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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 4, 2016 | 讻状讙 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 22

In what scenarios聽can you write on something attached to the ground? 聽is there a difference between writing the tofes and the toref How do the opinions of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Meir (is it the witnesses who see the giving of the get that are the critical ones or is it the ones who sign the document) fit in to the mishna? 聽What is the law regarding plants (in a perforated pot) that are on the border between Israel and chutz laaretz聽What are different types of processes done to the hides in preparation for parchment and what are the parchment prepared in each different process used for? 聽Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding which cases the Rabbis in the mishna allow a type of parchment that can potentially be forged?

Study Guide Gittin 22

讚砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬拽讟讜诐

as he can take the pot with the leaf inside it and give it to her. Rava says that it is invalid. Although it should be valid if he gave her the leaf together with the potted plant, the Sages instituted a decree that it is invalid, lest one detach the leaf and give it to her. In that case, all agree that a bill of divorce that is fully written while attached is invalid.

注爪讬抓 砖诇 讗讞讚 讜讝专注讬诐 砖诇 讗讞专 诪讻专 讘注诇 注爪讬抓 诇讘注诇 讝专注讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖诪砖讱 拽谞讛 诪讻专 讘注诇 讝专注讬诐 诇讘注诇 注爪讬抓 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬拽 讘讝专注讬诐

搂 The Gemara has another discussion with regard to a perforated pot: In the case of a pot that belongs to one person and the plants in it belong to another person, if the owner of the pot sold it to the owner of the plants, then once the owner of the plants pulled the pot, he has acquired the pot, as it is a movable object, which can be acquired via pulling. However, if the owner of the plants sold the plants to the owner of the pot, then the owner of the pot does not acquire the plants until he takes possession of the plants themselves, e.g., by raking or weeding the dirt surrounding them. Since the plants are considered to be attached to the ground, as they are in a perforated pot, they are considered to be part of the ground, which cannot be acquired by pulling.

注爪讬抓 讜讝专注讬诐 砖诇 讗讞讚 讜诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讝专注讬诐 拽谞讛 注爪讬抓 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

If the pot and plants belong to one person, and he sold them to another person, then once the buyer took possession of the plants and acquired them, he acquired the pot as well. And this is an example of the principle that we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, through the giving of money, or with a document, or by taking possession. Therefore, once one takes possession of the plants, which are considered to be like land, he also acquires the pot, which is a movable object.

讛讞讝讬拽 讘注爪讬抓 讗祝 注爪讬抓 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬拽 讘讝专注讬诐

However, if the buyer took possession of just the pot, then he does not even acquire the pot, as movable property cannot be acquired through taking possession, until he takes possession of the plants. To acquire the pot, one must either perform an act of acquisition specific to movable items, such as pulling, or acquire the plants through taking possession of them, resulting in the acquisition of the pot, as stated earlier.

谞拽讘讜 讘讗专抓 讜谞讜驻讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘转专 谞拽讘讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘转专 谞讜驻讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara discusses another issue with regard to perforated pots: If a perforated pot was on the border of Eretz Yisrael, and its perforation was in Eretz Yisrael but its branches were outside of Eretz Yisrael, then what is the halakha with regard to mitzvot that apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, such as terumot and tithes? Abaye said: We follow its perforation, and it is considered to be growing in Eretz Yisrael. Rava said: We follow its branches, and it is considered to be growing outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讘讚讗砖专讜砖 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚诇讗 讗砖专讜砖

The Gemara notes: In a case where the plant in the pot took root in the ground, everyone agrees that it has the status of a plant that grows in the place where its roots are. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where it did not take root. Since its roots are contained within the pot, there is a disagreement whether we follow the perforation or the branches in determining its status.

讜讘讚讗砖专讜砖 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞谉 砖转讬 讙讬谞讜转 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讜讬专拽 讘讬谞转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诇 注诇讬讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 转讞转讜谉

The Gemara challenges: And do they not disagree with regard to a case where it took root? Do all agree that its status is determined by where the roots are? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 118b): In a case of two gardens that belong to two different people that are on adjacent terraces one above the other, and leafy vegetables are growing between them on the wall of the step between the two gardens, Rabbi Meir says: These leafy vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden, and Rabbi Yehuda says: These leafy vegetables belong to the owner of the lower garden. In this case, the roots emerge from the upper garden, but the vegetables grow into the airspace of the lower garden. This seems to be analogous to the case where the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and the branches are outside of Eretz Yisrael, or vice versa, and there is a dispute as to who is the owner of the vegetables.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 注诇讬讜谉 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 注驻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽

