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

Daf Yomi

December 16, 2015 | 讚壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

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

Gittin 3

More discussion of Raba and Rava’s opinions about why there was a need for the declaration of the messenger “it was written and signed before me.” 聽The weaknesses of each opinion are highlighted聽in today’s daf.

 


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

诪砖讜诐 注讬讙讜谞讗 讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

 

due to the possibility of desertion, i.e., that she may become like a deserted wife, the Sages were lenient with her by saying that the agent who brought the bill of divorce is deemed credible, despite the fact that he is a single witness. This is to prevent women from becoming uncertain of their marital status as a result of the lack of testimony needed to ratify the bill of divorce.

 

讛讗讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讞讜诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诪爪专讻转 诇讬讛 转专讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讞讚 讗转讬 讘注诇 讜诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: Is this ruling a leniency? It is a stringency, since if you require two witnesses to testify with regard to the bill of divorce, her husband cannot come to contest and invalidate it, as his testimony will not be accepted against that of the two witnesses. However, if only one agent brings the bill of divorce, the husband can come and contest and invalidate the document.

 

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘驻谞讬 讻诪讛 谞讜转谞讜 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讚拽 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜专讜注讬 谞驻砖讬讛

 

The Gemara answers: Since the Master says: In the presence of how many people must the agent who brings the bill of divorce give it to the woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina disagreed with regard to this issue. One said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least two people, and one said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least three people, as three individuals are considered a court. Therefore, at the outset the agent is careful to clarify the matter fully, and he will not act to his own detriment by bringing an invalid bill of divorce.

 

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 诇讬讘注讬 转专讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉

 

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said that the agent must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, let us require two witnesses, just as is the practice with regard to the typical case of ratification of legal documents, which must be performed via two witnesses. The Gemara answers as above: One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions.

 

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

 

Again the Gemara asks: One can say that we say that one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions in a case such as where there is a piece of fat, and it is uncertain if it is forbidden fat and uncertain if it is permitted fat. In this situation, the piece can be permitted by a single witness, as there is no presumption that it is forbidden. However, here there is a presumption that this woman is forbidden as a married woman. If so, this is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and there is no matter of testimony for forbidden sexual relations that can be attested to by fewer than two witnesses.

 

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇 讛砖讟专 谞注砖讜 讻诪讬 砖谞讞拽专讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗爪专讜讱 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 注讬讙讜谞讗 讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

 

The Gemara answers: By right it should be that with regard to the ratification of legal documents as well, the court should not require two witnesses, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: Witnesses signed on a legal document become like a pair of witnesses whose testimony has been examined in court, and the document should be accepted without further ratification. And it is the Sages who required the court to ratify documents. And here, with regard to bills of divorce, the Rabbis were lenient with her by allowing the document to be ratified through the agent鈥檚 testimony alone, due to the possibility of desertion.

 

讛讗讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讞讜诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诪爪专讻转 诇讬讛 转专讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讞讚 讗转讬 讘注诇 讜诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘驻谞讬 讻诪讛 谞讜转谞讜 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讚拽 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜专讜注讬 谞驻砖讬讛

 

The Gemara again asks: Is this ruling a leniency? It is a stringency, since if you require two witnesses to testify with regard to the bill of divorce, then her husband cannot come to contest and invalidate it, whereas if there is only one agent, her husband can come and contest and invalidate it. Once again the Gemara answers: Since the Master says: In the presence of how many people must the agent who brings the bill of divorce give it to the woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina disagreed with regard to this issue. One said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least two people, and one said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least three people, as three individuals are considered a court. Therefore, at the outset the agent is careful to clarify the matter fully, and he will not act to his own detriment by bringing an invalid bill of divorce.

 

讜专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 诇砖诪讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇砖诪讛

 

After clarifying the basic dispute, the Gemara discusses the reasons for each opinion. And as for Rava, what is the reason that he did not say like Rabba, that the reason the agent must declare: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is due to the concern that the bill of divorce was not written for the woman鈥檚 sake? The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: Is it taught in the mishna that the agent must say: It was written in my presence for her sake, and it was signed in my presence for her sake? Since the agent does not testify that it was written for her sake, this indicates that the Sages did not institute the requirement that he state this declaration to ensure that it was written for her sake.

