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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 10, 2016 | 讻状讟 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 28

In what cases do we presume someone is dead and in what cases do we not? 聽Is there a difference between a case of聽a get sent by a sick person via a messenger – is the get valid 聽– or a case where a Kohen went abroad and we want to know if his wife can continue eating teruma or should we be concerned he died?

Study Guide Gittin 28

讗讜 砖诪爪讗讜 讘讬谉 讻诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讻砖专

or in a case where he found it among his utensils in his house, then even if a long time passed, the bill of divorce is valid.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 砖诇讗 砖讛讛 讗讚诐 砖诐 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 砖诇讗 注讘专 讗讚诐 砖诐

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the halakha in this dispute: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that the bill of divorce is valid as long as no person stopped there. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel says: The halakha is that the bill of divorce is valid as long as no other person passed there.

诇讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪专 讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗驻讻讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to state the actual opinion? Let this Sage, Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, the opinion cited as: Some say; and let this Sage, Rabba bar bar 岣na citing Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The Gemara answers: Because there are those who reverse the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m, they needed to state the opinions explicitly so that there would be no mistake with regard to the halakha.

诪爪讗讜 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讞驻讬住讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞诪转 拽讟谞讛 诪讗讬 讚诇讜住拽诪讗 讟诇讬拽讗 讚住讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if one found the bill of divorce in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema, then it is valid. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word 岣fisa? Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is a small flask. What is the meaning of deluskema? It is a purse [telika] of the elderly.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of an agent who brings a bill of divorce to a woman, and when he had left the husband was elderly or sick, the agent gives her the bill of divorce based on the presumption that the husband is still alive, and there is no concern that in the meantime he has died, thereby canceling the bill of divorce.

讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛谞砖讜讗讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐 讛砖讜诇讞 讞讟讗转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

Similarly, with regard to an Israelite woman who is married to a priest and may therefore partake of teruma, and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma based on the presumption that her husband is still alive. Similarly, in the case of one who sends his sinoffering from a country overseas, the priests may offer it on the altar based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讝拽谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讙讘讜专讜转 讜讞讜诇讛 砖专讜讘 讞讜诇讬诐 诇讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讝拽谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讙讘讜专讜转 讜讙讜住住 砖专讜讘 讙讜住住讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗

GEMARA: Rava says: They taught that this presumptive status exists only concerning an elderly man who has not reached his years of strength, i.e., the age of eighty, and an ordinary sick person, as the majority of sick people continue to live and recover from their illnesses. But if the husband was an elderly man who had reached his years of strength, or if he was moribund, then, as the majority of moribund people proceed to die, he does not have this presumptive status.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讝拽谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 诪讗讛 砖谞讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 statement from a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and left the husband when he was old, even one hundred years old, he gives the bill of divorce to the wife, based on the presumption that her husband is still alive. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation, and Rava鈥檚 statement is rejected.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬驻诇讬讙 讗讬驻诇讬讙

The Gemara comments: And if you wish, say that this is not a conclusive refutation. In the case of the baraita, since it is so that the man reached an exceptionally old age, one cannot apply the general presumptions to him and must instead apply presumptions that are for one who has reached an exceptionally old age. However, in a case where someone has not demonstrated that he is an exception to the rule, once he reaches the age of eighty there is a concern that perhaps he has died in the interim.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转转讜 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

Abaye raises a contradiction before Rabba: We learned in the mishna that in the case of an agent who brings a bill of divorce to a woman and left the husband when he was elderly or sick, the agent gives her the bill of divorce based on the presumption that the husband is still alive. And one can raise a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 6:11) that states: If one is leaving his place of residence, and in order to preclude a situation where his wife would have the status of a deserted wife he gives her a conditional bill of divorce and stipulates: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death, it is immediately prohibited for her to partake of teruma, due to the concern that he may die immediately after an hour has passed. Apparently, there is a concern that one may die at any point.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讗讙讬讟讬谉 拽讗 专诪讬转 转专讜诪讛 讗驻砖专 讙讟 诇讗 讗驻砖专

Rabba said to him: Do you raise a contradiction from the halakhot of teruma to the halakhot of bills of divorce? Concerning teruma, it is possible for the wife to eat only non-sacred produce in order to be stringent due to the possibility that her husband may die. However, concerning a bill of divorce it is not possible to take into account the possibility that her husband may die, as there would then be no way for a husband to send a bill of divorce to her with an agent.

