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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 15, 2015 | 讙壮 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 2

In what cases does a messenger bringing a divorce document get聽need to say a declaration that it was written and signed before him? 聽And why?

Study Guide Gittin 2

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

MISHNA: An agent who brings a bill of divorce [get] from a husband to his wife from a country overseas, i.e., from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, is required to state the following formula when he hands over the bill of divorce: This bill of divorce was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛专拽诐 讜诪谉 讛讞讙专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻驻专 诇讜讚讬诐 诇诇讜讚

Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem or from 岣ger, which are on the periphery of Eretz Yisrael, must make this declaration. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod must also make this declaration, despite the fact that these places are only a short distance apart. The reason is that the village of Ludim was not part of the main area settled by Jews in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诇讗 讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 诇讛讙诪讜谞讬讗

And the Rabbis say that one is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, only if he brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, and the same applies to one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas. And likewise an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within the overseas countries is also required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This halakha applies not only to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another, but even to one who takes it from one district [hegmonya] to another district in the same country.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪专拽诐 诇诪讝专讞 讜专拽诐 讻诪讝专讞 诪讗砖拽诇讜谉 诇讚专讜诐 讜讗砖拽诇讜谉 讻讚专讜诐 诪注讻讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜注讻讜 讻爪驻讜谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the borders of Eretz Yisrael, from Rekem eastward is considered to be part of the overseas country, and Rekem itself is like east of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., it is outside of Eretz Yisrael. From Ashkelon southward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Ashkelon itself is like south of Eretz Yisrael. Likewise, from Akko northward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce.

讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讜专专讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

One who brings a bill of divorce from one place to another within Eretz Yisrael is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. And if there are those who contest it, i.e., if the husband objects by saying that the bill of divorce is a forgery, it should be ratified through its signatories. The court must authenticate the signatures of the witnesses in order to ratify the document.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讛 讗诪专

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this declaration? Rabba says:

诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛

It is because the people who live overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜

Rava says a different reason: It is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗转讬讜讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a case where two people brought the bill of divorce. In this case, two witnesses are available to ratify the bill of divorce if someone objects to its validity. Alternatively, the difference concerns a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce from one region to another region within Eretz Yisrael. Here there is no concern that the bill of divorce might not have been written for her sake, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of this requirement. However, witnesses are not necessarily available to confirm the document.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

Alternatively, there is a difference between the two explanations in a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce within that same region in a country overseas. According to the opinion of Rabba, who says the concern is that the people there might not know that the document must be written for her sake, this problem is equally relevant in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the reason is because witnesses are not available, if the bill of divorce is brought in the same region then the witnesses will be available to ratify it.

讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 诇讬讘注讬 转专讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻诇 注讚讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, let us require two witnesses to testify about this, just as is the case with regard to all testimonies in the Torah. The Gemara answers: One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witnesses is sufficient.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara asks: One can say that we say one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions in a case such as where there is a piece of fat, and it is uncertain if it is forbidden fat [岣lev] and uncertain if it is permitted fat. In this situation the piece can be rendered permitted by a single witness, as there is no presumption that it is forbidden. Therefore, as there is an uncertainty, and one witness said it is permitted fat, he is deemed credible.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

However, here, where there is a presumption that this woman is forbidden, as she is a married woman, a status she retains until it is established that she has received a bill of divorce, if so, this is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and the general principle is that there is no matter of testimony for forbidden sexual relations that can be attested to by fewer than two witnesses.

