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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 5, 2023 | 讟状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 20

Today’s daf is sponsored by Meryll Levine Page in loving memory of her father, Yosef Michael haLevi, on his 14th yahrzeit. “Our dad set us on the derekh by modeling and encouraging both study and tzedakah.”

A man gave a sefer Torah to his wife and said it was her get. Rav Yosef indicated that there were three reasons why this could not possibly be effective. Rav Chisda attempted to connect a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about a sefer Torah where God’s name was not written without the proper intent – can one go over it with ink or not – to the question of fixing a get that was not written li’shma. However, this connection is rejected as the Torah requires beautification, which is not required for a get. Rav Chisda said that he could theoretically disqualify all gittin. Rava attempted to understand what he was referring to. One suggestion was that since the rabbis instituted that the women pay the scribe (to prevent agunot situations – that the husband may not want to pay the money for the divorce), and therefore the get was not written by the husband as prescribed by the Torah. The second suggestion is that the husband does not actually give the woman anything of value and perhaps when the Torah stated “he gives her,” it meant an item of value. Both these suggestions are rejected and it is unclear what Rav Chisda was referring to. Is chiseling considered writing? It depends on whether it was done by chiseling the area surrounding the letters (considered writing) or chiseling the areas where the letters are, causing the writing to protrude. (not considered writing). How then was the tzitz considered ‘written’ if it was chiseled “like a coin”? A husband needs to give the get to his wife and cannot say that the paper/parchment it is written on still belongs to him, as in that case the letters are just considered ‘hanging in the air’ and not written. If one gives a get to his wife on a piece of gold and tells her to keep the gold as her ketuba money – is this effective – is it considered that the letters are hanging in the air or not? Rami bar Hama asked: if they find a slave in the woman’s possession with a get written on his arm, but no one witnessed the husband giving the get to his wife, can we assume she is divorced or is it possible the slave went to her on his own? He also asked another question: if she owned a slate and the get was written on that, can we assume that she transferred ownership of the slate to the husband before he gave it to her and divorce would be effective, or do we assume that women do not know how to do that properly?

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻专讬转讜转 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诇砖诪讛 讜诇讬讻讗


If there is a concern that the Torah scroll can effect a divorce due to the verses concerning severance of marriage that there are in it, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), this is also not problematic, since it is required, as it states: 鈥淎nd he writes her.鈥 This indicates that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake, i.e., it must be written for the express intent of being used to effect divorce between this specific man and this specific woman, and this is not so in the case of a Torah scroll.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗拽讚讬诐 讜讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讗 诇住驻专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 讜诇讬讻讗


And if you would say that there is reason to be concerned that perhaps he first gave a dinar to the scribe at the outset, when he wrote the Torah scroll, and told him to write the verses discussing divorce for his wife鈥檚 sake, isn鈥檛 there a need for other things to be written in a bill of divorce as well, as the mishna (80a) teaches: If the scribe changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The validity of a bill of divorce depends upon these details being written, and they are not in the Torah scroll.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 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 asks: But if so, what is Rav Yosef teaching us with his statement? It seems obvious that there is no reason why a Torah scroll could be used as a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: He is teaching us that gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water. The novel idea is that there is no need to be concerned that the scribe wrote a bill of divorce in gall water on the outside of the Torah scroll.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 诇砖诪讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉


Rav 岣sda says: If a bill of divorce was written not for her sake, and the scribe passed over it with a reed pen, meaning that he wrote on top of what was already written, for her sake, then here we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.


讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讜谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讻转讜讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讟注讛 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 讘讜 讚诇转 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 讜诪拽讚砖讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛砖诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专


As it is taught in a baraita: If a scribe writing a Torah scroll was at a point in the text that he needed to write the name of God, spelled yod, heh, vav, heh; and he erred and intended to write Yehuda, spelled yod, heh, vav, dalet, heh, but he made a mistake when writing Yehuda and did not place a dalet in the word, thereby unintentionally writing the name of God in the correct place, then he should pass over it with a reed pen. He writes over what was written and sanctifies it with the intention that he is writing the name of God. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Even if he adds a second layer of ink, the name has not been written in the optimal manner. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one can supply the intention of writing the name of God for its own sake even when adding a second layer of writing over the first, while according to the Rabbis one cannot. The same dispute would presumably apply in the case of a bill of divorce.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞讗 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Perhaps that is not so, and the Rabbis say only there, in the case of a Torah scroll, that one may not write the name of God in this manner, because it is required that one perform anything sacred, including the writing of a Torah scroll, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淭his is my God, and I will glorify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2). This verse requires that mitzvot be performed in a way that is glorious and aesthetically pleasing, and rewriting in this manner is not considered beautiful. But here, with regard to a bill of divorce, there is no requirement that the bill of divorce be written beautifully, and therefore writing over the bill of divorce is acceptable according to the Rabbis as well.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讬讻讬诇谞讗 诇诪讬驻住诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讚注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘 讜讛讻讗 讗讬讛讬 拽讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉


Rav 岣sda said: I am able to invalidate all the bills of divorce in the world. Most bills of divorce are written in a way that they could be declared invalid. If one were to be particular about certain details, then there would be no valid bills of divorce. Rava said to him: What is the reason that you could invalidate them? If we say: Most bills of divorce are invalid because it is written in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and here, in the case of most bills of divorce, she writes it for him, as it is customary for a woman to pay a scribe to write the bill of divorce, but then perhaps it could be maintained that the Sages transferred the ownership of the bill of divorce to him, and it is considered as if he wrote it.