讜专诪讬 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 转谞谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛谞砖讜讗讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the halakhot of teruma in the mishna to the halakhot of teruma in a baraita. We learned in the mishna: With regard to an Israelite woman who is married to a priest and may therefore partake of teruma, and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma based on the presumption that her husband is still alive.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讜 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death, it is immediately prohibited for her to partake of teruma due to the concern that he may die immediately after an hour has passed. These two halakhot appear to contradict one another.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖讛专讬 讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬讛讜 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 诪讬讬转讗 讘专讬砖讗

Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitz岣k, said: It is different there, as he rendered her forbidden to himself one hour prior to his death, meaning that she will definitely be prohibited from partaking of teruma at some point. Therefore, it is considered to be an uncertainty immediately. Rav Pappa objects to this answer: From where is it known that he will die first and she will be prohibited from partaking of teruma? Perhaps she will die first, and the bill of divorce will never take effect.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛

Rather, Abaye said that this is not difficult: This mishna, which permits the woman to partake of teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is not concerned about potential death. That baraita, which prohibits the woman from partaking of teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned about potential death.

讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

As we learned in a baraita in the Tosefta (Demai 8:7): In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans, about whom it is assumed that they did not separate teruma and tithes, and he is not in a position to separate teruma, he acts as follows: If there are, for example, one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and one-tenth of the remainder, which is approximately nine log, are second tithe. And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later, which will clarify retroactively what he designated for the tithes and for teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

The baraita continues: However, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this practice. These Sages, Rabbi Yehuda among them, were concerned that perhaps the wineskin would burst before he would manage to separate the teruma, whereas Rabbi Meir is not concerned about this occurring. Similarly, it is said that Rabbi Meir is not concerned about potential death, and Rabbi Yehuda is concerned.

专讘讗 讗诪专

Rava said:

砖诪讗 诪转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

There is a different distinction: We are not concerned that perhaps he has already died, which is why the mishna rules that she may continue to partake of teruma. However, in the case of one who stipulates that the bill of divorce will take effect one hour before his death, we are concerned that perhaps he will die at an unknown moment in the future and she will no longer be permitted to partake of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 谞讜讚 讚讻砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚住拽专转讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讜讚 讚讗驻砖专 讚诪住专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诪专

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: But the concern in the case of the wineskin is that it might burst before one is able to separate the teruma and tithes, which is similar to the concern that perhaps he will die, as both are concerns with respect to the future, and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree. Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: A wineskin is different, as it is possible to give it to a watchman who will protect it from bursting, which is why Rabbi Meir is not concerned that it might burst. This reasoning does not apply to the concern that the husband might die.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 注专讘讬讱 注专讘讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪讗 诪转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

Rav Mesharshiyya objects to this answer: Your guarantor himself needs a guarantor, as there is no way of knowing that the guardian will not be negligent, so the wineskin may burst. Rather, Rava said: Everyone agrees that we are not concerned that perhaps he has already died, in accordance with the mishna here. As to the issue of whether there is a concern that perhaps he will die, as in the case of the baraita, this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

讛砖讜诇讞 讞讟讗转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 住诪讬讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘拽专讘谉 谞砖讬诐 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

搂 The mishna teaches that in the case of one who sends his sin-offering from a country overseas, the priests may sacrifice it on the altar, based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 an offering require the placing of hands on the head of an offering by the one who brings the offering? In this case the owner of the offering is elsewhere and cannot place his hands on the offering. Rav Yosef says: The mishna states this ruling with regard to the offering of women, as women are not required to place their hands on the head of their offerings. Rav Pappa says: The mishna states this ruling with regard to a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering, where it is not required that the owner place his hands on the head of the offering.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讙讟 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

Noting that the mishna states the same halakha, that the presumption is that one remains alive, in three different contexts, the Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to state this in all three cases, as, if it had taught us only the case of a bill of divorce, one might have said that it is due to the fact that it is not possible to take into account the possible death of the husband, as there would then be no way for the husband to send a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. That is why the presumption that the husband is alive is relied upon. But with regard to teruma, where it is possible for the wife to partake of non-sacred produce, say the presumption is not relied upon, and there is a concern that he died.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 转专讜诪讛 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 诇讬注讜诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 爪专讬讻讗

And if it had taught us also the case of teruma, one might have said that there are times that it is not possible for the wife to avoid partaking of teruma, e.g., if she does not have sufficient non-sacred produce. But with regard to a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering, one might say that for a situation of uncertainty as to whether the sin-offering may be sacrificed, since its owners might not be alive, one should not bring non-sacred animals, i.e., an animal that may not be sacrificed, into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to mention all of these cases.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻专讟讗 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讗转 讚讘专讬讜 注诇 注讬专 砖讛拽讬驻讛 讻专拽讜诐 讜注诇 讛住驻讬谞讛 讛诪讜讟专驻转 讘讬诐 讜注诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讬讚讜谉 砖讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 拽讬讬诪讬谉

