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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 6, 2016 | 讻状讛 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Gittin 24

Are any women believed to be a messenger to bring the get? 聽What if they are characters who are suspected of having ulterior motives (like a mother-in-law)? 聽 Is there a difference if we are talking about a case where they need to say “befanai nichtav u’befanai nechtam?” 聽If so, what is the difference? 聽In which case would a woman bringing her own get from chutz la’aretz need to say聽“befanai nichtav u’befanai nechtam?” 聽The new perek starts delving into the issue of lishma and gives 4 different cases where a get is not considered lishma and would be no good. 聽THe gemara discusses the difference between all 4 cases and possible ramifications from here to other promissory notes.


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

讜诪诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 爪专讬讻讜转 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讗祝 讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

And from the place that you came, i.e., from this inference itself, one establishes: Just as there, those who bring the bill of divorce must say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, so too, she herself must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. This baraita must be referring to a case in which the wife brought the bill of divorce from outside of Eretz Yisrael, as it is only then that she must state that it was written and signed in her presence. Therefore, the baraita supports the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讻讜壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated in a way that supports Abaye鈥檚 opinion, as it teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Learn from the mishna that it is referring to a case outside of Eretz Yisrael, as Abaye explained.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪爪讬注转讗 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪爪讬注转讗 讘讗专抓

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Yosef, is it possible to say that the first clause of the mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce, and the last clause of the mishna (23b): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the middle clause: Even the women who are not deemed credible, discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: Yes, the first clause and the last clause discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, but the middle clause discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讟 诇诪讬转讛 砖讛讻转讘 诪讜讻讬讞 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讛讻转讘 讜驻讛 诪讜讻讬讞

The Gemara explains: From where does Rav Yosef infer this? From the fact that it teaches in the mishna: 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. The mishna does not teach that the writing and statement prove this. Consequently, the statement of: It was written in my presence, is not needed. This indicates that the mishna is discussing a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael.

讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讗砖讛 诪讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讛 诇讬讚讛 讗讬讙专砖讛 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 诇讗 转转讙专砖讬 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻诇讜谞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 诪讟讬讗 讛转诐 讗讬讙专砖讛 讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches that the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce and state that it was written and signed in her presence. The Gemara asks: Why does she need to bring it and testify that it was written and signed in her presence? With regard to this woman, once her bill of divorce reaches her hand, she is divorced. Rav Huna says: This mishna is referring to one who says to his wife: You will be divorced through it only in the presence of such and such court, and the divorce does not take effect when she receives the bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, once she arrives there, to that court, she is immediately divorced through it, as she has fulfilled the condition set forth by her husband. Why, then, is it necessary for her to bring the bill of divorce and to testify?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讗转谞讞讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜砖拽诇讬讛

Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: This mishna is referring to a case where he said to her: When you arrive there, place the bill of divorce on the ground and take it. Consequently, the divorce does not take effect immediately upon her arrival.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, isn鈥檛 it like the case where he said to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from off the ground, and Rava says: If a husband says to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from off the ground, then it is as though he said nothing. He is not considered to have given her a bill of divorce; rather, she has taken it on her own.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讜拽讘诇讬 讗转 讙讬讟讱

Rather, the mishna should be explained as follows: This is referring to a case where he said to his wife: Be my agent for delivery of the bill of divorce until you arrive there. And when you arrive there, be your own agent for receipt, and receive your bill of divorce as an agent.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讞讝专讛 砖诇讬讞讜转 讗爪诇 讛讘注诇 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But the agency has not returned to the husband. In other words, the first agency, where she acted as the agent for delivery, has not ended, because an agent must have the ability to complete his involvement in the act, return to the person who appointed him, and inform him that the agency has been carried out. In this case, once she arrives at the court, her agency ends when she assumes the role of the recipient of the bill of divorce, and her involvement does not end. Therefore, the appointment of the agent itself is deficient, and the divorce should not take effect. Rather, the mishna should be explained that he said to her: Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint an agent for receipt on your behalf and give him the bill of divorce.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of the agent of her husband, and it is not required that she receive the bill of divorce herself. However, according to the one who says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of the agent of her husband, what can be said?