 

讜专讘讛 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讬 诪驻砖转 诇讬讛 讚讬讘讜专讗 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabba respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: By right it is so that the mishna should teach in this manner. However, the Sages did not require him to say this, as if you increase the agent鈥檚 requirement to speak, by obligating him to state this lengthy declaration, he will likely come to shorten it. If he has too much to remember, he might forget some of the formula, and his error will render the bill of divorce invalid.

 

讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛 讞讚讗 诪转诇转 讙讗讬讝 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬 诇讗 讙讗讬讝

 

The Gemara asks: Now too, with regard to the formula as it stands, he will come to shorten it by omitting either it was written in my presence or it was signed in my presence. The Gemara answers: He is likely to shorten it by omitting one term out of three, such as: For her sake, from the three-term clause: It was written, in my presence, for her sake. However, he will not shorten his declaration by omitting one term of two. Consequently, when asked if it was written in his presence, he will answer with the full statement, and the same is true when he is asked if it was signed in his presence.

 

讜专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬转谞讬 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜转讜 诇讗 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛

 

The Gemara asks concerning the other opinion: And as for Rabba, what is the reason that he did not say like Rava, that the reason for the decree is because witnesses may not be available to ratify the bill of divorce? The Gemara answers that Rabba could have said to you: If so, let the mishna teach: It was signed in my presence, and nothing more, as this is a confirmation that the signatures of the witnesses on the document are valid. Why do I need the agent to add: It was written in my presence? Conclude from it that the reason for this decree is because we need the bill of divorce to be written for her sake.

 

讜专讘讗 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚

 

The Gemara asks: And how does Rava respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rava would answer that by right it is so that the mishna should teach in this manner. But if this were to be so, that the agent declares merely: It was signed in my presence, people will come to confuse the matter with the typical case of ratification of legal documents. In other words, they will think it is possible to ratify other documents via the testimony of one witness. Consequently, the Sages added that the agent must also declare: It was written in my presence, which is not generally stated with regard to the confirmation of other documents.

 

讜专讘讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讘驻谞讬

 

The Gemara comments: And Rabba would respond as follows: There is no concern that people will confuse the ratification of a bill of divorce with the typical case of the ratification of legal documents, as are the two cases comparable at all? There, with regard to the ratification of other documents, the witnesses need only say: We know that these are the signatures of the witnesses on the document. By contrast, here, in the case of a bill of divorce, the agent must say: It was signed in my presence.

 

讛转诐 讗砖讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讗砖讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛转诐 讘注诇 讚讘专 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讚讘专 诪讛讬诪谉

 

Additionally, there, in the case of other documents, a woman is not deemed credible, whereas here, a woman is deemed credible when she brings a bill of divorce and declares that it was written and signed in her presence. Additionally, there, in the case of other documents, an interested party is not deemed credible to testify concerning the validity of the document. However, here, an interested party is deemed credible, as even the woman herself can bring her bill of divorce and testify that it was drafted in the correct manner.

 

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讟讜 讛讻讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 讗诪专讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚

 

And Rava, how would he respond to this claim? He could have said to you: Is that to say that here, in the case of a bill of divorce, if the witnesses of ratification say: We know, they are not deemed credible? They would be deemed credible even if they used that formula. And since when they say: We know, they are deemed credible, people will come to confuse it with the typical case of ratification of legal documents, which they will perform via one witness.

 

讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘注讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讜讘注讬

 

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, who is this tanna who requires that the writing of the bill of divorce must be performed for her sake, and also requires

 

讞转讬诪讛 诇砖诪讛 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞转讬诪讛 讘注讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讻转讘讜 注诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 转诇砖讜 讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专

 

that the signing must be performed for her sake? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he requires signing for her sake; however, he does not require that the writing must be for her sake. As we learned in a mishna (21b): One may not write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the ground, e.g., a leaf attached to a tree. However, if he wrote it on something that is attached to the ground, and then he detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, it is valid. This indicates that the essential stage of writing a bill of divorce is when it is signed by witnesses. The Gemara says that this is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion, as an unattributed ruling in the mishna typically follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