MISHNA: Rabbi Elazar ben Perata said three statements before the Sages as testimony from previous generations, and they upheld his statements: He spoke concerning the residents of a town that was surrounded by a camp of besiegers [karkom]; and concerning the travelers in a ship that is cast about in the sea; and concerning one who is going out to be judged in a capital case; that they are all presumed to be alive.

讗讘诇 注讬专 砖讻讘砖讛 讻专拽讜诐 讜住驻讬谞讛 砖讗讘讚讛 讘讬诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讞讜诪专讬 讞讬讬诐 讜讞讜诪专讬 诪转讬诐 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

However, concerning the residents of a town that was conquered by a camp of besiegers; and the travelers on a ship that was lost at sea; and one who is going out to be executed after receiving his verdict; in these cases one applies to them the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead. How so? An Israelite woman married to a priest in one of these situations or a daughter of a priest married to an Israelite in one of these situations may not partake of teruma. The first woman may not do so because she may partake of teruma only while her husband is alive, and the second may not do so because she may partake of teruma only if he has died.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讙诪讬专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 诇拽讟诇讗 诪讬拽讟诇 拽讟诇讬 诇讬讛

GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: They taught that one applies the stringencies of the living only to one who is being taken to be executed in a Jewish court, where even once he is being taken to be executed, he will be released if the court finds evidence for his innocence; but in a court of the nations of the world, once he is sentenced to death, he is killed in any case. Therefore, he should be considered as a dead man in every regard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 谞诪讬 讚诪拽讘诇讬 砖讜讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 砖拽诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讞转讜诐 驻讜专住讬 砖谞诪讙 诇讘转专 讚诪讬讞转诐 驻讜专住讬 砖谞诪讙 诇讗 砖拽诇讬

Abaye said to him: In a court of the nations of the world as well, perhaps they will not execute him, as they accept bribes. Rav Yosef said to him: When they take a bribe, it is only before the verdict [puresei shenmag] has been sealed; but after the verdict has been sealed, they do not take bribes.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙 讚诇诪讗 讘讜专讞 砖讗谞讬

According to Rav Yosef, in a Jewish court, even after one鈥檚 verdict is complete the presumption is that he is alive. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a mishna (Makkot 7a) concerning one who fled from the court after his verdict had been issued: Any place where two witnesses arise and say: We testify about so-and-so that his judgment was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, the halakha is that this person should be killed. It is evident from the mishna in tractate Makkot that there is no concern that the court may have later found a reason to release him. The Gemara answers: Perhaps one who flees is different, as the court will not reconsider his verdict once he has fled.

转讗 砖诪注 砖诪注 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪拽讜诪谞讟专讬住讬谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear: If one heard from a Jewish court that they were saying: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court allows his wife to marry. If he heard from a gentile judicial registrar [komentirisin]: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court does not allow his wife to marry.

诪讗讬 诪转 讜诪讗讬 谞讛专讙 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪转 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: What does it mean when it says: Died, and what does it mean when it says: Was killed? If we say that: Died, means that he actually died, and: Was killed, means that he was actually killed, such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, i.e., that he heard from the gentile registrar that the person was actually dead, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don鈥檛 we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? Therefore, the gentile should be deemed credible when he says that someone died or was killed.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪转 讬讜爪讗 诇诪讜转 谞讛专讙 讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讜拽转谞讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

Rather, is it not necessary to explain that when it says: Died, it means that he is going out to die, and when it says: Was killed, it means going out to be executed. And it teaches that if it occurred in a Jewish court then the court allows his wife to marry, as it is assumed that he was already executed, contrary to the statement of Rav Yosef.