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讜讛讻讗 讘注诇 诇讗 拽驻讬讚

The Gemara answers: What is the reason of the one who said that the woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the agent of her husband? Because there is degradation of the husband in doing this, as he wishes to give the bill of divorce directly to the woman and not to an agent. And here the husband is not particular about the matter, as he instructed her to do so.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞爪专讛 讛讘讗讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara clarifies: This works out well according to the one who said: The reason for this halakha is due to the concern about the degradation of the husband. But according to the one who says that this halakha is a decree due to the case of her courtyard that comes afterward, what can be said? Some say that the reason for the halakha that the woman cannot appoint an agent to receive the bill of divorce from the agent of her husband is that there was a concern that if she were able to do so, then the courts may eventually allow her to be divorced by purchasing a courtyard into which her husband had placed the bill of divorce. In the latter case, the divorce does not take effect. The courtyard needs to be an extension of the hand of the woman, into which the husband places the bill of divorce, but it does not act as her agent. In any event, according to this opinion, the fact that the husband is not particular does not prevent this halakha from applying, as it does not depend on him.

讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 讜拽讘诇讬 讗转 讙讬讟讱 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, the mishna should be explained as discussing a case when he said to her: Be an agent for delivery of this bill of divorce until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint another agent for delivery, and receive your bill of divorce from him.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讗讬诪专 拽诪讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜诪砖讜讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 砖诇讬讞 讜诇讬转讘讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讱

And if you wish, say that he said to her: Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, say before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and you should then appoint the court as an agent, and they will give the bill of divorce to you.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讙讟 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 驻住讜诇 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 讘砖讜拽 讜砖诪注 拽讜诇 住讜驻专讬诐 诪拽专讬谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讙专砖 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬转 诪诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专 讝讛 砖诪讬 讜讝讛 砖诐 讗砖转讬 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

MISHNA: Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. How so? In a case of a man who was passing through the marketplace and heard the sound of scribes who write bills of divorce dictating the text to their students: The man so-and-so divorces so-and-so from the place of such and such; and the man said: This is my name and that is the name of my wife, and he wishes to use this bill for his divorce, this bill is unfit for him to divorce his wife with it, as it was not written for the sake of any woman.

讬转专 诪讬讻谉 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 诪爪讗讜 讘谉 注讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讬 讻砖诪讱 讜砖诐 讗砖转讬 讻砖诐 讗砖转讱 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

Moreover, if one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife鈥檚 name is the same as your wife鈥檚 name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce and I will use it; the bill of divorce is unfit for the second man to divorce his wife with it.

讬转专 诪讬讻谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖诪讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讙专砖 讘讜 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛

Moreover, if one had two wives and their names were identical, and he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older one and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger one with it.

讬转专 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专 诇诇讘诇专 讻转讜讘 诇讗讬讝讜 砖讗专爪讛 讗讙专砖 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

Moreover, if he said to the scribe: Write a bill of divorce for whichever one of them that I will want and I will divorce her with it, this bill of divorce is unfit for him to divorce either wife with it.

讙诪壮 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 讜讻讜壮 讜讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪讗讬

GEMARA: The second clause of the mishna considers a case where one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town with identical personal details found him and desired to use the bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But then with what case is the first clause of the mishna, where a man discovers that a scribe had written a bill of divorce with identical personal details to his own, dealing; isn鈥檛 that also a case of a bill of divorce that was written for someone else? Why did the tanna cite two seemingly identical cases?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘住讜驻专讬谉 讛注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛转诇诪讚 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讜驻专讬谉 诪拽专讬谉 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 住讜驻专讬谉 拽讜专讗讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with scribes who are practicing writing; the bill of divorce in the first case was written as an exercise and not because someone requested that it be written. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Scribes dictating, i.e., to their students, and it does not teach: Scribes reading the names on their own. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this phrasing that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.

