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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 14, 2016 | 讚壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

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

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

Gittin 32

How does one cancel a get? 聽At what stage can it be cancelled? 聽Which wording is effective and which wording would not be effective to cancel? 聽If he cancels the get that a messenger is sending, can he reuse the same get later if he in fact decides to divorce his wife or is the get itself cancelled?


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

砖讜驻转讗 讘拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 专驻讬讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 住讬讻转讗 讘讚驻谞讗 专驻讬讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽谞讬讗 讘讻讜驻转讗 专驻讬讗

the handle in the hole [kofina] of the hoe [mara] becomes loose [rafya], as he understands the word yafri to refer to separating connected items. Similarly, Rav Yosef said: Even the peg hammered into the wall becomes loose. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Even the reed woven into the basket becomes loose.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讙讟

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜讛讙讬注 讘砖诇讬讞 讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇讬讞 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讙讟 砖谞转转讬 诇讱 讘讟诇 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讟诇 拽讬讚诐 讗爪诇 讗砖转讜 讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗爪诇讛 砖诇讬讞 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讙讟 砖砖诇讞转讬 诇讱 讘讟诇 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讟诇 讗诐 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent, and he reached the agent, or where he sent another agent after him, and he said to the agent delivering the bill of divorce: The bill of divorce that I gave you, it is void, then this bill of divorce is hereby void. Similarly, if the husband reached his wife before the bill of divorce reached her, or in a case where he sent an agent to her, and he said, or had the agent say, to his wife: The bill of divorce that I sent to you, it is void, then this bill of divorce is hereby void. However, if he stated this once the bill of divorce had entered her possession, he can no longer render it void, as the divorce had already taken effect.

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜诪讘讟诇讜 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

The mishna relates that initially, a husband who wished to render the bill of divorce void would convene a court elsewhere and render the bill of divorce void in the presence of the court before it reached his wife. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted an ordinance that one should not do this, for the betterment of the world. The Gemara will explain what this means.

讙诪壮 讛讙讬注讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讙讬注 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬诇讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇爪注讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna states that if one sends a bill of divorce with an agent and then meets the agent and renders void the bill of divorce in his presence, then it is void. The Gemara points out: The mishna does not teach: He reached the agent after pursuing him; rather: He reached the agent, meaning and even if he reached him incidentally, without intent, he renders the bill of divorce void with his statement. And we do not say that in that case he intends only to vex his wife and does not actually intend to render the bill of divorce void.

讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇讬讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讗诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 讚讘转专讗 诪砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 讚拽诪讗 讚诇讘讟诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state that the bill of divorce is void when he reached the agent, or in a case where he sent another agent after him? The legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, so it seems obvious that just as the husband can nullify the agency of the first agent, so too, can the second agent nullify the agency of the first agent. The Gemara answers: This principle was stated lest you say that the agency of the latter, the second agent, is not stronger than the agency of the former, and that the latter agent cannot nullify the agency of the first agent and only the husband can nullify it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the second agent can nullify the agency of the first agent.

拽讚诐 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讗砖转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇爪注讜专讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇砖诇讬讞 讗讘诇 诇讚讬讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诇爪注讜专讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues and asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach a case where a husband reached his wife before the bill of divorce reached her? It is obvious that a husband can render void the bill of divorce before it reaches his wife. The Gemara explains: This principle was stated lest you say that when we don鈥檛 say that he intends only to vex her like in the case above, and the bill of divorce is in fact void, this matter applies only when he said to the agent that the bill of divorce is void; however, if he said that to her, he certainly intends only to vex her, and he does not actually intend to render the bill of divorce void. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in this case the bill of divorce is void.

讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗爪诇讛 砖诇讬讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讟专讞 讗讚注转讗 诇爪注讜专讛 讗讘诇 砖诇讬讞 讚诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讻讬 讟专讞 讜讚讗讬 诇爪注讜专讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues and asks: Why do I need the mishna to state: Or where he sent an agent to her, which, as stated above, means that the legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that only he would not exert himself with the sole intent to vex her, by informing her falsely that the bill of divorce is void; however, with regard to the agent, as the husband does not care if he exerts himself for no reason, and the husband certainly intends only to vex her when he sends an agent and not actually to render the bill of divorce void. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in this case as well the bill of divorce is void.

