Today's Daf Yomi
June 19, 2023 | 诇壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讙
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
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 34
Rav Nachman held like Rebbi on both issues – that one who cancels a get in a court, even after Rabban Gamliel’s takana, the cancellation will be effective, and one can cancel some of the witnesses not in the presence of the others. A contradiction is raised against Rav Nachman , as elsewhere he rules the one needs to upholds the power of the court when it comes to dividing up the property of orphans. A distinction is made between monetary laws (orphan’s property) and prohibitions (divorce). Rava and Abaye disagree about whether or not we accept gilui daat聽(where someone indicated his wishes but did not say them explicitly) in cases of divorce. This is one of the six cases (Y’AL K’GaM) where we hold like Abaye against Rava. The case in which they argue is when a messenger arrived with a get and the wife told him to come back tomorrow as she is busy weaving. When the messenger returns with this information to the husband, he responds, “Baruch hatov v’hameitiv,” indicating that he was happy she did not receive the get, but not stating explicitly that the get was canceled. Abaye and Rava each bring cases to try to prove their position. The Gemara rules like Rav Nachman on two issues – one, that one cancels a get in front of two people and two, that we hold like Rebbi on both issues (see above). They also rule like Abaye that gilui daat聽is not effective in divorce. If people are known by different names in different places, originally, they would only write the name they were known as in their current city, but later they instituted that they should put in the get all the names they are known by (or perhaps just add the words “and any other name that they are known by). Rav Ashi limits this to a case where the person is known by both names in the place where the get is given (however, some understand Rav Ashi to be saying the reverse). A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath. However, the rabbis would not permit women to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Therefore they instituted a takana that women could collect the money by making a vow that the orphans would agree to. Another two takanot were that witnesses need to sign a get and Hillel instituted prosbol to allow loans to be collected after the shmita year.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝-讬讜诪讬-诇谞砖讬诐): Play in new window | Download
讬转讜诪讬谉 砖讘讗讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜讘讜专专讬诐 诇讛谉 讞诇拽 讬驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛
with regard to the halakhot of a steward who cares for the estate of orphans: In the case of orphans who came to divide their father鈥檚 property, the court appoints a steward [apotropos] for them, and they select for them, i.e., for each of the orphans, a fine portion. When the orphans have grown up, they can protest the division and demand the redistribution of the property. And Rav Na岣an said his own statement: When they have grown up, they cannot protest, for if so, what advantage does the court have? This demonstrates that Rav Na岣an agrees with the principle of: If so, what advantage does the court have?
讛转诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗
The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction between Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement concerning the inheritance of orphans and his statement with regard to rendering a bill of divorce void. There, in the former case, it is in the realm of monetary matters, and the preservation of the court鈥檚 honor is more important than the accurate distribution of the property. Here, in the case of divorce, it is in the realm of matters of prohibition, and one would not permit a married woman to remarry in order to strengthen the authority of the court.
讙讬讚讜诇 讘专 专注讬诇讗讬 砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗讝诇 砖诇讬讞讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讚讛讜讛 讬转讘讛 讜谞讜讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转讞 讜讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘
搂 The Gemara relates: A man named Giddul bar Re鈥檌lai sent a bill of divorce to his wife. The agent went and found that she was sitting and weaving [navla]. He said to her: This is your bill of divorce. She said to him: At least go away from here now and come tomorrow to give me the bill of divorce. The agent went to Giddul bar Re鈥檌lai and told him what had occurred. Giddul bar Re鈥檌lai opened his mouth and said: Blessed is He Who is good and does good, as he was happy that the bill of divorce was not delivered.
讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讜诇讗 讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讜讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗
The Sages disagreed with regard to the status of this bill of divorce. Abaye said that he said: Blessed is He Who is good and does good, as he was happy that it was not delivered, but the bill of divorce is not rendered void through this statement. Rava said that he said: Blessed is He Who is good and does good, and the bill of divorce is rendered void.
讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗讘讬讬 住讘专 讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜专讘讗 住讘专 讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree in their understanding of disclosure of intent with regard to a bill of divorce, i.e., when the husband demonstrates that he does not desire the bill of divorce to be delivered, but does not render it void explicitly. As Abaye holds: Disclosure of intent with regard to a bill of divorce is not a significant matter and does not render it void, and Rava holds: Disclosure of intent with regard to a bill of divorce is a significant matter, and does render it void.
讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇住讛讚讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讻讜 专讘 砖砖转 诇讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讜讗爪专讻讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讙讬讟讗 讗讞专讬谞讗
Rava said: From where do I say this halakha? From a case where Rav Sheshet extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce from a certain man against his will, and that man then said to the witnesses: This is what Rav Sheshet said to you: Let the bill of divorce be rendered void, and Rav Sheshet required him to write another bill of divorce. Evidently, though the man did not explicitly render the bill of divorce void with his statement, but only demonstrated that he did not want the bill of divorce to be given, Rav Sheshet considered the bill of divorce to be rendered void.