专讜讘 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 住转诐 住驻专讬 讚讚讬讬谞讬 诪讬讙诪专 讙诪讬专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗爪专讜讱 讜讛讻讗

The Gemara answers: Rabba鈥檚 concern is not equivalent to a case of uncertainty, as most Jewish people are experts in the requirement that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. And this is so even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is generally concerned about a minority in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. In this case Rabbi Meir concedes that one need not be concerned for the minority, as ordinary judicial scribes, who write bills of divorce, are learned in this halakha, and know that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. And it is the Sages who required testimony about this matter, as an extra precaution. And here, with regard to this testimony,

  • 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 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 2

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

MISHNA: An agent who brings a bill of divorce [get] from a husband to his wife from a country overseas, i.e., from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, is required to state the following formula when he hands over the bill of divorce: This bill of divorce was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛专拽诐 讜诪谉 讛讞讙专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻驻专 诇讜讚讬诐 诇诇讜讚

Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem or from 岣ger, which are on the periphery of Eretz Yisrael, must make this declaration. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod must also make this declaration, despite the fact that these places are only a short distance apart. The reason is that the village of Ludim was not part of the main area settled by Jews in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诇讗 讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 诇讛讙诪讜谞讬讗

And the Rabbis say that one is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, only if he brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, and the same applies to one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas. And likewise an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within the overseas countries is also required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This halakha applies not only to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another, but even to one who takes it from one district [hegmonya] to another district in the same country.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪专拽诐 诇诪讝专讞 讜专拽诐 讻诪讝专讞 诪讗砖拽诇讜谉 诇讚专讜诐 讜讗砖拽诇讜谉 讻讚专讜诐 诪注讻讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜注讻讜 讻爪驻讜谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the borders of Eretz Yisrael, from Rekem eastward is considered to be part of the overseas country, and Rekem itself is like east of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., it is outside of Eretz Yisrael. From Ashkelon southward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Ashkelon itself is like south of Eretz Yisrael. Likewise, from Akko northward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce.

讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讜专专讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

One who brings a bill of divorce from one place to another within Eretz Yisrael is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. And if there are those who contest it, i.e., if the husband objects by saying that the bill of divorce is a forgery, it should be ratified through its signatories. The court must authenticate the signatures of the witnesses in order to ratify the document.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讛 讗诪专

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this declaration? Rabba says:

诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛

It is because the people who live overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜

Rava says a different reason: It is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗转讬讜讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a case where two people brought the bill of divorce. In this case, two witnesses are available to ratify the bill of divorce if someone objects to its validity. Alternatively, the difference concerns a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce from one region to another region within Eretz Yisrael. Here there is no concern that the bill of divorce might not have been written for her sake, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of this requirement. However, witnesses are not necessarily available to confirm the document.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

Alternatively, there is a difference between the two explanations in a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce within that same region in a country overseas. According to the opinion of Rabba, who says the concern is that the people there might not know that the document must be written for her sake, this problem is equally relevant in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the reason is because witnesses are not available, if the bill of divorce is brought in the same region then the witnesses will be available to ratify it.

讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 诇讬讘注讬 转专讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻诇 注讚讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, let us require two witnesses to testify about this, just as is the case with regard to all testimonies in the Torah. The Gemara answers: One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witnesses is sufficient.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara asks: One can say that we say one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions in a case such as where there is a piece of fat, and it is uncertain if it is forbidden fat [岣lev] and uncertain if it is permitted fat. In this situation the piece can be rendered permitted by a single witness, as there is no presumption that it is forbidden. Therefore, as there is an uncertainty, and one witness said it is permitted fat, he is deemed credible.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

However, here, where there is a presumption that this woman is forbidden, as she is a married woman, a status she retains until it is established that she has received a bill of divorce, if so, this is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and the general principle is that there is no matter of testimony for forbidden sexual relations that can be attested to by fewer than two witnesses.

专讜讘 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 住转诐 住驻专讬 讚讚讬讬谞讬 诪讬讙诪专 讙诪讬专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗爪专讜讱 讜讛讻讗

The Gemara answers: Rabba鈥檚 concern is not equivalent to a case of uncertainty, as most Jewish people are experts in the requirement that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. And this is so even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is generally concerned about a minority in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. In this case Rabbi Meir concedes that one need not be concerned for the minority, as ordinary judicial scribes, who write bills of divorce, are learned in this halakha, and know that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. And it is the Sages who required testimony about this matter, as an extra precaution. And here, with regard to this testimony,

Scroll To Top