讗诐 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪讛讚专 注诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讘讟讜诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna states further: If he stated this once the bill of divorce had entered her possession, he can no longer render it void, as the divorce had already taken effect. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Once the bill of divorce has entered her possession, they are divorced. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state that even in a case where he was going around searching for the bill of divorce from the beginning in order to render it void before it reached his wife, once it enters her possession it is too late. Lest you say: Once he renders the bill of divorce void, even after it had entered her possession, it has become clear retroactively that he rendered it void from the beginning, before it reached his wife, therefore the mishna teaches us that since the bill of divorce was rendered void only after it had entered her possession, they are divorced.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讟诇 讛讜讗 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 讘讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Sages taught: If a husband made one of the following statements with regard to a bill of divorce that he sent: It is void [batel hu], or: I do not desire it, then his statement takes effect and the bill of divorce is void. However, if he said: It is invalid, or: It is not a bill of divorce, then it is as though he said nothing, as the bill of divorce has nothing disqualifying it.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讟诇 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诇讘讟讬诇 诪砖诪注 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讬讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪拽讘诇 诪转谞讛 砖讗诪专 诇讗讞专 砖讘讗转讛 诪转谞讛 诇讬讚讜 诪转谞讛 讝讜 诪讘讜讟诇转 转讬讘讟诇 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘讟诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪转谞讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讘讟诇 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the formulation: Batel, is a prescriptive formulation that means: Let it become void, and not a descriptive formulation that means that the bill of divorce is already void? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar Aivu say that Rav Sheshet said, and some say that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who receives a gift, who, after the gift had entered his possession, said: This gift is rendered void; or if he said: Let it become void; or if he said: I do not desire it, it is as though he said nothing. He has already acquired the gift, and he cannot undo his acquisition. However, if he said: It is void [betela he], or: It is not a gift, his statement is effective, as these formulations indicate that he had never agreed to acquire the gift in the first place. Apparently, the formulation: Batel, means that it is void from the beginning, and not that it should become void, in opposition to the baraita.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讟诇

Abaye said: The formulation: Batel,

砖转讬 诇砖讜谞讜转 诪砖诪注 诪砖诪注 讚讘讟诇 讜诪砖诪注 讚诇讬讘讟讬诇 讙讘讬 讙讟 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讛谞讬 讘讬讛 拽讗诪专 讙讘讬 诪转谞讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讛谞讬 讘讛 拽讗诪专

has two potential meanings, depending on the context. It means that it was void already, and it also means that it will become void in the future. With regard to a bill of divorce, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since his statement can be understood to mean that the bill of divorce should be void from that point onward, it is interpreted as such. With regard to a gift, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since one cannot nullify the acquisition of a gift after taking possession of it, his intention was that the gift was void from the outset, and his statement is interpreted as such.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞 诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖诇讬讞 讛讙讟 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬

Additionally Abaye said with regard to the relationship between a bill of divorce and a gift that we have a tradition: An agent sent to deliver a gift is considered like an agent sent to deliver a bill of divorce. The Gemara explains: The practical difference that is learned from this is that if one says to his agent: Take this gift to so-and-so, it is not considered as if he said to him: Acquire the gift on his behalf. Therefore, as long as the gift has not yet reached the intended recipient, the one who sent the gift can retract it, and it is not as if the intended recipient had taken possession of the gift from the moment that it was given to the agent.

