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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 5, 2016 | 讻状讚 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 23

Who can write a get?聽Who can bring a get? 聽 How can we allow those without intellectual capabilities to write the get if it needs to be lishma? 聽Can a slave bring a get?

Study Guide Gittin 23


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讛讜讗 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜

And that is the case only when there was an adult standing over him. When the adult supervises the writing, and instructs him to write it for her sake, it will be valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讜讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻砖专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 驻住讜诇 讙讜讬 诇讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讚

Rav Na岣an said to him: If that is so, that anyone who is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce may do so with an adult supervising him, then if the one writing is a gentile, and a Jew stands over him and instructs him to write it for her sake, would you also say that it is valid? And if you would say that it is also valid, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A gentile is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce in any event? Rav Huna answered: A gentile acts based on his own will. Since he is halakhically competent, he will have his own intentions while writing and may not be relied upon to carry out the intentions of the supervisor. In the case of the mishna, since those doing the writing are not halakhically competent, they will write according to the instructions of the supervisor.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诪讚拽讗 驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬 诇注谞讬谉 讛讘讗讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇注谞讬谉 讻转讬讘讛 讻砖专

Rav Na岣an then said: What I said when I raised a challenge from a case involving a gentile is not correct, as from the fact that the mishna later disqualifies a gentile with regard to acting as an agent in the bringing of the bill of divorce, one can learn by inference that he is qualified with regard to writing, where he is not listed among those who are disqualified.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 驻住讜诇 讛讛讬讗 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 讜讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讙讜讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽注讘讬讚

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a gentile is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and when the verse states: 鈥淎nd he writes her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), which is the source for the halakha that the writing needs to be done for her sake, it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce and not to its signing. Therefore, we need the writing to be for her sake, and certainly a gentile acts based on his own will and may not be relied upon to write the bill of divorce according to the instructions of a supervisor.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专

With regard to the requirement that a bill of divorce be written for her sake, Rav Na岣an says that Rabbi Meir would have said: Even if the husband found the bill of divorce in the garbage dump, and the names written on it happened to be the same as his and his wife鈥檚 names, if he had it signed by witnesses and he gave it to her, then it is valid, because the essential requirement is that it be signed for her sake.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻转讬讘转 讛讙讟 诇讗 讞转讬诪转 注讚讬诐

Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he writes her,鈥 which is interpreted to mean that it must be written for her sake. What, is it not referring to the actual writing of the bill of divorce, that it must be written with the intent that it be used to sever this particular marriage? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the signing of the witnesses.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 讻诇 讙讟 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 驻住讜诇 讗讬诪讗 砖谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 驻住讜诇

Rava raised another objection to him based on what was taught in a mishna (24a): Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. He responded: Say that according Rabbi Meir the mishna teaches: Any bill of divorce that was not signed for the sake of a specific woman is invalid.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜转讘讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讻讜转讘讜 诇砖诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜转讘讜 诇转讜专祝 诇砖诪讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讻讜转讘讜 诇讟讜驻住 诇砖诪讛

Rava raised another objection to him based on another baraita: When he writes it, it is as though he writes it for her sake, meaning that writing one part for her sake makes it as if the entire document were written for her sake. What, it is not stating that when he writes the essential part of the document, which includes the names of the spouses; the date on which it was written; and the expression: Behold you are permitted to any man, for her sake, then is it as though he writes the standard part of the bill of divorce, containing the rest of the information, for her sake? This baraita indicates that there is a requirement that the bill of divorce, not just the signatures, be written for her sake.

诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讞讜转诪讜 诇砖诪讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讻讜转讘讜 诇砖诪讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 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

Rav Na岣an rejects this: No, Rabbi Meir would explain that this baraita is referring to a case where he has witnesses sign it for her sake; it is as though he wrote it for her sake. And if you wish, say: Who is the tanna of these baraitot from which you raised challenges? They are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. According to him, the verse is referring to the writing and not the signing of the bill of divorce, and the writing must be for her sake.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖砖讬讬专 诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专祝 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讙讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讜讛讜讗 砖砖讬讬专 诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专祝 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And the statement of the mishna that one who is not halakhically competent is qualified to write a bill of divorce is the halakha only when he left unwritten the essential part of the document, which will be written later by a halakhically competent person, as only the essential part must be written for her sake. And so Rabbi 岣gga says in the name of Ulla: And this is the halakha only when he left the essential part of the document unwritten, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that the writing of the essential part must be done for her sake.