 

讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讬讘讛 讘注讬 讞转讬诪讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞转讬诪讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讜讛讗 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞转讬诪讛 诇砖诪讛

 

If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir and requires that the writing must be for her sake, he does not require that the signing must be for her sake. And if you would say that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when Rabbi Elazar does not require signing for her sake, he means by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law he requires that bills of divorce must be signed for her sake; but that is untenable, as the Sages listed three bills of divorce that are valid by Torah law but are invalid by rabbinic law, and when he disputes that ruling Rabbi Elazar does not require that the signing must be for her sake.

 

讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讗诐 谞讬住转 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讻转讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讝诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 讝诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讗诐 谞讬住转 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专

 

As we learned in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman married another man after having received one of these bills of divorce the offspring is of unflawed lineage. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would render their child as one born from an adulterous relationship [mamzer]. And these three are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but there are no signatures of witnesses on the document; and if there are the signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it; and if there is a date written on it but it has only one witness signed on it. These are the three invalid bills of divorce concerning which the Sages said: And if she married, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.

 

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖专 讜讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬诐 注诇 讛讙讟 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

 

The mishna continues: Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he gave it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written to her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Elazar maintains that witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband could contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. In any case, it can be seen from this mishna that according to Rabbi Elazar the signatures of the witnesses are not an essential part of a bill of divorce. Consequently, it does not need to be signed for her sake, even by rabbinic law.

 

讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讜讛讗 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

 

But rather, you can say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and when Rabbi Meir does not require that the writing must be for her sake, he meant by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law he does require that the writing must be for her sake. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation as well: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabbi Meir would say: A bill of divorce need not be written for her sake, and even if a husband found a bill of divorce in the garbage, and the names of the man and woman in the bill of divorce are the same as his name and that of his wife,

 

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: Intro + 2-7 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will begin with a brief introduction to Masechet Gittin. The first Mishna describes a case of an agent bringing...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Li鈥檚hma for a Get – What and Why? – Gefet 62

We generally recognize the term li鈥檚hma in the context of Limmud Torah and observing mitzvot but surprisingly, in Masechet Gittin...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 3: Can a Woman Witness Her Own Get?

How many people must witness the shaliach's statement that he was present for the signing and giving of the get...

Gittin 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 3

诪砖讜诐 注讬讙讜谞讗 讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

 

due to the possibility of desertion, i.e., that she may become like a deserted wife, the Sages were lenient with her by saying that the agent who brought the bill of divorce is deemed credible, despite the fact that he is a single witness. This is to prevent women from becoming uncertain of their marital status as a result of the lack of testimony needed to ratify the bill of divorce.

 

讛讗讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讞讜诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诪爪专讻转 诇讬讛 转专讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讞讚 讗转讬 讘注诇 讜诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: Is this ruling a leniency? It is a stringency, since if you require two witnesses to testify with regard to the bill of divorce, her husband cannot come to contest and invalidate it, as his testimony will not be accepted against that of the two witnesses. However, if only one agent brings the bill of divorce, the husband can come and contest and invalidate the document.

 

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘驻谞讬 讻诪讛 谞讜转谞讜 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讚拽 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜专讜注讬 谞驻砖讬讛

 

The Gemara answers: Since the Master says: In the presence of how many people must the agent who brings the bill of divorce give it to the woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina disagreed with regard to this issue. One said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least two people, and one said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least three people, as three individuals are considered a court. Therefore, at the outset the agent is careful to clarify the matter fully, and he will not act to his own detriment by bringing an invalid bill of divorce.

 

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 诇讬讘注讬 转专讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉

 

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said that the agent must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, let us require two witnesses, just as is the practice with regard to the typical case of ratification of legal documents, which must be performed via two witnesses. The Gemara answers as above: One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions.

 

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

 

Again the Gemara asks: One can say that we say that one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions in a case such as where there is a piece of fat, and it is uncertain if it is forbidden fat and uncertain if it is permitted fat. In this situation, the piece can be permitted by a single witness, as there is no presumption that it is forbidden. However, here there is a presumption that this woman is forbidden as a married woman. If so, this is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and there is no matter of testimony for forbidden sexual relations that can be attested to by fewer than two witnesses.