The Gemara makes a distinction between the two cases: There, in the case cited in the mishna in Bava Metzia, the reason for that halakha is as is taught in the mishna, that Rabbi Meir said: What if the owner of the upper garden would wish to take his earth? This would result in a situation where there are no more vegetables, as the vegetables would not have earth from which to draw nutrients. The fact that the owner of the upper garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讛转讞转讜谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讗转 讙谞转讜 注驻专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽

Rabbi Yehuda said: What if the owner of the lower garden would wish to fill the airspace above his garden with earth? This would result in a situation where there are no more vegetables, as they would be covered in the earth added by the owner of the lower garden. The fact that the owner of the lower garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner. Their dispute is not with regard to how to define where the vegetables are growing; rather, they disagree with regard to who has control over the continued existence of these plants. Therefore, this dispute is not related to the issue of the plant that is growing on the border.

讜讗讻转讬 讘讚讗砖专讜砖 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬诇谉 诪拽爪转讜 讘讗专抓 讜诪拽爪转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讟讘诇 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讙讚诇 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: But still, do they not disagree with regard to a case where the plant took root? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃srot 2:22): If there is a tree, and part of it is in Eretz Yisrael and part of it is outside of Eretz Yisrael, then untithed produce and non-sacred produce are mixed together in each one of these tree鈥檚 fruits; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The fruits in the part of the tree that is growing in a place that has an obligation to separate tithes, in Eretz Yisrael, are obligated. And the fruits that are growing in a place that has an exemption from separating tithes, outside of Eretz Yisrael, are exempt.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪拽爪转 谞讜驻讜 讘讗专抓 讜诪拽爪转 谞讜驻讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

What, is it not discussing a case where some of its branches are in Eretz Yisrael and some of its branches are outside of Eretz Yisrael, although its roots are in one of the two locations, and both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agree that the place of the roots does not define the status of the tree?

诇讗 诪拽爪转 砖专砖讬谉 讘讗专抓 讜诪拽爪转 砖专砖讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪驻住讬拽 爪讜谞诪讗

The Gemara rejects this: No, it discusses a case where some of the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and some of the roots are outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? It is not possible to determine which fruits drew nutrients from which roots, so how can he rule that some of the fruits are obligated in tithes and some are not? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where a rock divides the roots up to the trunk, and therefore it is possible to distinguish between the parts of the tree that draw nutrients from Eretz Yisrael and the parts that draw nutrients from outside of Eretz Yisrael.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讛讚专讬 注专讘讬

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the roots are clearly distinguishable, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Why does he view the fruits as being a mixture? The Gemara answers: He holds that although there is a division between the roots, they cannot be distinguished from one another, as they then become mixed in the body of the tree.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讜讬专讗 诪讘诇讘诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds: The air above the ground mixes the nutrients, and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds: This part of the tree stands alone and this part of the tree stands alone. From the roots up to the branches, it is as if the tree were cut along the line of the border.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗住讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注讜专讜转 讛谉 诪爪讛 讞讬驻讛 讜讚讬驻转专讗

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that one may not write a bill of divorce on a material that enables forgery. Consequently, one may not write a bill of divorce on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara now clarifies what is defined as unfinished leather. Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides, i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides. At each stage, the hide has a different name: Matza, 岣fa, and diftera.

诪爪讛 讻诪砖诪注讜 讚诇讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讚诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜讚诇讗 讗驻讬抓 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚拽转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讚讬 诇爪讜专 诪砖拽诇 拽讟谞讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚专讬讘注讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

Matza, as per its plain meaning, with no additives. It is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. The Gemara clarifies: For what halakha is this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches: It is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And how big is this small weight? Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita.

讞讬驻讛 讚诪诇讬讞 讜诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 讗驻讬抓 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚转谞谉 注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 拽诪讬注

岣fa is hide that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what halakha was this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 78b): The measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet.

