circumstances. The Gemara answers: With regard to this, i.e., why the additional people must sign, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that all of them function as witnesses.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻诇 讻讜转讘讬诐 讘讚讬讜 讘住诐 讘住讬拽专讗 讜讘拽讜诪讜住 讜讘拽谞拽谞转讜诐 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转拽讬讬诐

MISHNA: One may write a bill of divorce with any material that can be used for writing: With deyo, with paint [sam], with sikra, with komos, with kankantom or with anything that produces permanent writing. However, one may not write with other liquids, nor with fruit juice, nor with anything that does not produce permanent writing.

注诇 讛讻诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇 讛注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讜注诇 讛拽专谉 砖诇 驻专讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讗转 讛驻专讛 注诇 讬讚 砖诇 注讘讚 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讗转 讛注讘讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬诐

Similarly, with regard to the document itself, one may write on anything, even on an olive leaf, or on the horn of a cow. And the latter is valid if he gives her the entire cow. Likewise, one may write a bill of divorce on the hand of a slave, and that is valid if he gives her the slave. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagrees and says: One may not write a bill of divorce on any living thing, nor may it be written on food.

讙诪壮 讚讬讜 讚讬讜转讗 住诐 住诪讗 住讬拽专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住拽专转讗 砖诪讛 拽讜诪讜住 拽讜诪讗 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞专转讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by explaining the terms used in the mishna: Deyo refers to what is called deyota, ink, in Aramaic. Sam refers to samma, arsenic. With regard to sikra, Rabba bar bar 岣na said: Its name in Aramaic is sikreta, red dye, derived from minium, which is also known as red lead. Komos, tree resin, is known as kuma in Aramaic. With regard to kankantom, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Shmuel said: This is the black substance used by cobblers, iron sulfate.

讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪转拽讬讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讘讜 讘诪讬 讟专讬讗 讜讗驻爪讗 讻砖专 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻转讘讜 讘讗讘专 讘砖讞讜专 讜讘砖讬讞讜专 讻砖专

The mishna taught that one is allowed to write a bill of divorce with anything that produces permanent writing. The Gemara asks: This statement is meant to add what? The Gemara answers: To add what Rabbi 岣nina taught: If he wrote it with mei teriya or water in which gallnuts [aftza] were soaked, then it is valid, as the writing is permanent. Rabbi 岣yya teaches: If he wrote it with lead, with coals, or with black paint then it is valid.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪注讘讬专 讚讬讜 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬拽专讗 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讻讜转讘 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪讜讞拽 讚讬讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬讜 住讬拽专讗 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬拽专讗 驻讟讜专 住讬拽专讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讬讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻讟讜专

It was stated that there was a related discussion about different types of writing: In the case of one who passes ink over letters written in red dye on Shabbat, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings for this: One due to violating the prohibition against writing on Shabbat, because he is now writing letters in ink, and one due to violating the prohibition against erasing on Shabbat, because as he writes he erases what is written in red dye. They also agree in the case of ink written on top of ink, or red dye on top of red dye, that according to everyone he is exempt, because he changed nothing with his writing. However, if he wrote with red dye on top of ink, then some say that he is liable and some say that he is exempt.

讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讞拽 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara explains these opinions: Some say that he is liable because it is erasing, as he erases the higher-quality, original writing. Some say that he is exempt because he is destroying and one who acts destructively is exempt, as he has not performed planned, constructive labor on Shabbat.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇讞转讜诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 诇讛诐 讘住讬拽专讗 讜讬讞转诪讜 讻转讘 注诇讬讜谉 讻转讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讻转讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讻转讘

This dispute pertains to the halakhot of Shabbat. With regard to the signing of documents, Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: If there are witnesses who do not know how to sign their names, what is the halakha: May their names be written for them with red dye, and afterward they will sign on top of it in ink? The question is: Is the upper writing, which was not directly on the document but on top of other ink, considered to be writing, or is it not writing? He said to him: It is not writing. Consequently, this may not be done for witnesses who do not know how to sign.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讻转讘 注诇讬讜谉 讻转讘 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讜 诪讚诪讬谉 谞注砖讛 诪注砖讛

Reish Lakish said to him: Didn鈥檛 our master, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, teach us that the upper writing is considered to be writing with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: And because we compare the halakhot pertaining to bills of divorce to the halakhot of Shabbat, shall we perform an action and teach that a bill of divorce may be written in this manner?

讗讬转诪专 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇讞转讜诐 专讘 讗诪专 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜诪诪诇讗讬诐 讗转 讛拽专注讬诐 讚讬讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗讘专

It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to the following question: What should be done for witnesses who do not know how to sign? Rav says: One tears blank paper for them, meaning that a stencil of their names is fashioned from blank paper and placed on the bill of divorce. The witnesses then fill in the gaps with ink so that their names appear on the document. And Shmuel says: One first writes their names on the document with lead, and the witnesses write over those letters.