讜专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谞讛 转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讻讗谉 讛讜讚讬注讱 砖讗讬谉 讻讞 诇砖诪讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

And Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is not Torah. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by the expression: It is not Torah? Rabbi Abba says: Here Rabbi Yo岣nan informs you that there is no force to a requirement that a bill of divorce be written for her sake, as only the signing needs to be done for her sake. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say earlier that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? How, then, can Rabbi Abba say that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: They are amora鈥檌m and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, whether he explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or that of Rabbi Elazar.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜住讜诪讗 讜讙讜讬

MISHNA: Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or a blind person, or a gentile.

拽讬讘诇 讛拽讟谉 讜讛讙讚讬诇 讞专砖 讜谞转驻拽讞 住讜诪讗 讜谞转驻转讞 砖讜讟讛 讜谞砖转驻讛 讙讜讬 讜谞转讙讬讬专 驻住讜诇

If a minor received the bill of divorce and then reached the age of majority, or one received it when he was a deaf-mute and then became able to hear, or one received it when he was blind and then became able to see, or one received it when he was an imbecile and then became halakhically competent, or one received it when he was a gentile and then converted, in all of these cases he is unfit to bring the bill of divorce.

讗讘诇 驻拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻拽讞 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讻砖专 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讚注转 讻砖专

However, if one received it when he was able to hear, and then became a deaf-mute, and then again became able to hear; or if one received it when he was able to see, and then became blind, and then again became able to see; or one received it when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and then again became halakhically competent, in all of these cases he is fit to bring the bill of divorce. This is the principle: Anyone who is halakhically competent in the beginning and in the end is fit, even if there was time in the interim when he was unfit.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讚讬注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讛讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 住讜诪讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪诪讬 谞讜讟诇讜 讜诇诪讬 谞讜转谞讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to those the mishna lists as not being qualified to bring a bill of divorce: Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are not qualified because they are not halakhically competent, and only one who is competent can be appointed as an agent. Additionally, a gentile also is not qualified, as he is not subject to the halakhot that permit a woman to remarry via a bill of divorce. A person cannot serve as an agent for a matter that does not apply to him. But why isn鈥檛 a blind person qualified to bring a bill of divorce? Rav Sheshet says: Because he does not know from whom he takes it and to whom he gives it, and since he is unaware of this he will not be able to testify about it.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗讱 住讜诪讗 诪讜转专 讘讗砖转讜 讛讬讗讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讘谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讚拽诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讚拽诇讗

Rav Yosef objects to this: If there is a concern that a blind person cannot distinguish between different people, then how is a blind man permitted to have sexual relations with his wife? How does he know that she is in fact his wife? Similarly, how are all people permitted to have sexual relations with their wives at night? If it is dark, they cannot see them. Rather, you must say that they are permitted through voice recognition [teviut eina dekala]. They can recognize each other based on their voices. Here too, with regard to a blind person, he can recognize the giver and receiver of the bill of divorce through voice recognition.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬诪专

Rather, Rav Yosef says: Here we are dealing with a husband who sends a bill of divorce to his wife outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the agent needs to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and a blind man cannot say this because he is unable to see it being written or signed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻砖专 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 讻砖专 讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 诇讗

Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then a person who is able to see when he receives the bill of divorce and then becomes blind, who can say: It was written and signed in my presence, as he was able to see when it was written and signed, would you say that he is also fit to bring the bill of divorce? But it is taught in the mishna: If one received it when he was able to see, and then became blind, and then again became able to see, then he is fit to bring the bill of divorce. It can be inferred from here that only when he again became able to see, yes, he may bring it. But if he did not again become able to see, then no, he may not bring it.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 诇讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞

The Gemara answers this question: In fact, with regard to a blind person, the same is true, that although he did not again become able to see he can serve as an agent to bring the bill of divorce and testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And why does it teach that the blind man became able to see again? Since the mishna teaches that one who received the bill of divorce when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and then again became halakhically competent is qualified to bring the bill of divorce. And in that case, the reason why he is qualified is specifically that he again became halakhically competent, but if he did not again become halakhically competent, then he is not qualified. Therefore, the mishna also teaches with regard to one who was able to see that he then became blind and then again became able to see.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讚注转 讻砖专 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讻砖专讜转 讻砖专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches that this is the principle: Anyone who is halakhically competent in the beginning and in the end is fit, and it does not teach: Anyone who is fit in the beginning and the end is fit. Learn from the mishna that it is not necessary for him to be fit in the beginning and the end, as there are times that being fit in the beginning is sufficient, as in the case of one who became blind after witnessing the writing and signing of the bill of divorce. However, it is clear that he must be halakhically competent both in the beginning and the end, which a blind person is.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讘讚 诪讛讜 砖讬注砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讚拽讗 驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬

They raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: With regard to a slave, what is the halakha? Can he be made an agent to receive a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce from the hand of her husband? Is he qualified to act as an agent or not? He said to them: From the fact that the mishna disqualified a gentile,

诪讻诇诇 讚注讘讚 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 谞注砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讙讬讟讬谉 讜拽讚讜砖讬谉

one can learn by inference that a slave is fit. Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A slave cannot become an agent to receive a bill of divorce for a woman from the hand of her husband, because he is not included in the halakhot of divorce and betrothal, and one can act as an agent only in a matter that applies to him.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟注诪讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讛讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讻砖专

Rabbi Elazar objects to this explanation as to why a slave cannot act as an agent: The reason that a slave is unfit is that this agency pertains to a matter whose halakhot he is not included in, but for a matter whose halakhot he is included in, i.e., a mitzva that applies to a slave, is he fit to serve as an agent?

讜讛讗 讙讜讬 讜讛讗 讻讜转讬 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘转讜专转 转专讜诪讛 讚谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讛讻讜转讬 砖转专诪讜 诪砖诇讛诐 转专讜诪转诐 转专讜诪讛 讜转谞谉 讙讜讬 砖转专诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

But what of a gentile and a Samaritan,who are included in the halakhot of teruma with regard to their own produce, i.e., they must designate a portion of it for the priest, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:9): With regard to a gentile and a Samaritan that separated teruma from their own produce, their teruma is considered teruma. And yet we learned in a different mishna (Terumot 1:1): In the case of a gentile who separated teruma from a Jew鈥檚 produce, i.e., acted as his agent, even if he did so with permission from the Jew, his teruma is not teruma.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 (讗转诐) 讙诐 讗转诐 诪讛 讗转诐 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 砖诇讜讞讻诐 讬砖专讗诇

What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is written 鈥測ou鈥 in the verse that is the source for the halakhot of agency: 鈥淪o you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:28), and the Sages expound the expression 鈥渟o you also鈥 to mean the following: Just as you, the ones appointing the agents, are Jews, so too, your agents must be Jews. Since slaves are not full-fledged Jews, they should be disqualified from ever acting as agents, even in a matter in which they are included in its halakhot.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 诪讛 讗转诐 讘谞讬 讘专讬转 讗祝 砖诇讜讞讻诐 讘谞讬 讘专讬转

The Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: No, the verse should be expounded in the following manner: Just as you, the ones appointing the agents, are members of the covenant, so too, your agents must be members of the covenant. Gentiles cannot serve as agents because they are not members of the covenant. Slaves, whose masters are commanded to circumcise them and who are obligated in some of the mitzvot, are members of the covenant, and they can serve as agents in a matter in which they are included in its halakhot.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 谞注砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讙讬讟讬谉 讜拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛专讬 讗转 砖驻讞讛 讜讜诇讚讱 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗诐 讛讬转讛 注讜讘专讛 讝讻转讛 诇讜

The Gemara quotes a related statement: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A slave cannot become an agent to receive a bill of divorce for a woman from the hand of her husband, because he is not included in the halakhot of divorce and betrothal. And although we learned: If a person said to his female slave: Behold you are still a maidservant and your unborn child is a freeman, if she was pregnant at that time, then she acquired freedom for the unborn child.

诪讗讬 讗诐 讛讬转讛 注讜讘专讛 讝讻转讛 诇讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 讗诪专 谞专讗讬诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛注讘讚 诪拽讘诇 讙讟 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讬讚 专讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讬讚 专讘讜 砖诇讜

The Gemara first clarifies: What is the connection between the initial statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and the clause: If she was pregnant at that time, she acquired freedom for the unborn child? When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came, he said: Rabbi Yo岣nan said two distinct statements: The first statement was that a slave cannot be appointed as an agent to receive a bill of divorce for a woman from her husband, and the other was: It appears that a slave can receive a bill of manumission for his fellow slave from the hand of his fellow鈥檚 master, but not from the hand of his own master if both of them are enslaved by the same person.