专讘讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚转诇讬 讜拽讗讬 讘注讬讘专讗 讚讚砖讗 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讟诇 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

The Gemara relates: Ravina found Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k as he was leaning on the bar of a door deep in thought, and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k was considering the following dilemma: What is the halakha if a husband said only: This bill of divorce is void, but did not say: This bill of divorce, it is void? Does he mean to render the bill of divorce void from that point onward, which he has the ability to do, or is he merely noting the fact that this bill of divorce is void, in which case his statement does not affect the validity of the document? No answer is given to this question and therefore the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗 讬讜注讬诇 诇讗 讬转讬专 诇讗 讬注讝讬讘 诇讗 讬砖诇讞 诇讗 讬讙专砖 讬讛讗 讞专住 讬讛讗 讻讞专住 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

Rav Sheshet says, and some say that it was taught in a baraita, that if the husband said one of these phrases: This bill of divorce shall not be effective, shall not release, shall not cause to leave, shall not send away, shall not divorce, shall be pottery, or shall be like pottery, in all of these cases his statement is effective, and the bill of divorce is rendered void.

讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讗讬谞讜 诪转讬专 讗讬谞讜 诪注讝讬讘 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讙专砖 讞专住 讛讜讗 讻讞专住 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

If, however, the husband used one of the following formulations: This bill of divorce has no effect, does not release, does not cause to leave, does not send away, does not divorce, it is pottery, or it is like pottery, then it is as though he said nothing. The husband has the authority only to render the bill of divorce void. However, his descriptive statements with regard to the legal standing of the bill of divorce are meaningless.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讞专住 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛驻拽专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if he said: It is hereby pottery? Is his intention to make a descriptive statement, that the bill of divorce is not valid, or does he intend to render it void? Ravina said to Rav A岣, son of Rava, and some say that Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this formulation different from saying about one鈥檚 property: It is hereby consecrated property, or: It is hereby ownerless property, where it is clear that his intention is to designate the items as consecrated or ownerless property? With regard to bills of divorce as well, his statement is effective and it renders the bill of divorce void.

讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

搂 The Gemara asks: If the husband rendered void a bill of divorce, can he go back and divorce his wife with it, since perhaps he did not actually render void the bill of divorce but only nullified the agency for its delivery, so it can be used again in the future; or may he not go back and divorce with it, as the bill of divorce itself was rendered void? Rav Na岣an says: He may go back and divorce with it, and Rav Sheshet says: He may not go back and divorce with it. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, that the bill of divorce may be used.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜讝专转

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But don鈥檛 we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: If a man gives a woman money for betrothal and says that the betrothal will take effect after thirty days, the woman can retract her agreement within the thirty days and decide that she does not wish to be betrothed. Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that as long as the change in status had not yet taken effect, she may nullify her earlier agreement by stating a retraction. Therefore, here too, when the husband states that the bill of divorce should be rendered void, since the divorce had not taken effect, it should be rendered void.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讚讬讘讜专 讜讚讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗转讬 讚讬讘讜专 讜诪讘讟诇 讚讬讘讜专 讜讛讻讗 谞讛讬 讚讘讟诇讬讛 诇砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讚砖诇讬讞 讙讬讟讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara rejects this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of betrothal, it is speech that accepts the betrothal and speech that retracts her acceptance; therefore, her speech comes and nullifies her previous speech, as the woman first stated that she agreed and then stated afterward that she retracted her agreement. But here, even though it is true that the husband rendered void the agency of the agent, does he also render void the bill of divorce itself? Since the bill of divorce is a tangible object, it cannot be made void through speech alone.

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗讬转诪专 讘驻谞讬 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 诪讘讟诇讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛

搂 The mishna taught that initially a husband who wished to render void the bill of divorce would convene a court, even if he had already sent the document with an agent, and render the bill of divorce void in the presence of the court. It was stated: When the husband would state that the bill of divorce should be void, in the presence of how many people must he render it void? Rav Na岣an says: He must render it void in the presence of two people. Rav Sheshet says: He must render it void in the presence of three people.