诇注讜诇诐 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 注讘讚讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 砖讬拽专讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that he actually died, and actually was killed. And with regard to that which you said: Such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don鈥檛 we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? The answer is that this credibility applies only in a matter that is not relevant to the gentiles; but in a matter that is relevant to the gentiles, such as here, where they desire to publicize that they carried out their verdict, it is common for them to reinforce their false verdict, i.e., once they reach a verdict they will say that the accused was killed. Therefore, one cannot rely on their statements.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜止诇诐

This is one version of the discourse; there is also another version: There are those who say that Rav Yosef said: They taught that one applies the stringencies of the living and the dead only in a court of the nations of the world;

  • 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 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 28

讗讜 砖诪爪讗讜 讘讬谉 讻诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讻砖专

or in a case where he found it among his utensils in his house, then even if a long time passed, the bill of divorce is valid.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 砖诇讗 砖讛讛 讗讚诐 砖诐 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 砖诇讗 注讘专 讗讚诐 砖诐

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the halakha in this dispute: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that the bill of divorce is valid as long as no person stopped there. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel says: The halakha is that the bill of divorce is valid as long as no other person passed there.

诇讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪专 讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗驻讻讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to state the actual opinion? Let this Sage, Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, the opinion cited as: Some say; and let this Sage, Rabba bar bar 岣na citing Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The Gemara answers: Because there are those who reverse the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m, they needed to state the opinions explicitly so that there would be no mistake with regard to the halakha.

诪爪讗讜 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讞驻讬住讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞诪转 拽讟谞讛 诪讗讬 讚诇讜住拽诪讗 讟诇讬拽讗 讚住讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if one found the bill of divorce in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema, then it is valid. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word 岣fisa? Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is a small flask. What is the meaning of deluskema? It is a purse [telika] of the elderly.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of an agent who brings a bill of divorce to a woman, and when he had left the husband was elderly or sick, the agent gives her the bill of divorce based on the presumption that the husband is still alive, and there is no concern that in the meantime he has died, thereby canceling the bill of divorce.

讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛谞砖讜讗讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐 讛砖讜诇讞 讞讟讗转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

Similarly, with regard to an Israelite woman who is married to a priest and may therefore partake of teruma, and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma based on the presumption that her husband is still alive. Similarly, in the case of one who sends his sinoffering from a country overseas, the priests may offer it on the altar based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讝拽谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讙讘讜专讜转 讜讞讜诇讛 砖专讜讘 讞讜诇讬诐 诇讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讝拽谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讙讘讜专讜转 讜讙讜住住 砖专讜讘 讙讜住住讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗

GEMARA: Rava says: They taught that this presumptive status exists only concerning an elderly man who has not reached his years of strength, i.e., the age of eighty, and an ordinary sick person, as the majority of sick people continue to live and recover from their illnesses. But if the husband was an elderly man who had reached his years of strength, or if he was moribund, then, as the majority of moribund people proceed to die, he does not have this presumptive status.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讝拽谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 诪讗讛 砖谞讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 statement from a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and left the husband when he was old, even one hundred years old, he gives the bill of divorce to the wife, based on the presumption that her husband is still alive. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation, and Rava鈥檚 statement is rejected.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬驻诇讬讙 讗讬驻诇讬讙

The Gemara comments: And if you wish, say that this is not a conclusive refutation. In the case of the baraita, since it is so that the man reached an exceptionally old age, one cannot apply the general presumptions to him and must instead apply presumptions that are for one who has reached an exceptionally old age. However, in a case where someone has not demonstrated that he is an exception to the rule, once he reaches the age of eighty there is a concern that perhaps he has died in the interim.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转转讜 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

Abaye raises a contradiction before Rabba: We learned in the mishna that in the case of an agent who brings a bill of divorce to a woman and left the husband when he was elderly or sick, the agent gives her the bill of divorce based on the presumption that the husband is still alive. And one can raise a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 6:11) that states: If one is leaving his place of residence, and in order to preclude a situation where his wife would have the status of a deserted wife he gives her a conditional bill of divorce and stipulates: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death, it is immediately prohibited for her to partake of teruma, due to the concern that he may die immediately after an hour has passed. Apparently, there is a concern that one may die at any point.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讗讙讬讟讬谉 拽讗 专诪讬转 转专讜诪讛 讗驻砖专 讙讟 诇讗 讗驻砖专

Rabba said to him: Do you raise a contradiction from the halakhot of teruma to the halakhot of bills of divorce? Concerning teruma, it is possible for the wife to eat only non-sacred produce in order to be stringent due to the possibility that her husband may die. However, concerning a bill of divorce it is not possible to take into account the possibility that her husband may die, as there would then be no way for a husband to send a bill of divorce to her with an agent.