讜讗诐 诇讞砖讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 砖谞讜讬讛 讗诐 讛讬转讛 注讜讘专讛 讝讻转讛 诇讜 讗诪讜专 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 驻讬专砖讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽

And if a person will whisper a question to you, saying: This ruling, that a slave cannot receive a bill of manumission for his fellow slave from their common master, is difficult, as a halakha was taught that states the opposite: If a maidservant was pregnant at that time, then she acquired freedom for the unborn child, and the child and mother both belong to the same master, then say to him that two greats of the generation already explained the matter, and they are Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k.

讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛诪砖讞专专 讞爪讬 注讘讚讜 拽谞讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讘讛讗 拽住讘专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛拽谞讛 诇讛 讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讛

One of them said: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: With regard to one who emancipates half of his slave, the slave acquires freedom for half of himself, and one of them added an explanation and said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for this ruling? He holds: A fetus is considered as its mother鈥檚 thigh, i.e., a part of its mother鈥檚 body, and it is as though the master transferred ownership of one of her limbs to her. Since the maidservant is pregnant, the child is considered to be a part of her, and it is as though he emancipated a portion of her body. Therefore, the mother is not acting as an agent for the child, and this halakha does not present a difficulty for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion.

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 讛谞砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讞诪讜转讛 讜讘转 讞诪讜转讛 讜爪专转讛 讜讬讘诪转讛 讜讘转 讘注诇讛

MISHNA: There are instances in which a woman鈥檚 testimony that another woman鈥檚 husband has died is not deemed credible (Yevamot 117a). If there is a presumption that due to their familial relationship the two women hate each other, there is concern that the woman is testifying falsely in order to harm the other woman. By doing so, she can cause the other woman to remarry. If her original husband then proves to be living, she will be required to leave her second husband. This mishna teaches: Even the women who are not deemed credible to testify on behalf of a woman and say: Her husband died, and she is permitted to remarry, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce. The relatives of the woman who are not deemed credible to testify that her husband has died are: Her mother-in-law; and her mother-in-law鈥檚 daughter; and her rival wife, i.e., another wife of her husband鈥檚; and her yevama, i.e., her husband鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife; and her husband鈥檚 daughter.

诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讟 诇诪讬转讛 砖讛讻转讘 诪讜讻讬讞 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

The mishna explains: What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death, that certain women are deemed credible to testify about one but not the other? With regard to a bill of divorce, it is so that the writing proves that the husband is divorcing his wife, and the testimony is needed only to supplement the bill of divorce. Similarly, the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讻讗谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Just as these women are not deemed credible to say: Her husband died, so too, they are not deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult. Here, this mishna is referring to a case that took place in Eretz Yisrael. There, the baraita is referring to a case that took place outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讘讗专抓 讚诇讗讜 讗讚讬讘讜专讛 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讛 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗

The Gemara explains the difference: In a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael, where, to validate the bill of divorce we do not rely on her statement of: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, she serves only as an agent. Consequently, she is deemed credible to bring the bill of divorce. However, in a case that takes place outside of Eretz Yisrael, where we rely on her statement of: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and no one can contest the validity of the bill of divorce after her statement has been accepted, she is not deemed credible, as there is a concern that this woman may be intentionally lying in order to cause harm.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讘讗专抓 讚讗讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 诪砖讙讞讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讜谞讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable, and the distinction should be: In Eretz Yisrael, where if the husband were to come and contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we would pay attention to him and rule that they are not divorced, where it could be said that the woman who hates her intends to do her harm by having her remarry based on a bill of divorce that was later contested, she is not deemed credible. However, outside of Eretz Yisrael, where if the husband were to come and contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we would not pay attention to him, she is deemed credible, as she does not have the power to make trouble for the other woman and cause her to have to leave her second husband.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖讛 谞讗诪谞转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛 讛讬讗 砖谞讗诪谞转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪谞转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Abaye (Tosefta 2:6): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: A woman is deemed credible to bring her own bill of divorce through an a fortiori inference: Just as women about whom the Sages said: They are not deemed credible to say: Her husband died, are nevertheless deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce, with regard to the woman herself, who is deemed credible to say that her husband died, is it not right that she is deemed credible to bring her own bill of divorce?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 23