讜讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇诪讗 谞转讬谞转 讙讟 讛讬讗 转讚注 讚砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讻转讘讜 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讻砖专


But rather, you might say that it is because it is written: 鈥淎nd gives鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), which is usually understood to mean that the item given must have some monetary value, and here in the case of most bills of divorce he doesn鈥檛 give her anything of value. Perhaps the mere giving of the bill of divorce is the giving mentioned in the Torah, even if it does not have any monetary value. Know that it is not a requirement that the bill of divorce have monetary value, as the Sages sent this message from there, from Eretz Yisrael: If he wrote a bill of divorce on items from which benefit is forbidden, then although the bill of divorce is completely lacking monetary value, the bill of divorce is valid.


讙讜驻讗 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讻转讘讜 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 注诇 讛注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: The Sages sent this message from there, from Eretz Yisrael: If he wrote a bill of divorce on items from which benefit is forbidden, the bill of divorce is valid. Rav Ashi said: We, too, learn in the mishna that a bill of divorce may be written on an olive leaf, which has virtually no monetary value. This teaches that the bill of divorce need not have any value on its own, and even forbidden items, which have no value at all, may be used as the base on which the bill of divorce is written. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps an olive leaf is different, because it can combine with more leaves, and they will add up to have monetary value. However, an item from which one is prohibited from benefiting lacks value entirely, even in large quantities.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讘讜 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讻砖专 谞驻拽 诇讜讬 讚专砖讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜诇讗 拽诇住讜讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬诐 讜拽诇住讜讛 讗诇诪讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛


With regard to the same halakha, the Gemara quotes an additional source. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the scribe wrote a bill of divorce on items from which benefit is forbidden, it is valid. Levi went out and expounded upon this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they did not praise him. He then expounded this halakha in the name of the majority, as an unattributed halakha, and they praised him. Apparently, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, when he stated the halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, an individual, which may have led the listeners to think that it was a minority opinion and not the accepted halakha, they did not praise him.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻转讘 讜诇讗 讞拽拽 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞拽讬拽讛 诇讗讜 讻转讬讘讛 讛讬讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 注讘讚 砖讬爪讗 讘讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬驻讗 讜讗谞讚讜讻转专讬


The Sages taught that it is said in the Torah with regard to a bill of divorce: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance,鈥 in order to emphasize that one must write the document and not chisel it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that chiseling is not writing? And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita: If a slave is emancipated through a bill of manumission that was written by being chiseled on a slate [tavla] or on a tablet [pinekas], then he goes free. However, he does not go free through writing on a cap or on an embroidered adornment. If the master embroidered the bill of manumission onto a cloth and gave it to the slave, this is not considered to be like the writing of a document. In any case, the baraita teaches that a bill of manumission that is chiseled onto a slate is valid.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讞拽 转讜讻讜转 讛讗 讚讞拽 讬专讬讻讜转


Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult. This case, where the document is not valid because engraving is not considered to be writing, occurs when the scribe chiseled the area surrounding the letters, i.e., he chiseled on the surface around the shape of the letters, leaving the letters raised on the tablet. This case, where the document is valid because chiseling is considered to be writing, occurs when he chiseled the parts of the letters, i.e., he chiseled the shape of the letters themselves onto the slate. Since he formed the letters directly, it is considered like writing.


讜转讜讻讜转 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讻转讘讜 砖讜拽注 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讟 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讛讗 讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 转讜讻讜转 讛谉


The Gemara asks: And if he chiseled the area surrounding the letters, is this not considered to be writing at all? And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught: The writing of the High Priest鈥檚 frontplate was not embedded, i.e., it was not carved into the frontplate; rather, it protruded like the form on gold dinars. And isn鈥檛 the shape on gold dinars formed by chiseling the area surrounding the letters, by applying pressure around the shape, so that the image and writing protrudes, and yet this is considered to be writing?


讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讘讜诇讟 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 转讜讻讜转 讛讻讗 讬专讬讻讜转


The Gemara answers: It means that the frontplate was fashioned like the form of gold dinars but not entirely like the form of gold dinars. It was fashioned like the form of gold dinars in that the writing protrudes, but it was not fashioned like the form of gold dinars entirely, as there, in the case of gold dinars, they chiseled the area surrounding the letters. Here, when making the frontplate, the inscription was done by chiseling the parts of the letter, i.e., they would carve the letters from the back of the frontplate so that they protruded from the front. Since the letters were carved directly, it was considered to be writing.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讜砖诪讗 诪讬讞专抓 讞专讬抓 讗讜 讻谞讜驻讬 诪讻谞讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讞专抓 讞专讬抓


With regard to this issue, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Does the press that forms a metal coin carve out the background in the metal and the image of the coin is formed on its own, or does it compress the metal inward toward the empty space in the press and the letters are formed through this? He said to him: It carves out the background.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 讻转讘讜 砖讜拽注 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讟 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讬讞专抓 讞专讬抓


He raised an objection to his opinion based on what was taught earlier: The writing of the High Priest鈥檚 frontplate was not embedded, i.e., it was not carved into the frontplate; rather, it protruded like the form on gold dinars. And if it enters your mind to say that a press only carves out the background,


讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 诪讻转讘 讜诇讬讻讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讘讜诇讟 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 诪讙讜讗讬 讜讛讻讗 诪讗讘专讗讬


isn鈥檛 there a need to write it, as the verse states with regard to the frontplate: 鈥淲rote upon it a writing, like the engravings of a signet鈥 (Exodus 39:30), and there is no writing here? The Gemara answers: It means that the frontplate was fashioned like the form of gold dinars but not entirely like the form of gold dinars. It was fashioned like the form of gold dinars in that the writing protrudes. But it was not fashioned like the form of gold dinars entirely, as there, in the case of gold dinars, the pressing of the stamp is done from the inside, by pushing back the surrounding area to allow the form to be visible, and here, when fashioning the frontplate, it was done from the outside, by applying pressure to the opposite side so that the letters were pushed outward. Since the letters were carved directly, it was considered to be writing.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转讘 诇讛 讙讟 注诇 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讘诇讬 讙讬讟讱 讜讛转拽讘诇讬 讻转讜讘转讱 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞转拽讘诇讛 讙讬讟讛 讜谞转拽讘诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛


Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: In the case of a husband who wrote for her a bill of divorce on a plate [tas] of gold and said to her: Receive your bill of divorce and also receive the payment of your marriage contract through this act, as the piece of gold is worth enough to pay for the value of her marriage contract, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: Her bill of divorce has been received and the payment of her marriage contract has been received.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛转拽讘诇讬 讙讬讟讱 讜讛砖讗专 诇讻转讜讘转讱 谞转拽讘诇讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讛砖讗专 诇讻转讜讘转讛


Rava raised an objection to his statement from a baraita: If a husband gave his wife a bill of divorce on an oversized paper and said to her: Receive your bill of divorce, and the remainder of the paper, on which nothing is written, is designated for the payment of your marriage contract, then her bill of divorce has been received and the remainder should be for the payment of her marriage contract.


讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讗专 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讗专 诇讗


The Gemara explains the objection: This indicates that the reason why the material upon which the bill of divorce is written may also serve as the payment for her marriage contract is that there is the remainder of the paper, on which the bill of divorce was not written. If there is not the remainder of the paper, then no, the bill of divorce may not serve as payment of the marriage contract. This is because the husband must give the bill of divorce to his wife for it to become hers. If so, even if the bill of divorce was written on a plate of gold, if there was no part of the plate of gold other than the space where the bill of divorce was written, it should not serve as payment of her marriage contract.


讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讗专 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讗专 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


Rav Na岣an responded: The same is true although there is no remainder of the paper, and he wrote the bill of divorce on the entire paper. And by stating the halakha in a case where there was an additional part of the paper, the baraita teaches us this: Although there is the remainder of the paper upon which nothing is written, if he explicitly said to her that it should be for the payment of her marriage contract, yes, it is considered to be a payment for her marriage contract. If he did not say this explicitly, then no, it is not for the payment of her marriage contract, and he must give her the value of her marriage contract in its entirety through a separate payment.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讜讬专讗 讚诪讙讬诇转讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? If he did not explicitly say that the remainder of the paper is designated toward the payment of her marriage contract, then the remainder is considered to be the margin around the border of the scroll, and all of the paper constitutes the bill of divorce. Therefore, it is necessary to inform her that the remainder of the paper is for the payment of her marriage contract.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讜讛谞讬讬专 砖诇讬 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讞讝讬专讬 诇讬 讗转 讛谞讬讬专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


The Sages taught: If the husband said to his wife: Behold this is your bill of divorce, but the paper on which it is written is still mine, then she is not divorced, as he must give her the actual bill of divorce in order for the divorce to take effect. Since the paper still belongs to him, it is as if he had given her only the writing. But if he said to her: Behold this is your bill of divorce on the condition that you return the paper to me, then she is divorced. The bill of divorce belongs entirely to her, and the returning of the paper is only a stipulation that must be fulfilled later.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬谉 砖讬讟讛 诇砖讬讟讛 讜讘讬谉 转讬讘讛 诇转讬讘讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜


Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If he said that the paper between each line or between each word in the bill of divorce will still belong to him but the paper where the words are written will be hers, what is the halakha? A solution is not found for this question, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚住驻专 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪注讜专讛


The Gemara asks: Why isn鈥檛 a solution offered for Rav Pappa鈥檚 question? Let him derive an answer to this question from elsewhere, as the Merciful One speaks of one scroll in regard to the bill of divorce in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and not two or three scrolls. If the woman receives only the paper on which the words are written but the rest of the paper belongs to the man, then this is not viewed as a single scroll. Rather, it is multiple scrolls, thereby invalidating it. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to discuss the question in a case where the letters are intertwined, meaning that they were written in such a manner that even if the paper between them was removed, the writing in the bill of divorce would remain attached as a single entity.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬诐 讘注讘讚 砖讛讜讗 砖诇讜 讜讙讟 讻转讜讘 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讛 诪讛讜


Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If the judges had a presumption that a slave was his, i.e., that it belonged to the husband; and the bill of divorce that this man gave his wife was written on that slave鈥檚 hand; and now the slave emerges from her possession, i.e., he is with the woman, what is the halakha with regard to this bill of divorce?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪谞驻砖讬讛 注讬讬诇


The Gemara explains the elements of the question: Do we say that the husband transferred the slave to his wife? Therefore, it is as though he gave her the bill of divorce in the proper manner, as is explained in the mishna, and she is divorced. Or perhaps we say that he, the slave, entered the possession of the woman on his own, because he prefers to be under her ownership rather than under her husband鈥檚 ownership, in which case the husband did not give him to the woman at all, and she is not divorced, as the husband needs to give the bill of divorce to the woman?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讻转讘 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讚讬讬祝 讛讜讗 讜诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 注诇 讛讬讚 砖诇 注讘讚


Rava said: And let Rami bar 岣ma derive an answer to his question from a different reason, that writing on a person鈥檚 body is writing that can be forged, as it is easily erased and replaced with other writing, and a bill of divorce that is written in a manner susceptible to forgery is invalid. The Gemara clarifies: But according to Rava, who raised this challenge, the mishna is difficult, as it taught that a bill of divorce may be written on a slave鈥檚 hand.


讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 拽砖讬讗


The Gemara responds: Granted, the mishna is not difficult for Rava, as it is possible to say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband gave her the slave with witnesses present who observe the transmission of a legal document. In other words, they were present when the slave, who has the legal document written on him, was given to the woman. And it is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who holds that the essential witnesses are those who witness the delivery, and since they witnessed the delivery, she is divorced. However, for Rami bar 岣ma it is difficult. In his case, there were no witnesses to the transfer of the slave, so the possibility that the writing was forged should invalidate it.


诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讻转讜讘转 拽注拽注 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 (诇专讘讗) 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬拽砖讬 讘讻转讜讘转 拽注拽注


The Gemara answers: According to Rami bar 岣ma it is also not difficult, as he did not ask his question in a case where the bill of divorce was written on the slave with ink but with regard to a case where it was written as a tattoo, so the writing certainly cannot be erased and forged. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this, the mishna, which deemed valid a bill of divorce that was written on the hand of the slave, will not be difficult for Rava either, as it is also stating the halakha with regard to a case where it was written as a tattoo.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛


In any case, Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 question remains unresolved. If so, what halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof based on that which Reish Lakish says: With regard to livestock, there is no presumption of ownership, since they wander from place to place. Therefore, a person cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership, because they may have wandered into his property on their own. The same halakha should apply to a slave. If there are no witnesses who saw the transfer to the woman, then her mere possession of the slave should not serve as proof that the slave, and by extension the bill of divorce, was given to her, and consequently the woman is not divorced.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讟讘诇讗 砖讛讬讗 砖诇讛 讜讙讟 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讬转讗 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 (讗砖讛) 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬


Rami bar 岣ma raises another dilemma: If the judges had a presumption that a slate was hers, and a bill of divorce was written on it, and now this slate emerges from his possession, and he wants to divorce his wife by giving her the slate, what is the halakha? Do we say that she transferred the ownership of the slate to him, and he may give it to her as a bill of divorce, and the divorce takes effect? Or perhaps a woman does not understand how to transfer an object that will be given back to her, and she believes it is a formality and not an actual legal transfer. If this were to be the case, they would not be divorced, as the slate did not in fact belong to the husband.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讗祝 讛讜讗 讛注讬讚 注诇 讻驻专 拽讟谉 砖讛讬讛 讘爪讚 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛讬讛 讘讜 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜讛讬讛 诪诇讜讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讛讻驻专 讜讻讜转讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜讗讞专讬诐 讞讜转诪讬诐 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专讜讛讜 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 住驻专 诪拽谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗


Abaye said: Come and hear a proof based on what is stated in a mishna (Eduyyot 2:3): Even he, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who was quoted earlier in this mishna, testified about a small village that was adjacent to Jerusalem, and there was an old man there who would lend money to all the residents of the village. And he would write the documents in his handwriting and others would sign. And the incident came before the Sages and they deemed it valid. And why did they deem it valid? Isn鈥檛 there a need to fulfill this verse: 鈥淚 took the deed of purchase鈥 (Jeremiah 32:11), requiring that the document itself be transferred from the seller to the buyer, and this is not the case here, as the document attesting to the loan was in the possession of the creditor the entire time?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讛 诇讛讜


Rather, is it not because we say that he certainly transferred the ownership of the documents to them in a legally binding manner, although he knew that they would be returned to him immediately afterward. The same should apply in this case, and the assumption should be that the woman transferred ownership of the slate to the husband, and he then gave it back to her.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗


Rava said: And what is the difficulty? How can one prove anything from the mishna? Perhaps

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 14-21 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

If a person brought a Get from outside Israel to Israel, they must say that they saw it being written...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 20: Divorce: In Gold or on a Slave

Chiseling or embossing the letters of a get - with the example of the kohen gadol's front piece. Can a...

Gittin 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 20

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻专讬转讜转 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诇砖诪讛 讜诇讬讻讗


If there is a concern that the Torah scroll can effect a divorce due to the verses concerning severance of marriage that there are in it, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), this is also not problematic, since it is required, as it states: 鈥淎nd he writes her.鈥 This indicates that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake, i.e., it must be written for the express intent of being used to effect divorce between this specific man and this specific woman, and this is not so in the case of a Torah scroll.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗拽讚讬诐 讜讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讗 诇住驻专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 讜诇讬讻讗


And if you would say that there is reason to be concerned that perhaps he first gave a dinar to the scribe at the outset, when he wrote the Torah scroll, and told him to write the verses discussing divorce for his wife鈥檚 sake, isn鈥檛 there a need for other things to be written in a bill of divorce as well, as the mishna (80a) teaches: If the scribe changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The validity of a bill of divorce depends upon these details being written, and they are not in the Torah scroll.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 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 asks: But if so, what is Rav Yosef teaching us with his statement? It seems obvious that there is no reason why a Torah scroll could be used as a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: He is teaching us that gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water. The novel idea is that there is no need to be concerned that the scribe wrote a bill of divorce in gall water on the outside of the Torah scroll.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 诇砖诪讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉


Rav 岣sda says: If a bill of divorce was written not for her sake, and the scribe passed over it with a reed pen, meaning that he wrote on top of what was already written, for her sake, then here we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.


讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讜谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讻转讜讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讟注讛 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 讘讜 讚诇转 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 讜诪拽讚砖讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛砖诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专


As it is taught in a baraita: If a scribe writing a Torah scroll was at a point in the text that he needed to write the name of God, spelled yod, heh, vav, heh; and he erred and intended to write Yehuda, spelled yod, heh, vav, dalet, heh, but he made a mistake when writing Yehuda and did not place a dalet in the word, thereby unintentionally writing the name of God in the correct place, then he should pass over it with a reed pen. He writes over what was written and sanctifies it with the intention that he is writing the name of God. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Even if he adds a second layer of ink, the name has not been written in the optimal manner. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one can supply the intention of writing the name of God for its own sake even when adding a second layer of writing over the first, while according to the Rabbis one cannot. The same dispute would presumably apply in the case of a bill of divorce.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞讗 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Perhaps that is not so, and the Rabbis say only there, in the case of a Torah scroll, that one may not write the name of God in this manner, because it is required that one perform anything sacred, including the writing of a Torah scroll, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淭his is my God, and I will glorify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2). This verse requires that mitzvot be performed in a way that is glorious and aesthetically pleasing, and rewriting in this manner is not considered beautiful. But here, with regard to a bill of divorce, there is no requirement that the bill of divorce be written beautifully, and therefore writing over the bill of divorce is acceptable according to the Rabbis as well.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讬讻讬诇谞讗 诇诪讬驻住诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讚注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讘 讜讛讻讗 讗讬讛讬 拽讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉


Rav 岣sda said: I am able to invalidate all the bills of divorce in the world. Most bills of divorce are written in a way that they could be declared invalid. If one were to be particular about certain details, then there would be no valid bills of divorce. Rava said to him: What is the reason that you could invalidate them? If we say: Most bills of divorce are invalid because it is written in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and here, in the case of most bills of divorce, she writes it for him, as it is customary for a woman to pay a scribe to write the bill of divorce, but then perhaps it could be maintained that the Sages transferred the ownership of the bill of divorce to him, and it is considered as if he wrote it.