专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讘讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪讜住专谞讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐

The Gemara explains the reasoning of each amora: Rav Sheshet said that he must do so in the presence of three people, because the mishna teaches that this takes place in the presence of a court, and a court consists of three judges. And Rav Na岣an said that it may be done in the presence of two people, as two people are also called a court, and in exigent circumstances one may rely on this. Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say that two people are also called a court? As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:4): When one creates a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol], he states: I transfer to you in your presence,

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 32

砖讜驻转讗 讘拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 专驻讬讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 住讬讻转讗 讘讚驻谞讗 专驻讬讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽谞讬讗 讘讻讜驻转讗 专驻讬讗

the handle in the hole [kofina] of the hoe [mara] becomes loose [rafya], as he understands the word yafri to refer to separating connected items. Similarly, Rav Yosef said: Even the peg hammered into the wall becomes loose. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Even the reed woven into the basket becomes loose.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讙讟

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜讛讙讬注 讘砖诇讬讞 讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇讬讞 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讙讟 砖谞转转讬 诇讱 讘讟诇 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讟诇 拽讬讚诐 讗爪诇 讗砖转讜 讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗爪诇讛 砖诇讬讞 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讙讟 砖砖诇讞转讬 诇讱 讘讟诇 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讟诇 讗诐 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent, and he reached the agent, or where he sent another agent after him, and he said to the agent delivering the bill of divorce: The bill of divorce that I gave you, it is void, then this bill of divorce is hereby void. Similarly, if the husband reached his wife before the bill of divorce reached her, or in a case where he sent an agent to her, and he said, or had the agent say, to his wife: The bill of divorce that I sent to you, it is void, then this bill of divorce is hereby void. However, if he stated this once the bill of divorce had entered her possession, he can no longer render it void, as the divorce had already taken effect.

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜诪讘讟诇讜 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

The mishna relates that initially, a husband who wished to render the bill of divorce void would convene a court elsewhere and render the bill of divorce void in the presence of the court before it reached his wife. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted an ordinance that one should not do this, for the betterment of the world. The Gemara will explain what this means.

讙诪壮 讛讙讬注讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讙讬注 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬诇讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇爪注讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna states that if one sends a bill of divorce with an agent and then meets the agent and renders void the bill of divorce in his presence, then it is void. The Gemara points out: The mishna does not teach: He reached the agent after pursuing him; rather: He reached the agent, meaning and even if he reached him incidentally, without intent, he renders the bill of divorce void with his statement. And we do not say that in that case he intends only to vex his wife and does not actually intend to render the bill of divorce void.

讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇讬讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讗诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 讚讘转专讗 诪砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 讚拽诪讗 讚诇讘讟诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state that the bill of divorce is void when he reached the agent, or in a case where he sent another agent after him? The legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, so it seems obvious that just as the husband can nullify the agency of the first agent, so too, can the second agent nullify the agency of the first agent. The Gemara answers: This principle was stated lest you say that the agency of the latter, the second agent, is not stronger than the agency of the former, and that the latter agent cannot nullify the agency of the first agent and only the husband can nullify it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the second agent can nullify the agency of the first agent.

拽讚诐 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讗砖转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇爪注讜专讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇砖诇讬讞 讗讘诇 诇讚讬讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诇爪注讜专讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues and asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach a case where a husband reached his wife before the bill of divorce reached her? It is obvious that a husband can render void the bill of divorce before it reaches his wife. The Gemara explains: This principle was stated lest you say that when we don鈥檛 say that he intends only to vex her like in the case above, and the bill of divorce is in fact void, this matter applies only when he said to the agent that the bill of divorce is void; however, if he said that to her, he certainly intends only to vex her, and he does not actually intend to render the bill of divorce void. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in this case the bill of divorce is void.

讗讜 砖砖诇讞 讗爪诇讛 砖诇讬讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讟专讞 讗讚注转讗 诇爪注讜专讛 讗讘诇 砖诇讬讞 讚诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讻讬 讟专讞 讜讚讗讬 诇爪注讜专讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues and asks: Why do I need the mishna to state: Or where he sent an agent to her, which, as stated above, means that the legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that only he would not exert himself with the sole intent to vex her, by informing her falsely that the bill of divorce is void; however, with regard to the agent, as the husband does not care if he exerts himself for no reason, and the husband certainly intends only to vex her when he sends an agent and not actually to render the bill of divorce void. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in this case as well the bill of divorce is void.