诪讗讬 讬转专 诪讬讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗祝 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 驻住讜诇

By employing the introductory term: Moreover, the mishna indicates that each case teaches an additional novelty beyond that of the previous case. The Gemara asks: What novel element warrants the use of the term: Moreover? The Gemara answers by quoting a baraita: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that not only this bill of divorce, which was written for practice and which was not written for the sake of divorce, is unfit, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for the sake of divorce but the husband then reconsidered and did not use it, is unfit to be used by someone else.

讜诇讗 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诇讗 讗祝 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 驻住讜诇 讜诇讗 讝讛 砖诇讗 谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讗 讗诇讗 讗祝 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讗 驻住讜诇

And not only this bill of divorce, which was not written for the sake of his own divorce, is unfit, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for the sake of his own divorce, albeit for a particular wife, is unfit to be used for divorcing his other wife. And not only this bill of divorce, which was not written for the sake of this wife鈥檚 divorce, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for this wife鈥檚 divorce, as he instructed the scribe to write the bill of divorce for the sake of whichever wife he decides to divorce, is unfit to use in divorce.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 讜谞转谉 住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 讘讬讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗讬讱 拽诪讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇砖讜诐 讻专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 讚注讘讬讚 诇砖讜诐 讻专讬转讜转 讗讬诪讗 讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻转讘

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that a bill of divorce must be written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced? It is stated in the verse that deals with divorce: 鈥淎nd he writes for her a scroll of severance and gives it in her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). This teaches the following: If the Merciful One had written only: And he gives a scroll of severance in her hand, I would say that the verse serves to exclude this case of the first clause of the mishna, where it was done not for the sake of severance, as the scribe wrote the bill of divorce as a mere exercise; however, if one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife but then reconsidered, where it was done for the sake of severance, I would say that it is valid for another man to use for divorcing his wife. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes,鈥 meaning that the bill of divorce must be written exclusively for the sake of his own divorce.

讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻转讘 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讛讜 拽讗 讻转讬讘 诇讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讚讗讬讛讜 拽讗 讻转讬讘 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛 诇砖诪讛

The Gemara continues the explanation: If the Merciful One had written only: And he writes, I would say that the verse serves to exclude this case mentioned previously, where the man using the bill of divorce was not the one who wrote it; but if a man has two wives with the same name, so that the man using the bill of divorce is writing it, say that it is a valid bill of divorce. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes for her,鈥 teaching that a bill of divorce must be written for the sake of a specific wife.

讜住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the last clause of the mishna, which deals with a man who writes a bill of divorce for whichever wife he later chooses? The earlier clauses made clear that one must write the bill of divorce for the sake of the woman who is being divorced. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that there is no retroactive clarification, i.e., that one does not say that since he gave the bill of divorce to this wife, it is clarified retroactively that he had written the bill of divorce for her sake; rather, he must write it for her sake from the outset.

讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讙专砖 讘讜 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛 讛讗 讙讚讜诇讛 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older of his two wives and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger wife with it, even though the two wives share the same name. The Gemara deduces from this: It is the younger one whom he is not able to divorce with it, but he is able to divorce the older wife with it, as it was written for her from the outset. This is the case even though the younger wife would be able to collect payment of her marriage contract and remarry if she were to present this bill of divorce, as the court would think it was written for her.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讛讚专讬谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讗讞专讬诐

Rava said: That is to say that one of two people with identical names, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, who live in one city, can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others, and the borrower cannot claim that the promissory note was written for the other Yosef ben Shimon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖诪讬 讻砖诪讱 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛 讛讗 专讗砖讜谉 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛谉 砖讟专 讞讜讘