讚讬驻转专讗 讚诪诇讬讞 讜拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 讗驻讬抓 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙讟

Diftera is hide that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what halakha was this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to the amount on which a bill of divorce is written.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The mishna taught that the Rabbis deem valid bills of divorce that were written on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara asks: Who are these Rabbis? The amora Rabbi Elazar said:

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

It is the opinion of the tanna Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. Since the witnesses read the bill of divorce before it is transmitted in their presence, they may be relied upon to confirm the contents of the bill of divorce in court. Therefore, even if it was written on erased paper, there is no possibility that it would be forged, as the witnesses read what was written before it is given.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 诇讗诇转专 讗讘诇 诪讻讗谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 转谞讗讛 讜讝讬讬驻转讬讛

And the amora Rabbi Elazar says: The tanna Rabbi Elazar deemed such a bill of divorce valid only when it was taken to court in order to confirm the contents immediately after it was transferred to the woman. However, if the witnesses testify from now until ten days, i.e., sometime later, he did not deem it valid. Why? We are concerned that perhaps the bill of divorce had a stipulation written on it and she forged it by erasing the stipulation, as this bill of divorce was written on material that enables a person to easily alter what is written. Only if the witnesses testify immediately can the court be sure that they did not forget what is written.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬讛 转谞讗讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if they testify from now until ten days it is valid, as, if it is so that it had a stipulation, then the witnesses will remember it, as they would not forget something so obvious. Therefore, if the woman erased the stipulation, the witnesses would not verify the bill of divorce.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转诐 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 诇诪注谉 讬注诪讚讜 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐

And Rabbi Elazar the amora also says: The tanna Rabbi Elazar deemed valid a document that is written on these surfaces only with regard to bills of divorce but not for other documents, as it is written with regard to a deed of purchase: 鈥淎nd put them in an earthen vessel; so that they will remain many days鈥 (Jeremiah 32:14). This indicates that a deed of purchase and other similar documents must be made from a material that will last for a long time without being changed. A document that can be forged may not be relied upon long term.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讟专讜转 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讬注诪讚讜 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讛转诐 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Elazar deemed these surfaces valid even in the case of other documents. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪o that they will remain many days鈥? The Gemara answers: There the verse teaches us good advice, but it is not a halakhic requirement. It advised that the document be written in such a manner that it can remain for an extended period of time, as it may be needed to prove ownership of the land.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讙讟 讗驻讬诇讜 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讛讗砖讛 讻讜转讘转 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讛讗讬砖 讻讜转讘 讗转 砖讜讘专讜 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讜诐 讛讙讟 讗诇讗 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

MISHNA: Anyone is qualified to write a bill of divorce, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. Additionally, a woman may write her own bill of divorce and give it to her husband so that he can present it to her. And a man may write his own receipt, which must be given to him by the woman to confirm that he has paid her the value of her marriage contract. This is because the ratification of a bill of divorce is only through its signatories, and it is irrelevant who wrote it.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讚讬注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But how can a deaf-mute, imbecile, or a minor write a bill of divorce? They are not halakhically competent, and they are not capable of writing a bill of divorce with the intent that it be for a particular woman. Rav Huna says:

  • 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 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 22

讚砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬拽讟讜诐

as he can take the pot with the leaf inside it and give it to her. Rava says that it is invalid. Although it should be valid if he gave her the leaf together with the potted plant, the Sages instituted a decree that it is invalid, lest one detach the leaf and give it to her. In that case, all agree that a bill of divorce that is fully written while attached is invalid.

注爪讬抓 砖诇 讗讞讚 讜讝专注讬诐 砖诇 讗讞专 诪讻专 讘注诇 注爪讬抓 诇讘注诇 讝专注讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖诪砖讱 拽谞讛 诪讻专 讘注诇 讝专注讬诐 诇讘注诇 注爪讬抓 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬拽 讘讝专注讬诐

搂 The Gemara has another discussion with regard to a perforated pot: In the case of a pot that belongs to one person and the plants in it belong to another person, if the owner of the pot sold it to the owner of the plants, then once the owner of the plants pulled the pot, he has acquired the pot, as it is a movable object, which can be acquired via pulling. However, if the owner of the plants sold the plants to the owner of the pot, then the owner of the pot does not acquire the plants until he takes possession of the plants themselves, e.g., by raking or weeding the dirt surrounding them. Since the plants are considered to be attached to the ground, as they are in a perforated pot, they are considered to be part of the ground, which cannot be acquired by pulling.

注爪讬抓 讜讝专注讬诐 砖诇 讗讞讚 讜诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讝专注讬诐 拽谞讛 注爪讬抓 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

If the pot and plants belong to one person, and he sold them to another person, then once the buyer took possession of the plants and acquired them, he acquired the pot as well. And this is an example of the principle that we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, through the giving of money, or with a document, or by taking possession. Therefore, once one takes possession of the plants, which are considered to be like land, he also acquires the pot, which is a movable object.