讗诐 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪讛讚专 注诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讘讟讜诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna states further: If he stated this once the bill of divorce had entered her possession, he can no longer render it void, as the divorce had already taken effect. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Once the bill of divorce has entered her possession, they are divorced. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state that even in a case where he was going around searching for the bill of divorce from the beginning in order to render it void before it reached his wife, once it enters her possession it is too late. Lest you say: Once he renders the bill of divorce void, even after it had entered her possession, it has become clear retroactively that he rendered it void from the beginning, before it reached his wife, therefore the mishna teaches us that since the bill of divorce was rendered void only after it had entered her possession, they are divorced.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讟诇 讛讜讗 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 讘讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Sages taught: If a husband made one of the following statements with regard to a bill of divorce that he sent: It is void [batel hu], or: I do not desire it, then his statement takes effect and the bill of divorce is void. However, if he said: It is invalid, or: It is not a bill of divorce, then it is as though he said nothing, as the bill of divorce has nothing disqualifying it.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讟诇 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诇讘讟讬诇 诪砖诪注 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讬讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪拽讘诇 诪转谞讛 砖讗诪专 诇讗讞专 砖讘讗转讛 诪转谞讛 诇讬讚讜 诪转谞讛 讝讜 诪讘讜讟诇转 转讬讘讟诇 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘讟诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪转谞讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讘讟诇 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the formulation: Batel, is a prescriptive formulation that means: Let it become void, and not a descriptive formulation that means that the bill of divorce is already void? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar Aivu say that Rav Sheshet said, and some say that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who receives a gift, who, after the gift had entered his possession, said: This gift is rendered void; or if he said: Let it become void; or if he said: I do not desire it, it is as though he said nothing. He has already acquired the gift, and he cannot undo his acquisition. However, if he said: It is void [betela he], or: It is not a gift, his statement is effective, as these formulations indicate that he had never agreed to acquire the gift in the first place. Apparently, the formulation: Batel, means that it is void from the beginning, and not that it should become void, in opposition to the baraita.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讟诇

Abaye said: The formulation: Batel,

砖转讬 诇砖讜谞讜转 诪砖诪注 诪砖诪注 讚讘讟诇 讜诪砖诪注 讚诇讬讘讟讬诇 讙讘讬 讙讟 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讛谞讬 讘讬讛 拽讗诪专 讙讘讬 诪转谞讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讛谞讬 讘讛 拽讗诪专

has two potential meanings, depending on the context. It means that it was void already, and it also means that it will become void in the future. With regard to a bill of divorce, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since his statement can be understood to mean that the bill of divorce should be void from that point onward, it is interpreted as such. With regard to a gift, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since one cannot nullify the acquisition of a gift after taking possession of it, his intention was that the gift was void from the outset, and his statement is interpreted as such.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞 诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖诇讬讞 讛讙讟 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬

Additionally Abaye said with regard to the relationship between a bill of divorce and a gift that we have a tradition: An agent sent to deliver a gift is considered like an agent sent to deliver a bill of divorce. The Gemara explains: The practical difference that is learned from this is that if one says to his agent: Take this gift to so-and-so, it is not considered as if he said to him: Acquire the gift on his behalf. Therefore, as long as the gift has not yet reached the intended recipient, the one who sent the gift can retract it, and it is not as if the intended recipient had taken possession of the gift from the moment that it was given to the agent.