讜讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇诪讗 谞转讬谞转 讙讟 讛讬讗 转讚注 讚砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讻转讘讜 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讻砖专


But rather, you might say that it is because it is written: 鈥淎nd gives鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), which is usually understood to mean that the item given must have some monetary value, and here in the case of most bills of divorce he doesn鈥檛 give her anything of value. Perhaps the mere giving of the bill of divorce is the giving mentioned in the Torah, even if it does not have any monetary value. Know that it is not a requirement that the bill of divorce have monetary value, as the Sages sent this message from there, from Eretz Yisrael: If he wrote a bill of divorce on items from which benefit is forbidden, then although the bill of divorce is completely lacking monetary value, the bill of divorce is valid.


讙讜驻讗 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讻转讘讜 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 注诇 讛注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: The Sages sent this message from there, from Eretz Yisrael: If he wrote a bill of divorce on items from which benefit is forbidden, the bill of divorce is valid. Rav Ashi said: We, too, learn in the mishna that a bill of divorce may be written on an olive leaf, which has virtually no monetary value. This teaches that the bill of divorce need not have any value on its own, and even forbidden items, which have no value at all, may be used as the base on which the bill of divorce is written. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps an olive leaf is different, because it can combine with more leaves, and they will add up to have monetary value. However, an item from which one is prohibited from benefiting lacks value entirely, even in large quantities.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讘讜 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讻砖专 谞驻拽 诇讜讬 讚专砖讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜诇讗 拽诇住讜讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬诐 讜拽诇住讜讛 讗诇诪讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛


With regard to the same halakha, the Gemara quotes an additional source. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the scribe wrote a bill of divorce on items from which benefit is forbidden, it is valid. Levi went out and expounded upon this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they did not praise him. He then expounded this halakha in the name of the majority, as an unattributed halakha, and they praised him. Apparently, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, when he stated the halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, an individual, which may have led the listeners to think that it was a minority opinion and not the accepted halakha, they did not praise him.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻转讘 讜诇讗 讞拽拽 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞拽讬拽讛 诇讗讜 讻转讬讘讛 讛讬讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 注讘讚 砖讬爪讗 讘讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬驻讗 讜讗谞讚讜讻转专讬


The Sages taught that it is said in the Torah with regard to a bill of divorce: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance,鈥 in order to emphasize that one must write the document and not chisel it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that chiseling is not writing? And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita: If a slave is emancipated through a bill of manumission that was written by being chiseled on a slate [tavla] or on a tablet [pinekas], then he goes free. However, he does not go free through writing on a cap or on an embroidered adornment. If the master embroidered the bill of manumission onto a cloth and gave it to the slave, this is not considered to be like the writing of a document. In any case, the baraita teaches that a bill of manumission that is chiseled onto a slate is valid.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讞拽 转讜讻讜转 讛讗 讚讞拽 讬专讬讻讜转


Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said: It is not difficult. This case, where the document is not valid because engraving is not considered to be writing, occurs when the scribe chiseled the area surrounding the letters, i.e., he chiseled on the surface around the shape of the letters, leaving the letters raised on the tablet. This case, where the document is valid because chiseling is considered to be writing, occurs when he chiseled the parts of the letters, i.e., he chiseled the shape of the letters themselves onto the slate. Since he formed the letters directly, it is considered like writing.


讜转讜讻讜转 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讻转讘讜 砖讜拽注 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讟 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讛讗 讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 转讜讻讜转 讛谉


The Gemara asks: And if he chiseled the area surrounding the letters, is this not considered to be writing at all? And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught: The writing of the High Priest鈥檚 frontplate was not embedded, i.e., it was not carved into the frontplate; rather, it protruded like the form on gold dinars. And isn鈥檛 the shape on gold dinars formed by chiseling the area surrounding the letters, by applying pressure around the shape, so that the image and writing protrudes, and yet this is considered to be writing?


讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讘讜诇讟 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 转讜讻讜转 讛讻讗 讬专讬讻讜转


The Gemara answers: It means that the frontplate was fashioned like the form of gold dinars but not entirely like the form of gold dinars. It was fashioned like the form of gold dinars in that the writing protrudes, but it was not fashioned like the form of gold dinars entirely, as there, in the case of gold dinars, they chiseled the area surrounding the letters. Here, when making the frontplate, the inscription was done by chiseling the parts of the letter, i.e., they would carve the letters from the back of the frontplate so that they protruded from the front. Since the letters were carved directly, it was considered to be writing.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讜砖诪讗 诪讬讞专抓 讞专讬抓 讗讜 讻谞讜驻讬 诪讻谞讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讞专抓 讞专讬抓


With regard to this issue, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Does the press that forms a metal coin carve out the background in the metal and the image of the coin is formed on its own, or does it compress the metal inward toward the empty space in the press and the letters are formed through this? He said to him: It carves out the background.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 讻转讘讜 砖讜拽注 讗诇讗 讘讜诇讟 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讬讞专抓 讞专讬抓


He raised an objection to his opinion based on what was taught earlier: The writing of the High Priest鈥檚 frontplate was not embedded, i.e., it was not carved into the frontplate; rather, it protruded like the form on gold dinars. And if it enters your mind to say that a press only carves out the background,


讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 诪讻转讘 讜诇讬讻讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讘讜诇讟 讜诇讗 讻讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 诪讙讜讗讬 讜讛讻讗 诪讗讘专讗讬


isn鈥檛 there a need to write it, as the verse states with regard to the frontplate: 鈥淲rote upon it a writing, like the engravings of a signet鈥 (Exodus 39:30), and there is no writing here? The Gemara answers: It means that the frontplate was fashioned like the form of gold dinars but not entirely like the form of gold dinars. It was fashioned like the form of gold dinars in that the writing protrudes. But it was not fashioned like the form of gold dinars entirely, as there, in the case of gold dinars, the pressing of the stamp is done from the inside, by pushing back the surrounding area to allow the form to be visible, and here, when fashioning the frontplate, it was done from the outside, by applying pressure to the opposite side so that the letters were pushed outward. Since the letters were carved directly, it was considered to be writing.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转讘 诇讛 讙讟 注诇 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛转拽讘诇讬 讙讬讟讱 讜讛转拽讘诇讬 讻转讜讘转讱 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞转拽讘诇讛 讙讬讟讛 讜谞转拽讘诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛


Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: In the case of a husband who wrote for her a bill of divorce on a plate [tas] of gold and said to her: Receive your bill of divorce and also receive the payment of your marriage contract through this act, as the piece of gold is worth enough to pay for the value of her marriage contract, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: Her bill of divorce has been received and the payment of her marriage contract has been received.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛转拽讘诇讬 讙讬讟讱 讜讛砖讗专 诇讻转讜讘转讱 谞转拽讘诇讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讛砖讗专 诇讻转讜讘转讛


Rava raised an objection to his statement from a baraita: If a husband gave his wife a bill of divorce on an oversized paper and said to her: Receive your bill of divorce, and the remainder of the paper, on which nothing is written, is designated for the payment of your marriage contract, then her bill of divorce has been received and the remainder should be for the payment of her marriage contract.


讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讗专 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讗专 诇讗


The Gemara explains the objection: This indicates that the reason why the material upon which the bill of divorce is written may also serve as the payment for her marriage contract is that there is the remainder of the paper, on which the bill of divorce was not written. If there is not the remainder of the paper, then no, the bill of divorce may not serve as payment of the marriage contract. This is because the husband must give the bill of divorce to his wife for it to become hers. If so, even if the bill of divorce was written on a plate of gold, if there was no part of the plate of gold other than the space where the bill of divorce was written, it should not serve as payment of her marriage contract.


讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讗专 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讗专 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


Rav Na岣an responded: The same is true although there is no remainder of the paper, and he wrote the bill of divorce on the entire paper. And by stating the halakha in a case where there was an additional part of the paper, the baraita teaches us this: Although there is the remainder of the paper upon which nothing is written, if he explicitly said to her that it should be for the payment of her marriage contract, yes, it is considered to be a payment for her marriage contract. If he did not say this explicitly, then no, it is not for the payment of her marriage contract, and he must give her the value of her marriage contract in its entirety through a separate payment.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讜讬专讗 讚诪讙讬诇转讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? If he did not explicitly say that the remainder of the paper is designated toward the payment of her marriage contract, then the remainder is considered to be the margin around the border of the scroll, and all of the paper constitutes the bill of divorce. Therefore, it is necessary to inform her that the remainder of the paper is for the payment of her marriage contract.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讜讛谞讬讬专 砖诇讬 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讞讝讬专讬 诇讬 讗转 讛谞讬讬专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


The Sages taught: If the husband said to his wife: Behold this is your bill of divorce, but the paper on which it is written is still mine, then she is not divorced, as he must give her the actual bill of divorce in order for the divorce to take effect. Since the paper still belongs to him, it is as if he had given her only the writing. But if he said to her: Behold this is your bill of divorce on the condition that you return the paper to me, then she is divorced. The bill of divorce belongs entirely to her, and the returning of the paper is only a stipulation that must be fulfilled later.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬谉 砖讬讟讛 诇砖讬讟讛 讜讘讬谉 转讬讘讛 诇转讬讘讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜


Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If he said that the paper between each line or between each word in the bill of divorce will still belong to him but the paper where the words are written will be hers, what is the halakha? A solution is not found for this question, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚住驻专 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪注讜专讛


The Gemara asks: Why isn鈥檛 a solution offered for Rav Pappa鈥檚 question? Let him derive an answer to this question from elsewhere, as the Merciful One speaks of one scroll in regard to the bill of divorce in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and not two or three scrolls. If the woman receives only the paper on which the words are written but the rest of the paper belongs to the man, then this is not viewed as a single scroll. Rather, it is multiple scrolls, thereby invalidating it. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to discuss the question in a case where the letters are intertwined, meaning that they were written in such a manner that even if the paper between them was removed, the writing in the bill of divorce would remain attached as a single entity.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬诐 讘注讘讚 砖讛讜讗 砖诇讜 讜讙讟 讻转讜讘 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讛 诪讛讜


Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If the judges had a presumption that a slave was his, i.e., that it belonged to the husband; and the bill of divorce that this man gave his wife was written on that slave鈥檚 hand; and now the slave emerges from her possession, i.e., he is with the woman, what is the halakha with regard to this bill of divorce?