讘讗讘专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻转讘讜 讘讗讘专 讘砖讞讜专 讜讘砖讬讞讜专 讻砖专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讘专讗 讛讗 讘诪讬讗 讚讗讘专讗

The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind to say that they actually write for them with lead? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: If he wrote it with lead, with coals, or with black paint, then it is valid? It can be seen from this baraita that writing with lead is considered to be a valid form of writing, and, as Rabbi Yo岣nan taught, if one writes on top of other writing then the second writing is not accepted for the signing of documents. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, that Shmuel allowed the witnesses to sign on top of lead writing, applies only when the first writing was done with lead itself, which is not considered to be writing on its own. That, Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement that it is valid for writing a bill of divorce, applies only when the first writing was done using lead water, i.e., water colored black with lead.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讘诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讘讜 讘诪讬 讟专讬讗 讜讗驻爪讗 讻砖专

Rabbi Abbahu said: A solution would be to write the names for these witnesses with gall water [mei milin] and have them trace their names with ink. The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina teach that if he wrote a bill of divorce with mei teriya or water in which gallnuts were soaked it is valid? As this is so, any additional writing over the writing in gall water should not be accepted as a valid signature.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗驻讬抓 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗驻讬抓 砖讗讬谉 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This suggestion of Rabbi Abbahu, that the document be prepared with the names of the witnesses written with gall water, refers to a case where the parchment was processed with gallnuts. That statement of Rabbi 岣nina, that gall water may be used on its own to write a bill of divorce, refers to a case where the parchment was not processed with gallnuts. The reason for the difference is because gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water, i.e., on parchment that was processed with gallnuts. Therefore, if the parchment was processed using gallnuts, the writing of the names of the witnesses, done with gall water, will not be permanent, and the witnesses may sign their names on top of that writing. When the baraita states that witnesses may sign their names with gall water, it is referring to a case where the parchment was not processed with gallnuts, so the gall water signature will be permanent.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘专讜拽 讜讻谉 讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇驻驻讗 转讜专讗讛 讘专讜拽 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专讜转 诇讗

Rav Pappa said: A solution would be to write the names for these witnesses with saliva and have them trace their names with ink. And so Rav Pappa instructed Pappa the ox herder, who did not know how to sign his name, that the court should write his name with saliva and he should trace it with ink. The Gemara comments: This matter, the leniency to have the witnesses trace their names, applies only to bills of divorce, as there is a concern that witnesses will not be found, and the woman will be unable to remarry. However, for financial documents, the Sages did not allow this, and one must instead find witnesses who know how to sign their names.

讚讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗

It is told that there was a certain person who performed an action and allowed witnesses to trace their names in a case of other documents, which were not bills of divorce, and Rav Kahana ordered that he be flogged for doing so.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讞转讜诐 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛谉 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜诪诪诇讗讬诐 讗转 讛拽专注讬诐 讚讬讜

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of witnesses who do not know how to sign, one tears a blank piece of paper for them, and they fill in the gaps with ink.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讞转讜诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? For bills of divorce. However, for bills of manumission and for all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and how to sign, then they sign, and if they do not know how to read and sign they do not sign.

拽专讬讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 拽讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讞讜转诪讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讞转讜诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讞转讜诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to reading, who mentioned anything about it? Why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mention the need for witnesses to be able to read when the discussion is about a witness who does not know how to sign? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: In the case of witnesses who do not know how to read, one reads the document in their presence and they sign. And in the case where they do not know how to sign, then one tears paper in the form of a stencil and they fill in the gaps with ink. With regard to this, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? For bills of divorce. However, for bills of manumission and for all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and how to sign, then they sign, and if not they do not sign.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 注讙讜谞讜转

Rabbi Elazar says: What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permitted this only for bills of divorce? He holds that there is reason to be lenient with bills of divorce, so that the daughters of Israel should not be deserted. Requiring literate witnesses for bills of divorce could lead to a scenario in which a husband wishes to travel and wants to give his wife a bill of divorce in case he shall not return, but if he does not find literate witnesses he may leave without divorcing her, leaving her unable to remarry.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘 讙诪讚讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讜讗诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Gemara asks: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is the halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is permitted to do this for any document?

讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 转专讙诪讗 讗拽专讬讗讛

But wasn鈥檛 there a certain person who performed an action, and allowed witnesses to trace their names in a case of other documents that were not bills of divorce, and Rav Kahana ordered that he be flogged for doing so? The Gemara answers: Rav Gamda interpreted the statement of Rava only with regard to reading, meaning that the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis and not Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only with regard to the question of whether other documents may be read to the witnesses, but not with regard to whether they may sign other documents by means of a stencil.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬爪讟注专 拽专讬 讜讞转讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽专讜 拽诪讬讛 讜讞转讬诐 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽专讜 拽诪讬讛 住驻专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讜讞转讬诐 讜讚讜讜拽讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜住驻专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗讬诪转讗 讗讘诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜住驻专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 住驻专讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讜讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

It is told that Rav Yehuda was nearly blind in his old age. He could barely read and he took great pains to read and sign documents as a witness or a judge. Ulla said to him: It is not necessary for you to do this, as the court scribes would read in the presence of Rabbi Elazar the master, i.e., the halakhic authority of Eretz Yisrael, and he would sign; and the court scribes would read documents before Rav Na岣an and he would sign; and you may do the same. The Gemara notes: And this was done specifically in a case like that of Rav Na岣an and the court scribes, as they had fear of him because he was a great man and a judge to whom they were subservient. Therefore, there was no concern that they would not read it correctly. However, for Rav Na岣an and other scribes, or the court scribes and another person, no; the document may not be read to the witness, as the scribes may read it incorrectly to him.

专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 诇拽诪讬讛 砖讟专讗 驻专住讗讛 讚注讘讬讚 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪拽专讬 诇讛讜 诇砖谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讝讛 讘诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜诪讙讘讬 讘讬讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬

The Gemara recounts the behavior of another amora who had documents read to him: When documents that were written in Persian and that were produced in gentile courts came before Rav Pappa, who did not know how to read Persian, he would have it be read by two gentiles, each one not in the presence of the other and in a way that each one would speak offhandedly, without knowing that they were giving testimony. Once he clarified what was written in the document he would collect payment with it even from liened property that had been sold, as he held that such a document is entirely valid with regard to monetary law.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 驻专住讗讛 讚讞转讬诪讬 注诇讬讛 住讛讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪诪砖注讘讚讬

Rav Ashi said that Rav Huna bar Natan said to me that so said Ameimar: With regard to this Persian document, on which Jews are signed as witnesses, the court is able to collect payment with it, even from liened property that had been sold.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬 诇诪讬拽专讬 讘讚讬讚注讬 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻转讘 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讚讬讬祝 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚讗驻讬爪谉 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇讞讝讜专 诪注谞讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讚诪讛讚专

The Gemara asks: But they don鈥檛 know how to read, as most Jews did not read Persian. The Gemara answers: Ameimar鈥檚 statement applies when they know how to read Persian. The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But don鈥檛 we require all legal documents to be written in a writing that cannot be forged; and it is not so in documents produced by Persians, as the Persians were not particular about this when writing their legal documents. The Gemara answers: His statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing. But we require a document to recap the essential topic of the document in its last line; and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Ameimar鈥檚 statement applies in a case where the document recapped the essential topic of the document in the final line.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讻砖专 转谞讬谞讗 讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜注讚讬讜 讬讜谞讬转 讬讜谞讬转 讜注讚讬讜 注讘专讬转 讻砖专

The Gemara asks: But if Ameimar鈥檚 statement applies only when all these conditions are met, then what is he teaching us, that a document that is properly written in any language is valid? We already learned in a mishna (87b): In the case of a bill of divorce that he wrote in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or one that he wrote in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, it is valid. If this is written in the mishna, Ameimar鈥檚 statement would not simply repeat it.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This cannot serve as a clear proof, because if the only source for this halakha were from that mishna then I would say: This statement applies only for bills of divorce, where the Sages were lenient so that a woman would not be unable to remarry. However, for other documents, no. Consequently, Ameimar teaches us that other types of documents are valid if they are written in other languages as well.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞转谉 诇讛 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讙讜专砖转 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 讻转讘讜

Shmuel says: If a man gave his wife a blank piece of paper and said to her: This is hereby your bill of divorce, then she is divorced. Why? We are concerned that perhaps he wrote it with gall water, rendering it a valid bill of divorce, and the writing was subsequently absorbed into the paper so that it was no longer visible.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讜谞讟诇转讜 讜讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛讗讘讚 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讙讜专砖转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗讜住专讛