讛讞讝讬拽 讘注爪讬抓 讗祝 注爪讬抓 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬拽 讘讝专注讬诐

However, if the buyer took possession of just the pot, then he does not even acquire the pot, as movable property cannot be acquired through taking possession, until he takes possession of the plants. To acquire the pot, one must either perform an act of acquisition specific to movable items, such as pulling, or acquire the plants through taking possession of them, resulting in the acquisition of the pot, as stated earlier.

谞拽讘讜 讘讗专抓 讜谞讜驻讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘转专 谞拽讘讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘转专 谞讜驻讜 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara discusses another issue with regard to perforated pots: If a perforated pot was on the border of Eretz Yisrael, and its perforation was in Eretz Yisrael but its branches were outside of Eretz Yisrael, then what is the halakha with regard to mitzvot that apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, such as terumot and tithes? Abaye said: We follow its perforation, and it is considered to be growing in Eretz Yisrael. Rava said: We follow its branches, and it is considered to be growing outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讘讚讗砖专讜砖 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚诇讗 讗砖专讜砖

The Gemara notes: In a case where the plant in the pot took root in the ground, everyone agrees that it has the status of a plant that grows in the place where its roots are. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where it did not take root. Since its roots are contained within the pot, there is a disagreement whether we follow the perforation or the branches in determining its status.

讜讘讚讗砖专讜砖 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞谉 砖转讬 讙讬谞讜转 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讜讬专拽 讘讬谞转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诇 注诇讬讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 转讞转讜谉

The Gemara challenges: And do they not disagree with regard to a case where it took root? Do all agree that its status is determined by where the roots are? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 118b): In a case of two gardens that belong to two different people that are on adjacent terraces one above the other, and leafy vegetables are growing between them on the wall of the step between the two gardens, Rabbi Meir says: These leafy vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden, and Rabbi Yehuda says: These leafy vegetables belong to the owner of the lower garden. In this case, the roots emerge from the upper garden, but the vegetables grow into the airspace of the lower garden. This seems to be analogous to the case where the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and the branches are outside of Eretz Yisrael, or vice versa, and there is a dispute as to who is the owner of the vegetables.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 注诇讬讜谉 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 注驻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽

The Gemara makes a distinction between the two cases: There, in the case cited in the mishna in Bava Metzia, the reason for that halakha is as is taught in the mishna, that Rabbi Meir said: What if the owner of the upper garden would wish to take his earth? This would result in a situation where there are no more vegetables, as the vegetables would not have earth from which to draw nutrients. The fact that the owner of the upper garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讛转讞转讜谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讗转 讙谞转讜 注驻专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽

Rabbi Yehuda said: What if the owner of the lower garden would wish to fill the airspace above his garden with earth? This would result in a situation where there are no more vegetables, as they would be covered in the earth added by the owner of the lower garden. The fact that the owner of the lower garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner. Their dispute is not with regard to how to define where the vegetables are growing; rather, they disagree with regard to who has control over the continued existence of these plants. Therefore, this dispute is not related to the issue of the plant that is growing on the border.

讜讗讻转讬 讘讚讗砖专讜砖 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬诇谉 诪拽爪转讜 讘讗专抓 讜诪拽爪转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讟讘诇 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讙讚诇 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: But still, do they not disagree with regard to a case where the plant took root? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃srot 2:22): If there is a tree, and part of it is in Eretz Yisrael and part of it is outside of Eretz Yisrael, then untithed produce and non-sacred produce are mixed together in each one of these tree鈥檚 fruits; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The fruits in the part of the tree that is growing in a place that has an obligation to separate tithes, in Eretz Yisrael, are obligated. And the fruits that are growing in a place that has an exemption from separating tithes, outside of Eretz Yisrael, are exempt.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪拽爪转 谞讜驻讜 讘讗专抓 讜诪拽爪转 谞讜驻讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

What, is it not discussing a case where some of its branches are in Eretz Yisrael and some of its branches are outside of Eretz Yisrael, although its roots are in one of the two locations, and both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agree that the place of the roots does not define the status of the tree?