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪谞驻砖讬讛 注讬讬诇


The Gemara explains the elements of the question: Do we say that the husband transferred the slave to his wife? Therefore, it is as though he gave her the bill of divorce in the proper manner, as is explained in the mishna, and she is divorced. Or perhaps we say that he, the slave, entered the possession of the woman on his own, because he prefers to be under her ownership rather than under her husband鈥檚 ownership, in which case the husband did not give him to the woman at all, and she is not divorced, as the husband needs to give the bill of divorce to the woman?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讻转讘 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讚讬讬祝 讛讜讗 讜诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 注诇 讛讬讚 砖诇 注讘讚


Rava said: And let Rami bar 岣ma derive an answer to his question from a different reason, that writing on a person鈥檚 body is writing that can be forged, as it is easily erased and replaced with other writing, and a bill of divorce that is written in a manner susceptible to forgery is invalid. The Gemara clarifies: But according to Rava, who raised this challenge, the mishna is difficult, as it taught that a bill of divorce may be written on a slave鈥檚 hand.


讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 拽砖讬讗


The Gemara responds: Granted, the mishna is not difficult for Rava, as it is possible to say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband gave her the slave with witnesses present who observe the transmission of a legal document. In other words, they were present when the slave, who has the legal document written on him, was given to the woman. And it is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who holds that the essential witnesses are those who witness the delivery, and since they witnessed the delivery, she is divorced. However, for Rami bar 岣ma it is difficult. In his case, there were no witnesses to the transfer of the slave, so the possibility that the writing was forged should invalidate it.


诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讻转讜讘转 拽注拽注 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 (诇专讘讗) 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬拽砖讬 讘讻转讜讘转 拽注拽注


The Gemara answers: According to Rami bar 岣ma it is also not difficult, as he did not ask his question in a case where the bill of divorce was written on the slave with ink but with regard to a case where it was written as a tattoo, so the writing certainly cannot be erased and forged. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this, the mishna, which deemed valid a bill of divorce that was written on the hand of the slave, will not be difficult for Rava either, as it is also stating the halakha with regard to a case where it was written as a tattoo.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛


In any case, Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 question remains unresolved. If so, what halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof based on that which Reish Lakish says: With regard to livestock, there is no presumption of ownership, since they wander from place to place. Therefore, a person cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership, because they may have wandered into his property on their own. The same halakha should apply to a slave. If there are no witnesses who saw the transfer to the woman, then her mere possession of the slave should not serve as proof that the slave, and by extension the bill of divorce, was given to her, and consequently the woman is not divorced.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讟讘诇讗 砖讛讬讗 砖诇讛 讜讙讟 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 讗拽谞讬转讗 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 (讗砖讛) 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬


Rami bar 岣ma raises another dilemma: If the judges had a presumption that a slate was hers, and a bill of divorce was written on it, and now this slate emerges from his possession, and he wants to divorce his wife by giving her the slate, what is the halakha? Do we say that she transferred the ownership of the slate to him, and he may give it to her as a bill of divorce, and the divorce takes effect? Or perhaps a woman does not understand how to transfer an object that will be given back to her, and she believes it is a formality and not an actual legal transfer. If this were to be the case, they would not be divorced, as the slate did not in fact belong to the husband.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讗祝 讛讜讗 讛注讬讚 注诇 讻驻专 拽讟谉 砖讛讬讛 讘爪讚 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛讬讛 讘讜 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜讛讬讛 诪诇讜讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讛讻驻专 讜讻讜转讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜讗讞专讬诐 讞讜转诪讬诐 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛讻砖讬专讜讛讜 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 住驻专 诪拽谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗


Abaye said: Come and hear a proof based on what is stated in a mishna (Eduyyot 2:3): Even he, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who was quoted earlier in this mishna, testified about a small village that was adjacent to Jerusalem, and there was an old man there who would lend money to all the residents of the village. And he would write the documents in his handwriting and others would sign. And the incident came before the Sages and they deemed it valid. And why did they deem it valid? Isn鈥檛 there a need to fulfill this verse: 鈥淚 took the deed of purchase鈥 (Jeremiah 32:11), requiring that the document itself be transferred from the seller to the buyer, and this is not the case here, as the document attesting to the loan was in the possession of the creditor the entire time?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讛 诇讛讜


Rather, is it not because we say that he certainly transferred the ownership of the documents to them in a legally binding manner, although he knew that they would be returned to him immediately afterward. The same should apply in this case, and the assumption should be that the woman transferred ownership of the slate to the husband, and he then gave it back to her.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗


Rava said: And what is the difficulty? How can one prove anything from the mishna? Perhaps

Scroll To Top