Abaye said to him: If that is so, then according to your reasoning, from the earlier clause of the mishna that teaches that if one man requests a bill of divorce from another, saying: My name is the same as your name, the bill of divorce is unfit for the second person to divorce his wife with it, one could infer that the second man is the one who is not able to divorce with it, but the first man is able to divorce with it even though they have the same names. But didn鈥檛 we say in a mishna (Bava Batra 172a): With regard to two people with identical names, neither of them can present a promissory note to the other, and another person cannot present a promissory note to them, as each one can deny that he is the one who owes the money? Here too, there is a concern lest the wife of the other use the bill of divorce to collect payment of her marriage contract even though the bill of divorce was not written for her.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

Rather, what have you to say to explain how the first man can divorce his wife with this bill of divorce, and how it can be used as a reliable proof of divorce? One can say that the ruling of the mishna applies in a case where there are witnesses who observe the transmission of the bill of divorce, and they confirm in court which woman was given the bill of divorce. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that presence of witnesses at the transmission of the bill of divorce is essential to its taking effect, so there is no concern that the wife of the other man will claim payment of her marriage contract.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

Here too, in the case of two wives of the same man who have the same name, the ruling of the mishna applies in a case where there are witnesses who observe the transmission of the bill of divorce. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and there is no concern that the other wife will claim payment of her marriage contract. Therefore, one should not deduce from this, as Rava did, that one of two people with the same name can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讜诇谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇

Rav says: All of the bills of divorce that the mishna categorizes as unfit to use for divorce still disqualify the women who receive them from marrying into the priesthood, as she is considered a divorced woman with regard to the halakha of marrying a priest, except for the first bill of divorce mentioned in the mishna. Unlike the other cases, that one was not written for the sake of divorce at all but was written only as part of a scribe鈥檚 training. And Shmuel says: Even the first bill of divorce disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood.

讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讟 驻住讜诇 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜驻讜住诇转讛 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉

And Shmuel follows his own line of reasoning, as Shmuel says: Any place where the Sages taught in a mishna: An invalid bill of divorce, it indicates both that it is invalid to be used as a bill of divorce and that it nevertheless disqualifies the one who receives it from marrying a priest. Similarly, where the Sages taught: An invalid 岣litza, it indicates both that the 岣litza is invalid and that it nevertheless disqualifies the yevama from entering into levirate marriage with the other brothers.

讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讜驻讜住诇讜转

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: If 岣litza was performed on the left foot of the yavam, or at night, these acts of 岣litza are invalid, and they nevertheless disqualify the yevama from entering into levirate marriage with the other brothers.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 24

讜诪诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 爪专讬讻讜转 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讗祝 讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

And from the place that you came, i.e., from this inference itself, one establishes: Just as there, those who bring the bill of divorce must say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, so too, she herself must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. This baraita must be referring to a case in which the wife brought the bill of divorce from outside of Eretz Yisrael, as it is only then that she must state that it was written and signed in her presence. Therefore, the baraita supports the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讻讜壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated in a way that supports Abaye鈥檚 opinion, as it teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Learn from the mishna that it is referring to a case outside of Eretz Yisrael, as Abaye explained.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪爪讬注转讗 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪爪讬注转讗 讘讗专抓

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Yosef, is it possible to say that the first clause of the mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce, and the last clause of the mishna (23b): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the middle clause: Even the women who are not deemed credible, discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: Yes, the first clause and the last clause discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, but the middle clause discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讟 诇诪讬转讛 砖讛讻转讘 诪讜讻讬讞 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讛讻转讘 讜驻讛 诪讜讻讬讞

The Gemara explains: From where does Rav Yosef infer this? From the fact that it teaches in the mishna: 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. The mishna does not teach that the writing and statement prove this. Consequently, the statement of: It was written in my presence, is not needed. This indicates that the mishna is discussing a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael.

讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讗砖讛 诪讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讛 诇讬讚讛 讗讬讙专砖讛 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 诇讗 转转讙专砖讬 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻诇讜谞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 诪讟讬讗 讛转诐 讗讬讙专砖讛 讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches that the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce and state that it was written and signed in her presence. The Gemara asks: Why does she need to bring it and testify that it was written and signed in her presence? With regard to this woman, once her bill of divorce reaches her hand, she is divorced. Rav Huna says: This mishna is referring to one who says to his wife: You will be divorced through it only in the presence of such and such court, and the divorce does not take effect when she receives the bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, once she arrives there, to that court, she is immediately divorced through it, as she has fulfilled the condition set forth by her husband. Why, then, is it necessary for her to bring the bill of divorce and to testify?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讗转谞讞讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜砖拽诇讬讛

Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: This mishna is referring to a case where he said to her: When you arrive there, place the bill of divorce on the ground and take it. Consequently, the divorce does not take effect immediately upon her arrival.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, isn鈥檛 it like the case where he said to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from off the ground, and Rava says: If a husband says to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from off the ground, then it is as though he said nothing. He is not considered to have given her a bill of divorce; rather, she has taken it on her own.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讜拽讘诇讬 讗转 讙讬讟讱

Rather, the mishna should be explained as follows: This is referring to a case where he said to his wife: Be my agent for delivery of the bill of divorce until you arrive there. And when you arrive there, be your own agent for receipt, and receive your bill of divorce as an agent.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讞讝专讛 砖诇讬讞讜转 讗爪诇 讛讘注诇 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But the agency has not returned to the husband. In other words, the first agency, where she acted as the agent for delivery, has not ended, because an agent must have the ability to complete his involvement in the act, return to the person who appointed him, and inform him that the agency has been carried out. In this case, once she arrives at the court, her agency ends when she assumes the role of the recipient of the bill of divorce, and her involvement does not end. Therefore, the appointment of the agent itself is deficient, and the divorce should not take effect. Rather, the mishna should be explained that he said to her: Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint an agent for receipt on your behalf and give him the bill of divorce.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of the agent of her husband, and it is not required that she receive the bill of divorce herself. However, according to the one who says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of the agent of her husband, what can be said?

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讜讛讻讗 讘注诇 诇讗 拽驻讬讚

The Gemara answers: What is the reason of the one who said that the woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the agent of her husband? Because there is degradation of the husband in doing this, as he wishes to give the bill of divorce directly to the woman and not to an agent. And here the husband is not particular about the matter, as he instructed her to do so.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞爪专讛 讛讘讗讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara clarifies: This works out well according to the one who said: The reason for this halakha is due to the concern about the degradation of the husband. But according to the one who says that this halakha is a decree due to the case of her courtyard that comes afterward, what can be said? Some say that the reason for the halakha that the woman cannot appoint an agent to receive the bill of divorce from the agent of her husband is that there was a concern that if she were able to do so, then the courts may eventually allow her to be divorced by purchasing a courtyard into which her husband had placed the bill of divorce. In the latter case, the divorce does not take effect. The courtyard needs to be an extension of the hand of the woman, into which the husband places the bill of divorce, but it does not act as her agent. In any event, according to this opinion, the fact that the husband is not particular does not prevent this halakha from applying, as it does not depend on him.

讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 讜拽讘诇讬 讗转 讙讬讟讱 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, the mishna should be explained as discussing a case when he said to her: Be an agent for delivery of this bill of divorce until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint another agent for delivery, and receive your bill of divorce from him.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讜讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讗讬诪专 拽诪讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜诪砖讜讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 砖诇讬讞 讜诇讬转讘讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讱

And if you wish, say that he said to her: Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, say before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and you should then appoint the court as an agent, and they will give the bill of divorce to you.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讙讟 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗砖讛 驻住讜诇 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 讘砖讜拽 讜砖诪注 拽讜诇 住讜驻专讬诐 诪拽专讬谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讙专砖 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬转 诪诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专 讝讛 砖诪讬 讜讝讛 砖诐 讗砖转讬 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

MISHNA: Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. How so? In a case of a man who was passing through the marketplace and heard the sound of scribes who write bills of divorce dictating the text to their students: The man so-and-so divorces so-and-so from the place of such and such; and the man said: This is my name and that is the name of my wife, and he wishes to use this bill for his divorce, this bill is unfit for him to divorce his wife with it, as it was not written for the sake of any woman.