讜讛讜讗 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜

And that is the case only when there was an adult standing over him. When the adult supervises the writing, and instructs him to write it for her sake, it will be valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讜讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻砖专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 驻住讜诇 讙讜讬 诇讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讚

Rav Na岣an said to him: If that is so, that anyone who is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce may do so with an adult supervising him, then if the one writing is a gentile, and a Jew stands over him and instructs him to write it for her sake, would you also say that it is valid? And if you would say that it is also valid, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A gentile is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce in any event? Rav Huna answered: A gentile acts based on his own will. Since he is halakhically competent, he will have his own intentions while writing and may not be relied upon to carry out the intentions of the supervisor. In the case of the mishna, since those doing the writing are not halakhically competent, they will write according to the instructions of the supervisor.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诪讚拽讗 驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬 诇注谞讬谉 讛讘讗讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇注谞讬谉 讻转讬讘讛 讻砖专

Rav Na岣an then said: What I said when I raised a challenge from a case involving a gentile is not correct, as from the fact that the mishna later disqualifies a gentile with regard to acting as an agent in the bringing of the bill of divorce, one can learn by inference that he is qualified with regard to writing, where he is not listed among those who are disqualified.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 驻住讜诇 讛讛讬讗 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 讜讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讙讜讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽注讘讬讚

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a gentile is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and when the verse states: 鈥淎nd he writes her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), which is the source for the halakha that the writing needs to be done for her sake, it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce and not to its signing. Therefore, we need the writing to be for her sake, and certainly a gentile acts based on his own will and may not be relied upon to write the bill of divorce according to the instructions of a supervisor.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专

With regard to the requirement that a bill of divorce be written for her sake, Rav Na岣an says that Rabbi Meir would have said: Even if the husband found the bill of divorce in the garbage dump, and the names written on it happened to be the same as his and his wife鈥檚 names, if he had it signed by witnesses and he gave it to her, then it is valid, because the essential requirement is that it be signed for her sake.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻转讬讘转 讛讙讟 诇讗 讞转讬诪转 注讚讬诐

Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he writes her,鈥 which is interpreted to mean that it must be written for her sake. What, is it not referring to the actual writing of the bill of divorce, that it must be written with the intent that it be used to sever this particular marriage? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the signing of the witnesses.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 讻诇 讙讟 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 驻住讜诇 讗讬诪讗 砖谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 驻住讜诇

Rava raised another objection to him based on what was taught in a mishna (24a): Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. He responded: Say that according Rabbi Meir the mishna teaches: Any bill of divorce that was not signed for the sake of a specific woman is invalid.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜转讘讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讻讜转讘讜 诇砖诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讻讜转讘讜 诇转讜专祝 诇砖诪讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讻讜转讘讜 诇讟讜驻住 诇砖诪讛

Rava raised another objection to him based on another baraita: When he writes it, it is as though he writes it for her sake, meaning that writing one part for her sake makes it as if the entire document were written for her sake. What, it is not stating that when he writes the essential part of the document, which includes the names of the spouses; the date on which it was written; and the expression: Behold you are permitted to any man, for her sake, then is it as though he writes the standard part of the bill of divorce, containing the rest of the information, for her sake? This baraita indicates that there is a requirement that the bill of divorce, not just the signatures, be written for her sake.

诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讞讜转诪讜 诇砖诪讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讻讜转讘讜 诇砖诪讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 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

Rav Na岣an rejects this: No, Rabbi Meir would explain that this baraita is referring to a case where he has witnesses sign it for her sake; it is as though he wrote it for her sake. And if you wish, say: Who is the tanna of these baraitot from which you raised challenges? They are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. According to him, the verse is referring to the writing and not the signing of the bill of divorce, and the writing must be for her sake.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖砖讬讬专 诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专祝 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讙讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讜讛讜讗 砖砖讬讬专 诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专祝 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And the statement of the mishna that one who is not halakhically competent is qualified to write a bill of divorce is the halakha only when he left unwritten the essential part of the document, which will be written later by a halakhically competent person, as only the essential part must be written for her sake. And so Rabbi 岣gga says in the name of Ulla: And this is the halakha only when he left the essential part of the document unwritten, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that the writing of the essential part must be done for her sake.