讜专诪讬 转专讜诪讛 讗转专讜诪讛 转谞谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛谞砖讜讗讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the halakhot of teruma in the mishna to the halakhot of teruma in a baraita. We learned in the mishna: With regard to an Israelite woman who is married to a priest and may therefore partake of teruma, and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma based on the presumption that her husband is still alive.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讜 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour prior to my death, it is immediately prohibited for her to partake of teruma due to the concern that he may die immediately after an hour has passed. These two halakhot appear to contradict one another.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖讛专讬 讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬讛讜 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 诪讬讬转讗 讘专讬砖讗

Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitz岣k, said: It is different there, as he rendered her forbidden to himself one hour prior to his death, meaning that she will definitely be prohibited from partaking of teruma at some point. Therefore, it is considered to be an uncertainty immediately. Rav Pappa objects to this answer: From where is it known that he will die first and she will be prohibited from partaking of teruma? Perhaps she will die first, and the bill of divorce will never take effect.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬转讛

Rather, Abaye said that this is not difficult: This mishna, which permits the woman to partake of teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is not concerned about potential death. That baraita, which prohibits the woman from partaking of teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is concerned about potential death.

讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

As we learned in a baraita in the Tosefta (Demai 8:7): In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans, about whom it is assumed that they did not separate teruma and tithes, and he is not in a position to separate teruma, he acts as follows: If there are, for example, one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and one-tenth of the remainder, which is approximately nine log, are second tithe. And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later, which will clarify retroactively what he designated for the tithes and for teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

The baraita continues: However, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this practice. These Sages, Rabbi Yehuda among them, were concerned that perhaps the wineskin would burst before he would manage to separate the teruma, whereas Rabbi Meir is not concerned about this occurring. Similarly, it is said that Rabbi Meir is not concerned about potential death, and Rabbi Yehuda is concerned.

专讘讗 讗诪专

Rava said:

砖诪讗 诪转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

There is a different distinction: We are not concerned that perhaps he has already died, which is why the mishna rules that she may continue to partake of teruma. However, in the case of one who stipulates that the bill of divorce will take effect one hour before his death, we are concerned that perhaps he will die at an unknown moment in the future and she will no longer be permitted to partake of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 谞讜讚 讚讻砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚住拽专转讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讜讚 讚讗驻砖专 讚诪住专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诪专

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: But the concern in the case of the wineskin is that it might burst before one is able to separate the teruma and tithes, which is similar to the concern that perhaps he will die, as both are concerns with respect to the future, and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree. Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: A wineskin is different, as it is possible to give it to a watchman who will protect it from bursting, which is why Rabbi Meir is not concerned that it might burst. This reasoning does not apply to the concern that the husband might die.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 注专讘讬讱 注专讘讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪讗 诪转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

Rav Mesharshiyya objects to this answer: Your guarantor himself needs a guarantor, as there is no way of knowing that the guardian will not be negligent, so the wineskin may burst. Rather, Rava said: Everyone agrees that we are not concerned that perhaps he has already died, in accordance with the mishna here. As to the issue of whether there is a concern that perhaps he will die, as in the case of the baraita, this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

讛砖讜诇讞 讞讟讗转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 住诪讬讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘拽专讘谉 谞砖讬诐 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

搂 The mishna teaches that in the case of one who sends his sin-offering from a country overseas, the priests may sacrifice it on the altar, based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 an offering require the placing of hands on the head of an offering by the one who brings the offering? In this case the owner of the offering is elsewhere and cannot place his hands on the offering. Rav Yosef says: The mishna states this ruling with regard to the offering of women, as women are not required to place their hands on the head of their offerings. Rav Pappa says: The mishna states this ruling with regard to a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering, where it is not required that the owner place his hands on the head of the offering.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讙讟 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

Noting that the mishna states the same halakha, that the presumption is that one remains alive, in three different contexts, the Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to state this in all three cases, as, if it had taught us only the case of a bill of divorce, one might have said that it is due to the fact that it is not possible to take into account the possible death of the husband, as there would then be no way for the husband to send a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. That is why the presumption that the husband is alive is relied upon. But with regard to teruma, where it is possible for the wife to partake of non-sacred produce, say the presumption is not relied upon, and there is a concern that he died.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 转专讜诪讛 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 诇讬注讜诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 爪专讬讻讗

And if it had taught us also the case of teruma, one might have said that there are times that it is not possible for the wife to avoid partaking of teruma, e.g., if she does not have sufficient non-sacred produce. But with regard to a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering, one might say that for a situation of uncertainty as to whether the sin-offering may be sacrificed, since its owners might not be alive, one should not bring non-sacred animals, i.e., an animal that may not be sacrificed, into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to mention all of these cases.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻专讟讗 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讗转 讚讘专讬讜 注诇 注讬专 砖讛拽讬驻讛 讻专拽讜诐 讜注诇 讛住驻讬谞讛 讛诪讜讟专驻转 讘讬诐 讜注诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讬讚讜谉 砖讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 拽讬讬诪讬谉

MISHNA: Rabbi Elazar ben Perata said three statements before the Sages as testimony from previous generations, and they upheld his statements: He spoke concerning the residents of a town that was surrounded by a camp of besiegers [karkom]; and concerning the travelers in a ship that is cast about in the sea; and concerning one who is going out to be judged in a capital case; that they are all presumed to be alive.