讬转专 诪讬讻谉 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 诪爪讗讜 讘谉 注讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讬 讻砖诪讱 讜砖诐 讗砖转讬 讻砖诐 讗砖转讱 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

Moreover, if one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife鈥檚 name is the same as your wife鈥檚 name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce and I will use it; the bill of divorce is unfit for the second man to divorce his wife with it.

讬转专 诪讬讻谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖诪讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讙专砖 讘讜 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛

Moreover, if one had two wives and their names were identical, and he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older one and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger one with it.

讬转专 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专 诇诇讘诇专 讻转讜讘 诇讗讬讝讜 砖讗专爪讛 讗讙专砖 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

Moreover, if he said to the scribe: Write a bill of divorce for whichever one of them that I will want and I will divorce her with it, this bill of divorce is unfit for him to divorce either wife with it.

讙诪壮 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 讜讻讜壮 讜讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪讗讬

GEMARA: The second clause of the mishna considers a case where one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town with identical personal details found him and desired to use the bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But then with what case is the first clause of the mishna, where a man discovers that a scribe had written a bill of divorce with identical personal details to his own, dealing; isn鈥檛 that also a case of a bill of divorce that was written for someone else? Why did the tanna cite two seemingly identical cases?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘住讜驻专讬谉 讛注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛转诇诪讚 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讜驻专讬谉 诪拽专讬谉 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 住讜驻专讬谉 拽讜专讗讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with scribes who are practicing writing; the bill of divorce in the first case was written as an exercise and not because someone requested that it be written. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Scribes dictating, i.e., to their students, and it does not teach: Scribes reading the names on their own. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this phrasing that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.

诪讗讬 讬转专 诪讬讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗祝 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 驻住讜诇

By employing the introductory term: Moreover, the mishna indicates that each case teaches an additional novelty beyond that of the previous case. The Gemara asks: What novel element warrants the use of the term: Moreover? The Gemara answers by quoting a baraita: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that not only this bill of divorce, which was written for practice and which was not written for the sake of divorce, is unfit, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for the sake of divorce but the husband then reconsidered and did not use it, is unfit to be used by someone else.

讜诇讗 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诇讗 讗祝 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 驻住讜诇 讜诇讗 讝讛 砖诇讗 谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讗 讗诇讗 讗祝 讝讛 砖谞讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讗 驻住讜诇

And not only this bill of divorce, which was not written for the sake of his own divorce, is unfit, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for the sake of his own divorce, albeit for a particular wife, is unfit to be used for divorcing his other wife. And not only this bill of divorce, which was not written for the sake of this wife鈥檚 divorce, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for this wife鈥檚 divorce, as he instructed the scribe to write the bill of divorce for the sake of whichever wife he decides to divorce, is unfit to use in divorce.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 讜谞转谉 住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 讘讬讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗讬讱 拽诪讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇砖讜诐 讻专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 讚注讘讬讚 诇砖讜诐 讻专讬转讜转 讗讬诪讗 讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻转讘

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that a bill of divorce must be written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced? It is stated in the verse that deals with divorce: 鈥淎nd he writes for her a scroll of severance and gives it in her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). This teaches the following: If the Merciful One had written only: And he gives a scroll of severance in her hand, I would say that the verse serves to exclude this case of the first clause of the mishna, where it was done not for the sake of severance, as the scribe wrote the bill of divorce as a mere exercise; however, if one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife but then reconsidered, where it was done for the sake of severance, I would say that it is valid for another man to use for divorcing his wife. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes,鈥 meaning that the bill of divorce must be written exclusively for the sake of his own divorce.

讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻转讘 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讛讜 拽讗 讻转讬讘 诇讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讚讗讬讛讜 拽讗 讻转讬讘 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛 诇砖诪讛

The Gemara continues the explanation: If the Merciful One had written only: And he writes, I would say that the verse serves to exclude this case mentioned previously, where the man using the bill of divorce was not the one who wrote it; but if a man has two wives with the same name, so that the man using the bill of divorce is writing it, say that it is a valid bill of divorce. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he writes for her,鈥 teaching that a bill of divorce must be written for the sake of a specific wife.