The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:2): If a husband said to his wife: This is hereby your bill of divorce, and instead of opening it and looking at it she took it and threw it into the sea, or into a fire, or into anything that destroys it; and he later said: It wasn鈥檛 actually a bill of divorce, rather it is a document of appeasement [shetar passim], a symbolic promissory note meant only for display so that the person holding it will be considered to be wealthy; or he said: It is a document of trust, which is a false promissory note given by one person to another, trusting that he will not make use of it until there has been an actual loan; then she is divorced. And he does not have the power to make her forbidden to everyone else as a married woman by saying that it was not a bill of divorce and they are still married.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻转讘 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻转讘 诇讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讘讚拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讚谞专讗 讗讬 驻诇讬讟 驻诇讬讟 讜讗讬 诇讗 驻诇讬讟 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara makes an inference from the baraita: The reason she is divorced is because this bill of divorce has writing, and there is no way to ascertain what was written, but if it did not have writing, then no, there is no concern that perhaps it was a valid bill of divorce written with gall water. This runs counter to the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the woman was divorced with a blank piece of paper, it was in a case where we check the paper with a colored liquid [maya denara]. If the paper expels the writing, then it expels it and it is a valid bill of divorce. And if it does not expel it, then the document is nothing and she is not divorced.

讜讻讬 驻诇讬讟 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讟 砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: And if the paper expels the writing, what of it? It is possible that only now it expels the writing and the letters become visible, but from the beginning there was no legible writing and therefore the document should be considered invalid. The Gemara answers that even Shmuel said only: We are concerned, and he does not hold that it is a valid bill of divorce. Rather, the court takes into account the possibility that what he gave her in the beginning was a valid bill of divorce, and the halakha is that it is uncertain if she is divorced.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讛谞讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚讬讛讬讘 讙讬讟讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 爪专讬讻讬 诇诪讬拽专讬讬讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讜谞讟诇转讜 讜讝专拽转讜 诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗讜专 讗讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛讗讘讚 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讙讜专砖转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗讜住专讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪专讬讻讬 诇诪讬拽专讬讬讛 讘转专 讚拽专讬讜讛 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬

Ravina said: Ameimar said to me that so said Mareimar in the name of Rav Dimi: These two witnesses who testify that the bill of divorce was given in their presence are required to read it. The Gemara raises an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita: If a man says to a woman: This is hereby your bill of divorce, and instead of opening it and looking at it she took it and threw it into the sea, or into a fire, or into anything that destroys it, and he later said: It wasn鈥檛 actually a bill of divorce, but rather, it is a document of appeasement, or it is a document of trust; then she is divorced, and he does not have the power to make her forbidden to everyone else as a married woman by saying that it was not a bill of divorce and they are still married. And if you say that the witnesses need to read the bill of divorce, then is the husband able to say this to her after they read it?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘转专 讚拽专讬讜讛 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇讘讬 讬讚讬讛 讜讗驻拽讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞诇讜驻讬 讞诇驻讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Dimi to teach his halakha in a case where after they read it, the husband placed it under his arm, and later took it out, and gave it to the woman without it being read again. Lest you say that he switched it with another document, and what he gave her was not a bill of divorce but a document of appeasement or trust as he claims, Rav Dimi teaches us that the court need not be concerned that he switched it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝专拽 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 诇讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗砖转讻讞 诪讝讜讝转讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讝讜讝转讗 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

The Gemara tells: There was a certain man who threw what he claimed was a bill of divorce to his wife, into her courtyard, among the barrels, and in the end a mezuza was found there. The question is: Is there a concern that he threw her a bill of divorce, and the bill of divorce was destroyed, and the mezuza happened to be in the same location? Or perhaps he threw her the mezuza and only claimed that it was a bill of divorce. Rav Na岣an said: A mezuza is infrequently placed among the barrels, and it can be assumed that he threw the mezuza and not a bill of divorce.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗砖转讻讞 讞讚讗 讗讘诇 砖谞讬诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讚讛讗 讛讜讗讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬 讜讙讬讟讗 讗讬诪讜专 注讻讘专讬诐 砖拽诇讜讛

The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only when one mezuza was found. However, if two or three mezuzot were found, then the assumption is that as this, the other mezuza, was there, this mezuza was also there before the husband came, and as to the bill of divorce, say that the mice later took it, and the woman was already divorced from the moment it reached her courtyard.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚注诇 诇讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 砖拽诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讗讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬 诪讬诇讬谉

It is told: There was a certain man who entered the synagogue, took a Torah scroll, and gave it to his wife. And he said to her: This is your bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: For what is there to be concerned for it? If you say that there should be a concern due to gall water, that perhaps he wrote a bill of divorce on the outside of the Torah scroll鈥檚 parchment with gall water, and this writing is now invisible, gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water. Since parchment for the Torah scroll is processed with gall water, it is not possible to write something with gall water that will remain permanently on the parchment itself. Therefore, there is no concern that he wrote a bill of divorce on the parchment.

Scroll To Top