诇讗 诪拽爪转 砖专砖讬谉 讘讗专抓 讜诪拽爪转 砖专砖讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪驻住讬拽 爪讜谞诪讗

The Gemara rejects this: No, it discusses a case where some of the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and some of the roots are outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? It is not possible to determine which fruits drew nutrients from which roots, so how can he rule that some of the fruits are obligated in tithes and some are not? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where a rock divides the roots up to the trunk, and therefore it is possible to distinguish between the parts of the tree that draw nutrients from Eretz Yisrael and the parts that draw nutrients from outside of Eretz Yisrael.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讛讚专讬 注专讘讬

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the roots are clearly distinguishable, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Why does he view the fruits as being a mixture? The Gemara answers: He holds that although there is a division between the roots, they cannot be distinguished from one another, as they then become mixed in the body of the tree.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讜讬专讗 诪讘诇讘诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds: The air above the ground mixes the nutrients, and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds: This part of the tree stands alone and this part of the tree stands alone. From the roots up to the branches, it is as if the tree were cut along the line of the border.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗住讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注讜专讜转 讛谉 诪爪讛 讞讬驻讛 讜讚讬驻转专讗

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that one may not write a bill of divorce on a material that enables forgery. Consequently, one may not write a bill of divorce on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara now clarifies what is defined as unfinished leather. Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides, i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides. At each stage, the hide has a different name: Matza, 岣fa, and diftera.

诪爪讛 讻诪砖诪注讜 讚诇讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讚诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜讚诇讗 讗驻讬抓 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚拽转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讚讬 诇爪讜专 诪砖拽诇 拽讟谞讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚专讬讘注讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

Matza, as per its plain meaning, with no additives. It is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. The Gemara clarifies: For what halakha is this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches: It is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And how big is this small weight? Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita.

讞讬驻讛 讚诪诇讬讞 讜诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 讗驻讬抓 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚转谞谉 注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 拽诪讬注

岣fa is hide that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what halakha was this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 78b): The measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet.

讚讬驻转专讗 讚诪诇讬讞 讜拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 讗驻讬抓 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙讟

Diftera is hide that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what halakha was this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to the amount on which a bill of divorce is written.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The mishna taught that the Rabbis deem valid bills of divorce that were written on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara asks: Who are these Rabbis? The amora Rabbi Elazar said:

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

It is the opinion of the tanna Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. Since the witnesses read the bill of divorce before it is transmitted in their presence, they may be relied upon to confirm the contents of the bill of divorce in court. Therefore, even if it was written on erased paper, there is no possibility that it would be forged, as the witnesses read what was written before it is given.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 诇讗诇转专 讗讘诇 诪讻讗谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 转谞讗讛 讜讝讬讬驻转讬讛

And the amora Rabbi Elazar says: The tanna Rabbi Elazar deemed such a bill of divorce valid only when it was taken to court in order to confirm the contents immediately after it was transferred to the woman. However, if the witnesses testify from now until ten days, i.e., sometime later, he did not deem it valid. Why? We are concerned that perhaps the bill of divorce had a stipulation written on it and she forged it by erasing the stipulation, as this bill of divorce was written on material that enables a person to easily alter what is written. Only if the witnesses testify immediately can the court be sure that they did not forget what is written.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬讛 转谞讗讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if they testify from now until ten days it is valid, as, if it is so that it had a stipulation, then the witnesses will remember it, as they would not forget something so obvious. Therefore, if the woman erased the stipulation, the witnesses would not verify the bill of divorce.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 砖讟专讜转 诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转诐 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 诇诪注谉 讬注诪讚讜 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐

And Rabbi Elazar the amora also says: The tanna Rabbi Elazar deemed valid a document that is written on these surfaces only with regard to bills of divorce but not for other documents, as it is written with regard to a deed of purchase: 鈥淎nd put them in an earthen vessel; so that they will remain many days鈥 (Jeremiah 32:14). This indicates that a deed of purchase and other similar documents must be made from a material that will last for a long time without being changed. A document that can be forged may not be relied upon long term.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讟专讜转 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讬注诪讚讜 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讛转诐 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Elazar deemed these surfaces valid even in the case of other documents. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪o that they will remain many days鈥? The Gemara answers: There the verse teaches us good advice, but it is not a halakhic requirement. It advised that the document be written in such a manner that it can remain for an extended period of time, as it may be needed to prove ownership of the land.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讙讟 讗驻讬诇讜 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讛讗砖讛 讻讜转讘转 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讛讗讬砖 讻讜转讘 讗转 砖讜讘专讜 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讜诐 讛讙讟 讗诇讗 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

MISHNA: Anyone is qualified to write a bill of divorce, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. Additionally, a woman may write her own bill of divorce and give it to her husband so that he can present it to her. And a man may write his own receipt, which must be given to him by the woman to confirm that he has paid her the value of her marriage contract. This is because the ratification of a bill of divorce is only through its signatories, and it is irrelevant who wrote it.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讚讬注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But how can a deaf-mute, imbecile, or a minor write a bill of divorce? They are not halakhically competent, and they are not capable of writing a bill of divorce with the intent that it be for a particular woman. Rav Huna says:

Scroll To Top