讜住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the last clause of the mishna, which deals with a man who writes a bill of divorce for whichever wife he later chooses? The earlier clauses made clear that one must write the bill of divorce for the sake of the woman who is being divorced. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that there is no retroactive clarification, i.e., that one does not say that since he gave the bill of divorce to this wife, it is clarified retroactively that he had written the bill of divorce for her sake; rather, he must write it for her sake from the outset.

讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讙专砖 讘讜 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛 讛讗 讙讚讜诇讛 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older of his two wives and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger wife with it, even though the two wives share the same name. The Gemara deduces from this: It is the younger one whom he is not able to divorce with it, but he is able to divorce the older wife with it, as it was written for her from the outset. This is the case even though the younger wife would be able to collect payment of her marriage contract and remarry if she were to present this bill of divorce, as the court would think it was written for her.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讛讚专讬谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讗讞专讬诐

Rava said: That is to say that one of two people with identical names, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, who live in one city, can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others, and the borrower cannot claim that the promissory note was written for the other Yosef ben Shimon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖诪讬 讻砖诪讱 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛 讛讗 专讗砖讜谉 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讘讬讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛谉 砖讟专 讞讜讘

Abaye said to him: If that is so, then according to your reasoning, from the earlier clause of the mishna that teaches that if one man requests a bill of divorce from another, saying: My name is the same as your name, the bill of divorce is unfit for the second person to divorce his wife with it, one could infer that the second man is the one who is not able to divorce with it, but the first man is able to divorce with it even though they have the same names. But didn鈥檛 we say in a mishna (Bava Batra 172a): With regard to two people with identical names, neither of them can present a promissory note to the other, and another person cannot present a promissory note to them, as each one can deny that he is the one who owes the money? Here too, there is a concern lest the wife of the other use the bill of divorce to collect payment of her marriage contract even though the bill of divorce was not written for her.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

Rather, what have you to say to explain how the first man can divorce his wife with this bill of divorce, and how it can be used as a reliable proof of divorce? One can say that the ruling of the mishna applies in a case where there are witnesses who observe the transmission of the bill of divorce, and they confirm in court which woman was given the bill of divorce. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that presence of witnesses at the transmission of the bill of divorce is essential to its taking effect, so there is no concern that the wife of the other man will claim payment of her marriage contract.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

Here too, in the case of two wives of the same man who have the same name, the ruling of the mishna applies in a case where there are witnesses who observe the transmission of the bill of divorce. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and there is no concern that the other wife will claim payment of her marriage contract. Therefore, one should not deduce from this, as Rava did, that one of two people with the same name can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讜诇谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇

Rav says: All of the bills of divorce that the mishna categorizes as unfit to use for divorce still disqualify the women who receive them from marrying into the priesthood, as she is considered a divorced woman with regard to the halakha of marrying a priest, except for the first bill of divorce mentioned in the mishna. Unlike the other cases, that one was not written for the sake of divorce at all but was written only as part of a scribe鈥檚 training. And Shmuel says: Even the first bill of divorce disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood.

讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讟 驻住讜诇 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜驻讜住诇转讛 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉

And Shmuel follows his own line of reasoning, as Shmuel says: Any place where the Sages taught in a mishna: An invalid bill of divorce, it indicates both that it is invalid to be used as a bill of divorce and that it nevertheless disqualifies the one who receives it from marrying a priest. Similarly, where the Sages taught: An invalid 岣litza, it indicates both that the 岣litza is invalid and that it nevertheless disqualifies the yevama from entering into levirate marriage with the other brothers.

讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讜驻讜住诇讜转

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: If 岣litza was performed on the left foot of the yavam, or at night, these acts of 岣litza are invalid, and they nevertheless disqualify the yevama from entering into levirate marriage with the other brothers.

Scroll To Top