 

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇 讛砖讟专 谞注砖讜 讻诪讬 砖谞讞拽专讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗爪专讜讱 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 注讬讙讜谞讗 讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

 

The Gemara answers: By right it should be that with regard to the ratification of legal documents as well, the court should not require two witnesses, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: Witnesses signed on a legal document become like a pair of witnesses whose testimony has been examined in court, and the document should be accepted without further ratification. And it is the Sages who required the court to ratify documents. And here, with regard to bills of divorce, the Rabbis were lenient with her by allowing the document to be ratified through the agent鈥檚 testimony alone, due to the possibility of desertion.

 

讛讗讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讞讜诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诪爪专讻转 诇讬讛 转专讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讞讚 讗转讬 讘注诇 讜诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘驻谞讬 讻诪讛 谞讜转谞讜 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讚拽 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜专讜注讬 谞驻砖讬讛

 

The Gemara again asks: Is this ruling a leniency? It is a stringency, since if you require two witnesses to testify with regard to the bill of divorce, then her husband cannot come to contest and invalidate it, whereas if there is only one agent, her husband can come and contest and invalidate it. Once again the Gemara answers: Since the Master says: In the presence of how many people must the agent who brings the bill of divorce give it to the woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina disagreed with regard to this issue. One said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least two people, and one said that he must deliver it to her in the presence of at least three people, as three individuals are considered a court. Therefore, at the outset the agent is careful to clarify the matter fully, and he will not act to his own detriment by bringing an invalid bill of divorce.

 

讜专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 诇砖诪讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇砖诪讛

 

After clarifying the basic dispute, the Gemara discusses the reasons for each opinion. And as for Rava, what is the reason that he did not say like Rabba, that the reason the agent must declare: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is due to the concern that the bill of divorce was not written for the woman鈥檚 sake? The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: Is it taught in the mishna that the agent must say: It was written in my presence for her sake, and it was signed in my presence for her sake? Since the agent does not testify that it was written for her sake, this indicates that the Sages did not institute the requirement that he state this declaration to ensure that it was written for her sake.

 

讜专讘讛 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讬 诪驻砖转 诇讬讛 讚讬讘讜专讗 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabba respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: By right it is so that the mishna should teach in this manner. However, the Sages did not require him to say this, as if you increase the agent鈥檚 requirement to speak, by obligating him to state this lengthy declaration, he will likely come to shorten it. If he has too much to remember, he might forget some of the formula, and his error will render the bill of divorce invalid.

 

讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛 讞讚讗 诪转诇转 讙讗讬讝 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬 诇讗 讙讗讬讝

 

The Gemara asks: Now too, with regard to the formula as it stands, he will come to shorten it by omitting either it was written in my presence or it was signed in my presence. The Gemara answers: He is likely to shorten it by omitting one term out of three, such as: For her sake, from the three-term clause: It was written, in my presence, for her sake. However, he will not shorten his declaration by omitting one term of two. Consequently, when asked if it was written in his presence, he will answer with the full statement, and the same is true when he is asked if it was signed in his presence.

 

讜专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬转谞讬 讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜转讜 诇讗 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇砖诪讛

 

The Gemara asks concerning the other opinion: And as for Rabba, what is the reason that he did not say like Rava, that the reason for the decree is because witnesses may not be available to ratify the bill of divorce? The Gemara answers that Rabba could have said to you: If so, let the mishna teach: It was signed in my presence, and nothing more, as this is a confirmation that the signatures of the witnesses on the document are valid. Why do I need the agent to add: It was written in my presence? Conclude from it that the reason for this decree is because we need the bill of divorce to be written for her sake.

 

讜专讘讗 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚

 

The Gemara asks: And how does Rava respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rava would answer that by right it is so that the mishna should teach in this manner. But if this were to be so, that the agent declares merely: It was signed in my presence, people will come to confuse the matter with the typical case of ratification of legal documents. In other words, they will think it is possible to ratify other documents via the testimony of one witness. Consequently, the Sages added that the agent must also declare: It was written in my presence, which is not generally stated with regard to the confirmation of other documents.