讜专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谞讛 转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讻讗谉 讛讜讚讬注讱 砖讗讬谉 讻讞 诇砖诪讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

And Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is not Torah. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by the expression: It is not Torah? Rabbi Abba says: Here Rabbi Yo岣nan informs you that there is no force to a requirement that a bill of divorce be written for her sake, as only the signing needs to be done for her sake. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say earlier that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? How, then, can Rabbi Abba say that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: They are amora鈥檌m and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, whether he explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or that of Rabbi Elazar.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜住讜诪讗 讜讙讜讬

MISHNA: Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or a blind person, or a gentile.

拽讬讘诇 讛拽讟谉 讜讛讙讚讬诇 讞专砖 讜谞转驻拽讞 住讜诪讗 讜谞转驻转讞 砖讜讟讛 讜谞砖转驻讛 讙讜讬 讜谞转讙讬讬专 驻住讜诇

If a minor received the bill of divorce and then reached the age of majority, or one received it when he was a deaf-mute and then became able to hear, or one received it when he was blind and then became able to see, or one received it when he was an imbecile and then became halakhically competent, or one received it when he was a gentile and then converted, in all of these cases he is unfit to bring the bill of divorce.

讗讘诇 驻拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻拽讞 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讻砖专 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讚注转 讻砖专

However, if one received it when he was able to hear, and then became a deaf-mute, and then again became able to hear; or if one received it when he was able to see, and then became blind, and then again became able to see; or one received it when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and then again became halakhically competent, in all of these cases he is fit to bring the bill of divorce. This is the principle: Anyone who is halakhically competent in the beginning and in the end is fit, even if there was time in the interim when he was unfit.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讚讬注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讛讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 住讜诪讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪诪讬 谞讜讟诇讜 讜诇诪讬 谞讜转谞讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to those the mishna lists as not being qualified to bring a bill of divorce: Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are not qualified because they are not halakhically competent, and only one who is competent can be appointed as an agent. Additionally, a gentile also is not qualified, as he is not subject to the halakhot that permit a woman to remarry via a bill of divorce. A person cannot serve as an agent for a matter that does not apply to him. But why isn鈥檛 a blind person qualified to bring a bill of divorce? Rav Sheshet says: Because he does not know from whom he takes it and to whom he gives it, and since he is unaware of this he will not be able to testify about it.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗讱 住讜诪讗 诪讜转专 讘讗砖转讜 讛讬讗讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讘谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讚拽诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讚拽诇讗

Rav Yosef objects to this: If there is a concern that a blind person cannot distinguish between different people, then how is a blind man permitted to have sexual relations with his wife? How does he know that she is in fact his wife? Similarly, how are all people permitted to have sexual relations with their wives at night? If it is dark, they cannot see them. Rather, you must say that they are permitted through voice recognition [teviut eina dekala]. They can recognize each other based on their voices. Here too, with regard to a blind person, he can recognize the giver and receiver of the bill of divorce through voice recognition.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬诪专

Rather, Rav Yosef says: Here we are dealing with a husband who sends a bill of divorce to his wife outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the agent needs to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and a blind man cannot say this because he is unable to see it being written or signed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻砖专 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 讻砖专 讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 诇讗

Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then a person who is able to see when he receives the bill of divorce and then becomes blind, who can say: It was written and signed in my presence, as he was able to see when it was written and signed, would you say that he is also fit to bring the bill of divorce? But it is taught in the mishna: If one received it when he was able to see, and then became blind, and then again became able to see, then he is fit to bring the bill of divorce. It can be inferred from here that only when he again became able to see, yes, he may bring it. But if he did not again become able to see, then no, he may not bring it.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 诇讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞

The Gemara answers this question: In fact, with regard to a blind person, the same is true, that although he did not again become able to see he can serve as an agent to bring the bill of divorce and testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And why does it teach that the blind man became able to see again? Since the mishna teaches that one who received the bill of divorce when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and then again became halakhically competent is qualified to bring the bill of divorce. And in that case, the reason why he is qualified is specifically that he again became halakhically competent, but if he did not again become halakhically competent, then he is not qualified. Therefore, the mishna also teaches with regard to one who was able to see that he then became blind and then again became able to see.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讚注转 讻砖专 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讻砖专讜转 讻砖专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches that this is the principle: Anyone who is halakhically competent in the beginning and in the end is fit, and it does not teach: Anyone who is fit in the beginning and the end is fit. Learn from the mishna that it is not necessary for him to be fit in the beginning and the end, as there are times that being fit in the beginning is sufficient, as in the case of one who became blind after witnessing the writing and signing of the bill of divorce. However, it is clear that he must be halakhically competent both in the beginning and the end, which a blind person is.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讘讚 诪讛讜 砖讬注砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讚拽讗 驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讙讜讬

They raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: With regard to a slave, what is the halakha? Can he be made an agent to receive a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce from the hand of her husband? Is he qualified to act as an agent or not? He said to them: From the fact that the mishna disqualified a gentile,

诪讻诇诇 讚注讘讚 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 谞注砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讙讬讟讬谉 讜拽讚讜砖讬谉

one can learn by inference that a slave is fit. Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A slave cannot become an agent to receive a bill of divorce for a woman from the hand of her husband, because he is not included in the halakhot of divorce and betrothal, and one can act as an agent only in a matter that applies to him.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟注诪讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讛讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讻砖专

Rabbi Elazar objects to this explanation as to why a slave cannot act as an agent: The reason that a slave is unfit is that this agency pertains to a matter whose halakhot he is not included in, but for a matter whose halakhot he is included in, i.e., a mitzva that applies to a slave, is he fit to serve as an agent?

讜讛讗 讙讜讬 讜讛讗 讻讜转讬 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘转讜专转 转专讜诪讛 讚谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讛讻讜转讬 砖转专诪讜 诪砖诇讛诐 转专讜诪转诐 转专讜诪讛 讜转谞谉 讙讜讬 砖转专诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

But what of a gentile and a Samaritan,who are included in the halakhot of teruma with regard to their own produce, i.e., they must designate a portion of it for the priest, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:9): With regard to a gentile and a Samaritan that separated teruma from their own produce, their teruma is considered teruma. And yet we learned in a different mishna (Terumot 1:1): In the case of a gentile who separated teruma from a Jew鈥檚 produce, i.e., acted as his agent, even if he did so with permission from the Jew, his teruma is not teruma.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 (讗转诐) 讙诐 讗转诐 诪讛 讗转诐 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 砖诇讜讞讻诐 讬砖专讗诇

What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is written 鈥測ou鈥 in the verse that is the source for the halakhot of agency: 鈥淪o you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:28), and the Sages expound the expression 鈥渟o you also鈥 to mean the following: Just as you, the ones appointing the agents, are Jews, so too, your agents must be Jews. Since slaves are not full-fledged Jews, they should be disqualified from ever acting as agents, even in a matter in which they are included in its halakhot.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 诪讛 讗转诐 讘谞讬 讘专讬转 讗祝 砖诇讜讞讻诐 讘谞讬 讘专讬转

The Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: No, the verse should be expounded in the following manner: Just as you, the ones appointing the agents, are members of the covenant, so too, your agents must be members of the covenant. Gentiles cannot serve as agents because they are not members of the covenant. Slaves, whose masters are commanded to circumcise them and who are obligated in some of the mitzvot, are members of the covenant, and they can serve as agents in a matter in which they are included in its halakhot.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 谞注砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讙讬讟讬谉 讜拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛专讬 讗转 砖驻讞讛 讜讜诇讚讱 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗诐 讛讬转讛 注讜讘专讛 讝讻转讛 诇讜

The Gemara quotes a related statement: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A slave cannot become an agent to receive a bill of divorce for a woman from the hand of her husband, because he is not included in the halakhot of divorce and betrothal. And although we learned: If a person said to his female slave: Behold you are still a maidservant and your unborn child is a freeman, if she was pregnant at that time, then she acquired freedom for the unborn child.

诪讗讬 讗诐 讛讬转讛 注讜讘专讛 讝讻转讛 诇讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 讗诪专 谞专讗讬诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛注讘讚 诪拽讘诇 讙讟 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讬讚 专讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讬讚 专讘讜 砖诇讜

The Gemara first clarifies: What is the connection between the initial statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and the clause: If she was pregnant at that time, she acquired freedom for the unborn child? When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came, he said: Rabbi Yo岣nan said two distinct statements: The first statement was that a slave cannot be appointed as an agent to receive a bill of divorce for a woman from her husband, and the other was: It appears that a slave can receive a bill of manumission for his fellow slave from the hand of his fellow鈥檚 master, but not from the hand of his own master if both of them are enslaved by the same person.