讗讘诇 注讬专 砖讻讘砖讛 讻专拽讜诐 讜住驻讬谞讛 砖讗讘讚讛 讘讬诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讞讜诪专讬 讞讬讬诐 讜讞讜诪专讬 诪转讬诐 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

However, concerning the residents of a town that was conquered by a camp of besiegers; and the travelers on a ship that was lost at sea; and one who is going out to be executed after receiving his verdict; in these cases one applies to them the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead. How so? An Israelite woman married to a priest in one of these situations or a daughter of a priest married to an Israelite in one of these situations may not partake of teruma. The first woman may not do so because she may partake of teruma only while her husband is alive, and the second may not do so because she may partake of teruma only if he has died.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讙诪讬专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 诇拽讟诇讗 诪讬拽讟诇 拽讟诇讬 诇讬讛

GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: They taught that one applies the stringencies of the living only to one who is being taken to be executed in a Jewish court, where even once he is being taken to be executed, he will be released if the court finds evidence for his innocence; but in a court of the nations of the world, once he is sentenced to death, he is killed in any case. Therefore, he should be considered as a dead man in every regard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 谞诪讬 讚诪拽讘诇讬 砖讜讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 砖拽诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讞转讜诐 驻讜专住讬 砖谞诪讙 诇讘转专 讚诪讬讞转诐 驻讜专住讬 砖谞诪讙 诇讗 砖拽诇讬

Abaye said to him: In a court of the nations of the world as well, perhaps they will not execute him, as they accept bribes. Rav Yosef said to him: When they take a bribe, it is only before the verdict [puresei shenmag] has been sealed; but after the verdict has been sealed, they do not take bribes.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙 讚诇诪讗 讘讜专讞 砖讗谞讬

According to Rav Yosef, in a Jewish court, even after one鈥檚 verdict is complete the presumption is that he is alive. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a mishna (Makkot 7a) concerning one who fled from the court after his verdict had been issued: Any place where two witnesses arise and say: We testify about so-and-so that his judgment was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, the halakha is that this person should be killed. It is evident from the mishna in tractate Makkot that there is no concern that the court may have later found a reason to release him. The Gemara answers: Perhaps one who flees is different, as the court will not reconsider his verdict once he has fled.

转讗 砖诪注 砖诪注 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪拽讜诪谞讟专讬住讬谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear: If one heard from a Jewish court that they were saying: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court allows his wife to marry. If he heard from a gentile judicial registrar [komentirisin]: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court does not allow his wife to marry.

诪讗讬 诪转 讜诪讗讬 谞讛专讙 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪转 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: What does it mean when it says: Died, and what does it mean when it says: Was killed? If we say that: Died, means that he actually died, and: Was killed, means that he was actually killed, such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, i.e., that he heard from the gentile registrar that the person was actually dead, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don鈥檛 we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? Therefore, the gentile should be deemed credible when he says that someone died or was killed.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪转 讬讜爪讗 诇诪讜转 谞讛专讙 讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讜拽转谞讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

Rather, is it not necessary to explain that when it says: Died, it means that he is going out to die, and when it says: Was killed, it means going out to be executed. And it teaches that if it occurred in a Jewish court then the court allows his wife to marry, as it is assumed that he was already executed, contrary to the statement of Rav Yosef.

诇注讜诇诐 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 注讘讚讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 砖讬拽专讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that he actually died, and actually was killed. And with regard to that which you said: Such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don鈥檛 we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? The answer is that this credibility applies only in a matter that is not relevant to the gentiles; but in a matter that is relevant to the gentiles, such as here, where they desire to publicize that they carried out their verdict, it is common for them to reinforce their false verdict, i.e., once they reach a verdict they will say that the accused was killed. Therefore, one cannot rely on their statements.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜止诇诐

This is one version of the discourse; there is also another version: There are those who say that Rav Yosef said: They taught that one applies the stringencies of the living and the dead only in a court of the nations of the world;

Scroll To Top