 

讜专讘讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讘驻谞讬

 

The Gemara comments: And Rabba would respond as follows: There is no concern that people will confuse the ratification of a bill of divorce with the typical case of the ratification of legal documents, as are the two cases comparable at all? There, with regard to the ratification of other documents, the witnesses need only say: We know that these are the signatures of the witnesses on the document. By contrast, here, in the case of a bill of divorce, the agent must say: It was signed in my presence.

 

讛转诐 讗砖讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讗砖讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛转诐 讘注诇 讚讘专 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讛讻讗 讘注诇 讚讘专 诪讛讬诪谉

 

Additionally, there, in the case of other documents, a woman is not deemed credible, whereas here, a woman is deemed credible when she brings a bill of divorce and declares that it was written and signed in her presence. Additionally, there, in the case of other documents, an interested party is not deemed credible to testify concerning the validity of the document. However, here, an interested party is deemed credible, as even the woman herself can bring her bill of divorce and testify that it was drafted in the correct manner.

 

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讟讜 讛讻讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 讗诪专讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讚 讗讞讚

 

And Rava, how would he respond to this claim? He could have said to you: Is that to say that here, in the case of a bill of divorce, if the witnesses of ratification say: We know, they are not deemed credible? They would be deemed credible even if they used that formula. And since when they say: We know, they are deemed credible, people will come to confuse it with the typical case of ratification of legal documents, which they will perform via one witness.

 

讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘注讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讜讘注讬

 

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, who is this tanna who requires that the writing of the bill of divorce must be performed for her sake, and also requires

 

讞转讬诪讛 诇砖诪讛 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞转讬诪讛 讘注讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讻转讘讜 注诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 转诇砖讜 讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专

 

that the signing must be performed for her sake? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he requires signing for her sake; however, he does not require that the writing must be for her sake. As we learned in a mishna (21b): One may not write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the ground, e.g., a leaf attached to a tree. However, if he wrote it on something that is attached to the ground, and then he detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, it is valid. This indicates that the essential stage of writing a bill of divorce is when it is signed by witnesses. The Gemara says that this is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion, as an unattributed ruling in the mishna typically follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

 

讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讬讘讛 讘注讬 讞转讬诪讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞转讬诪讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讜讛讗 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞转讬诪讛 诇砖诪讛

 

If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir and requires that the writing must be for her sake, he does not require that the signing must be for her sake. And if you would say that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when Rabbi Elazar does not require signing for her sake, he means by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law he requires that bills of divorce must be signed for her sake; but that is untenable, as the Sages listed three bills of divorce that are valid by Torah law but are invalid by rabbinic law, and when he disputes that ruling Rabbi Elazar does not require that the signing must be for her sake.

 

讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讗诐 谞讬住转 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讻转讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讝诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 讝诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讙讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讗诐 谞讬住转 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专

 

As we learned in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman married another man after having received one of these bills of divorce the offspring is of unflawed lineage. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would render their child as one born from an adulterous relationship [mamzer]. And these three are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but there are no signatures of witnesses on the document; and if there are the signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it; and if there is a date written on it but it has only one witness signed on it. These are the three invalid bills of divorce concerning which the Sages said: And if she married, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.

 

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 注讚讬诐 讻砖专 讜讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬诐 注诇 讛讙讟 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

 

The mishna continues: Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he gave it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written to her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Elazar maintains that witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband could contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. In any case, it can be seen from this mishna that according to Rabbi Elazar the signatures of the witnesses are not an essential part of a bill of divorce. Consequently, it does not need to be signed for her sake, even by rabbinic law.

 

讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讜讛讗 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

 

But rather, you can say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and when Rabbi Meir does not require that the writing must be for her sake, he meant by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law he does require that the writing must be for her sake. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation as well: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabbi Meir would say: A bill of divorce need not be written for her sake, and even if a husband found a bill of divorce in the garbage, and the names of the man and woman in the bill of divorce are the same as his name and that of his wife,

 

Scroll To Top