讜讗诐 诇讞砖讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 砖谞讜讬讛 讗诐 讛讬转讛 注讜讘专讛 讝讻转讛 诇讜 讗诪讜专 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 驻讬专砖讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽

And if a person will whisper a question to you, saying: This ruling, that a slave cannot receive a bill of manumission for his fellow slave from their common master, is difficult, as a halakha was taught that states the opposite: If a maidservant was pregnant at that time, then she acquired freedom for the unborn child, and the child and mother both belong to the same master, then say to him that two greats of the generation already explained the matter, and they are Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k.

讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛诪砖讞专专 讞爪讬 注讘讚讜 拽谞讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讘讛讗 拽住讘专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛拽谞讛 诇讛 讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讛

One of them said: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: With regard to one who emancipates half of his slave, the slave acquires freedom for half of himself, and one of them added an explanation and said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for this ruling? He holds: A fetus is considered as its mother鈥檚 thigh, i.e., a part of its mother鈥檚 body, and it is as though the master transferred ownership of one of her limbs to her. Since the maidservant is pregnant, the child is considered to be a part of her, and it is as though he emancipated a portion of her body. Therefore, the mother is not acting as an agent for the child, and this halakha does not present a difficulty for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion.

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 讛谞砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讞诪讜转讛 讜讘转 讞诪讜转讛 讜爪专转讛 讜讬讘诪转讛 讜讘转 讘注诇讛

MISHNA: There are instances in which a woman鈥檚 testimony that another woman鈥檚 husband has died is not deemed credible (Yevamot 117a). If there is a presumption that due to their familial relationship the two women hate each other, there is concern that the woman is testifying falsely in order to harm the other woman. By doing so, she can cause the other woman to remarry. If her original husband then proves to be living, she will be required to leave her second husband. This mishna teaches: Even the women who are not deemed credible to testify on behalf of a woman and say: Her husband died, and she is permitted to remarry, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce. The relatives of the woman who are not deemed credible to testify that her husband has died are: Her mother-in-law; and her mother-in-law鈥檚 daughter; and her rival wife, i.e., another wife of her husband鈥檚; and her yevama, i.e., her husband鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife; and her husband鈥檚 daughter.

诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讟 诇诪讬转讛 砖讛讻转讘 诪讜讻讬讞 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

The mishna explains: What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death, that certain women are deemed credible to testify about one but not the other? With regard to a bill of divorce, it is so that the writing proves that the husband is divorcing his wife, and the testimony is needed only to supplement the bill of divorce. Similarly, the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讻讗谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Just as these women are not deemed credible to say: Her husband died, so too, they are not deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult. Here, this mishna is referring to a case that took place in Eretz Yisrael. There, the baraita is referring to a case that took place outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讘讗专抓 讚诇讗讜 讗讚讬讘讜专讛 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讛 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗

The Gemara explains the difference: In a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael, where, to validate the bill of divorce we do not rely on her statement of: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, she serves only as an agent. Consequently, she is deemed credible to bring the bill of divorce. However, in a case that takes place outside of Eretz Yisrael, where we rely on her statement of: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and no one can contest the validity of the bill of divorce after her statement has been accepted, she is not deemed credible, as there is a concern that this woman may be intentionally lying in order to cause harm.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讘讗专抓 讚讗讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 诪砖讙讞讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讜谞讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable, and the distinction should be: In Eretz Yisrael, where if the husband were to come and contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we would pay attention to him and rule that they are not divorced, where it could be said that the woman who hates her intends to do her harm by having her remarry based on a bill of divorce that was later contested, she is not deemed credible. However, outside of Eretz Yisrael, where if the husband were to come and contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we would not pay attention to him, she is deemed credible, as she does not have the power to make trouble for the other woman and cause her to have to leave her second husband.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖讛 谞讗诪谞转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛 讛讬讗 砖谞讗诪谞转 诇讜诪专 诪转 讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪谞转 诇讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讛

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Abaye (Tosefta 2:6): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: A woman is deemed credible to bring her own bill of divorce through an a fortiori inference: Just as women about whom the Sages said: They are not deemed credible to say: Her husband died, are nevertheless deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce, with regard to the woman herself, who is deemed credible to say that her husband died, is it not right that she is deemed credible to bring her own bill of divorce?

Scroll To Top