专讘讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚转诇讬 讜拽讗讬 讘注讬讘专讗 讚讚砖讗 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讟诇 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

The Gemara relates: Ravina found Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k as he was leaning on the bar of a door deep in thought, and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k was considering the following dilemma: What is the halakha if a husband said only: This bill of divorce is void, but did not say: This bill of divorce, it is void? Does he mean to render the bill of divorce void from that point onward, which he has the ability to do, or is he merely noting the fact that this bill of divorce is void, in which case his statement does not affect the validity of the document? No answer is given to this question and therefore the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗 讬讜注讬诇 诇讗 讬转讬专 诇讗 讬注讝讬讘 诇讗 讬砖诇讞 诇讗 讬讙专砖 讬讛讗 讞专住 讬讛讗 讻讞专住 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

Rav Sheshet says, and some say that it was taught in a baraita, that if the husband said one of these phrases: This bill of divorce shall not be effective, shall not release, shall not cause to leave, shall not send away, shall not divorce, shall be pottery, or shall be like pottery, in all of these cases his statement is effective, and the bill of divorce is rendered void.

讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讗讬谞讜 诪转讬专 讗讬谞讜 诪注讝讬讘 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讙专砖 讞专住 讛讜讗 讻讞专住 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

If, however, the husband used one of the following formulations: This bill of divorce has no effect, does not release, does not cause to leave, does not send away, does not divorce, it is pottery, or it is like pottery, then it is as though he said nothing. The husband has the authority only to render the bill of divorce void. However, his descriptive statements with regard to the legal standing of the bill of divorce are meaningless.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讞专住 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛驻拽专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if he said: It is hereby pottery? Is his intention to make a descriptive statement, that the bill of divorce is not valid, or does he intend to render it void? Ravina said to Rav A岣, son of Rava, and some say that Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this formulation different from saying about one鈥檚 property: It is hereby consecrated property, or: It is hereby ownerless property, where it is clear that his intention is to designate the items as consecrated or ownerless property? With regard to bills of divorce as well, his statement is effective and it renders the bill of divorce void.

讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙专砖 讘讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

搂 The Gemara asks: If the husband rendered void a bill of divorce, can he go back and divorce his wife with it, since perhaps he did not actually render void the bill of divorce but only nullified the agency for its delivery, so it can be used again in the future; or may he not go back and divorce with it, as the bill of divorce itself was rendered void? Rav Na岣an says: He may go back and divorce with it, and Rav Sheshet says: He may not go back and divorce with it. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, that the bill of divorce may be used.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜讝专转

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But don鈥檛 we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: If a man gives a woman money for betrothal and says that the betrothal will take effect after thirty days, the woman can retract her agreement within the thirty days and decide that she does not wish to be betrothed. Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that as long as the change in status had not yet taken effect, she may nullify her earlier agreement by stating a retraction. Therefore, here too, when the husband states that the bill of divorce should be rendered void, since the divorce had not taken effect, it should be rendered void.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讚讬讘讜专 讜讚讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗转讬 讚讬讘讜专 讜诪讘讟诇 讚讬讘讜专 讜讛讻讗 谞讛讬 讚讘讟诇讬讛 诇砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讚砖诇讬讞 讙讬讟讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara rejects this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of betrothal, it is speech that accepts the betrothal and speech that retracts her acceptance; therefore, her speech comes and nullifies her previous speech, as the woman first stated that she agreed and then stated afterward that she retracted her agreement. But here, even though it is true that the husband rendered void the agency of the agent, does he also render void the bill of divorce itself? Since the bill of divorce is a tangible object, it cannot be made void through speech alone.

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗讬转诪专 讘驻谞讬 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 诪讘讟诇讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛

搂 The mishna taught that initially a husband who wished to render void the bill of divorce would convene a court, even if he had already sent the document with an agent, and render the bill of divorce void in the presence of the court. It was stated: When the husband would state that the bill of divorce should be void, in the presence of how many people must he render it void? Rav Na岣an says: He must render it void in the presence of two people. Rav Sheshet says: He must render it void in the presence of three people.

专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讘讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪讜住专谞讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐

The Gemara explains the reasoning of each amora: Rav Sheshet said that he must do so in the presence of three people, because the mishna teaches that this takes place in the presence of a court, and a court consists of three judges. And Rav Na岣an said that it may be done in the presence of two people, as two people are also called a court, and in exigent circumstances one may rely on this. Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say that two people are also called a court? As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:4): When one creates a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol], he states: I transfer to you in your presence,

Scroll To Top