讜讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 专讘 砖砖转 诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讛讜讛 讗讬讛讜 讘讟诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚驻谞讜讬
And Abaye would respond: Is that to say Rav Sheshet would render void the bills of divorce of other people? Rather, the husband rendered void the bill of divorce himself. And the reason why he told them this, that it was Rav Sheshet鈥檚 instructions that the bill of divorce be rendered void, was due to the lashes that he would have received from the court appointees if he said that he was rendering the bill of divorce void against the wishes of Rav Sheshet.
讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讞转谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讜讘讟诇讬讛 转谞讗 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讜讘讟诇讬讛 讛讚专 转谞讗 讜讗砖拽诇讬讛 注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇住讛讚讬 讗讜转讬讘讜 拽专讬 讘讗讜谞讬讻讜 讜讻转讜讘讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讛讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讬讛讜
And Abaye said: From where do I say that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is disregarded? From the case where Rav Yehuda extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce from the son-in-law of Rabbi Yirmeya Bira鈥檃, and the man rendered the bill of divorce void. Rav Yehuda again extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce, and the man rendered the bill of divorce void. Rav Yehuda returned and again extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce against his will, and said to the witnesses: Place pieces of gourd in your ears and write the bill of divorce for him, so that you will not hear if he renders the bill of divorce void again. Abaye states his proof: And if it enters your mind that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is a significant matter, in this case the witnesses see that he is running after them even though they do not hear him, so the bill of divorce should be rendered void.
讜专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚拽讗 专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗砖讜专 讛讘讜 诇讛 讛讬讬讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖诇诐 爪注专讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗
And Rava would respond: Since they cannot hear him, his intent is not disclosed; this, that he is running after them, does not prove that he wishes to render the bill of divorce void, as it could be that he wishes to say to them: Make haste [ashur], give her the bill of divorce speedily [hayya] in order to end the pain of that man, i.e., my pain, that I am divorcing my wife.
讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 讜驻住拽讬讛 诪讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗
And Abaye said further: From where do I say that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is disregarded? From the case where there was a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: If I do not arrive from now until thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came after thirty days had passed, but was prevented from crossing the river by the ferry that was located on the other side of the river, so he did not arrive within the designated time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have arrived, see that I have arrived, and Shmuel said: It is not considered to be an arrival, even though it is clear that this was his intention, and the bill of divorce is not void.
讜专讘讗 讗讟讜 讛转诐 诇讘讟讜诇讬 讙讬讟讗 讘注讬 讛转诐 诇拽讬讜诪讬 转谞讗讬讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 转谞讗讬讛
And Rava said: This case cannot serve as a proof; is that to say that there he desires to render the bill of divorce void? There, in that case, he desires to fulfill his stipulation, and he did not fulfill his condition, as he did not arrive. Therefore, the bill of divorce remains valid.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘谞讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讻讬 诪讟讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讟专讞谞讗
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to witnesses when he gave a bill of divorce to his betrothed: If I do not marry her within up to thirty days, then this will be a bill of divorce. When thirty days arrived, he said to them: I took the trouble but I did not succeed in marrying her.
诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讜谞住讗 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙诇讜讬讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讛讜讗
The Gemara asks: With regard to what need we be concerned in the case of this bill of divorce? If we are concerned because he attempted to marry her and there were circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from doing so, isn鈥檛 there a principle that unavoidable circumstances have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce? If the concern is due to disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce, and the husband demonstrated that he does not want the bill of divorce to take effect, then this is a dispute of Abaye and Rava, and, as the Gemara explains later, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘谞讗 诇专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚讗讚专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讻讬 诪讟讗 专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚讗讚专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诇专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚谞讬住谉 讗诪专讬 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讜谞住 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙诇讜讬讬 讚注转讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to witnesses: If I do not marry my betrothed by the New Moon of Adar then this will be a bill of divorce. When the New Moon of Adar arrived, he said to them: I said by the New Moon of Nisan. With regard to what need we be concerned? If we are concerned because he attempted to marry her and there were circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from doing so, isn鈥檛 there a principle that unavoidable circumstances have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce? If the concern is due to disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce, and the husband demonstrated that he does not want the bill of divorce to take effect, then this is a dispute of Abaye and Rava, and, as the Gemara explains later, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.
讜讛诇讻转讗 讻谞讞诪谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻谞讞诪谉
The Gemara states several conclusions: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who ruled that one can render a bill of divorce void in the presence of two people. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in both of his disputes with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
讜讛诇讻转讗 讻谞讞诪谞讬
And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Na岣ani, i.e., Abaye, that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is disregarded.
诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 诪砖谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖讬讛讗 讻讜转讘 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐
MISHNA: Initially, the husband would change his name and her name, from the names by which they were known where they formerly lived to the names by which they were known where the bill of divorce was written, and write the name of his city and the name of her city. One was not required to list all of the names by which the husband and the wife were known, but only the names in the place where the bill of divorce was being written. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that the scribe should write in the bill of divorce: The man so-and-so, and any other name that he has, and: The woman so-and-so, and any other name that she has. The reason for this ordinance was for the betterment of the world, as perhaps the people of a different city would not recognize the name written in the bill of divorce, and would claim that this bill of divorce does not belong to her.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪砖诐 诇讻讗谉 砖诪讜 讬讜住祝 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗讱 诪讙专砖讬谉 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 注诪讚 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛转拽讬谉 砖讬讛讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讜讗 讚讗转讞讝拽 讘转专讬 砖诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 诪专讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讬讬诪讬 讻讜讜转讱
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The residents of a country overseas sent an inquiry to Rabban Gamliel: With regard to people who come from there, Eretz Yisrael, to here, for example, someone whose name is Yosef but here they call him Yo岣nan, or someone whose name is Yo岣nan, but here they call him Yosef, how do they write bills of divorce to effectively divorce their wives? Rabban Gamliel arose and instituted that they should write: The man so-and-so, and any other name that he has, the woman so-and-so, and any other name that she has, for the betterment of the world. Rav Ashi said: And this applies only when he is known by two names. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Rabbi Mari and Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with your opinion.
转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讞转 讘讙诇讬诇 讜诇讜 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讗讞讚 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 注讚 砖讬讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诐 讚讙诇讬诇 注诪讜 讜讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讜砖诐 讚讬讛讜讚讛 注诪讜 讬爪讗 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讙专砖 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讙讜专砖转
The Gemara adds: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: If a husband has two wives, one in Judea and one in the Galilee; and he has two names, one that he is known by in Judea and one that he is known by in the Galilee; and he divorces his wife who is in Judea with a bill of divorce listing the name that he is known by in Judea, and he divorces his other wife who is in the Galilee with a bill of divorce listing the name that he is known by in the Galilee, then neither of his wives is divorced until he divorces his wife who is in Judea with a bill of divorce listing the name that he is known by in Judea and the name used by the people of the Galilee appended to it, and he also divorces his wife who is in the Galilee with the name that he is known by in the Galilee and the name used by the people of Judea appended to it. If he leaves to a different place, and divorces his wife with a bill of divorce listing one of these names, then she is divorced.
讜讛讗诪专转 砖诐 讚讙诇讬诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚讗转讞讝拽 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转讞讝拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that even in Judea his name used by people of the Galilee must be appended to it? Why then is he not required to list all of the names that he is known by? Rather, learn from it that there is a difference between the two cases: This former case is one where he is known to have several names, for example when those in Judea are aware that the husband is known by a different name in the Galilee. And this latter case is one where he is not known to have two names, as he traveled to a place where he was not known. Therefore, he is required to write only the name that he is known by in that place. The Gemara determines: Conclude from it that one must list all of the names that he is known by only if it is known that he has several names.
讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讛 诪专讬诐 讜驻讜专转讗 砖专讛 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪专讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜诇讗 砖专讛 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who many people called Miriam, and a few people called her Sara; the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: In her bill of divorce, one must write: Miriam, and any other name that she has, and one should not write: Sara, and any other name that she has, as one must use the name that she is primarily known by.
诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 谞驻专注转 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛砖讘讬注讛 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖转讛讗 谞讜讚专转 诇讬转讜诪讬诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讜 讜讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛
MISHNA: A widow can collect payment of her marriage contract from the property of orphans only by means of an oath that she did not receive any part of the payment of the marriage contract during her husband鈥檚 lifetime. The mishna relates: The courts refrained from administering an oath to her, leaving the widow unable to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take, for the benefit of the orphans, any vow that the orphans wished to administer to her, e.g., that all produce will become prohibited to her if she received any payment of her marriage contract, and after stating this vow, she collects payment of her marriage contract.
讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛讙讟 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讜讛诇诇 讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐
The mishna lists additional ordinances that were instituted for the betterment of the world: The witnesses sign their names on the bill of divorce, even though the bill of divorce is valid without their signatures, for the betterment of the world, as the Gemara will explain. And Hillel instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] for the betterment of the world, as the Gemara will explain.
讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛讘讗 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why discuss specifically a widow? This halakha should apply to everyone, as we maintain that anyone who comes to collect payment from the property of orphans can collect only by means of an oath. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention a widow, as it might enter your mind to say:
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
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.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Gittin 34
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讬转讜诪讬谉 砖讘讗讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜讘讜专专讬诐 诇讛谉 讞诇拽 讬驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛
with regard to the halakhot of a steward who cares for the estate of orphans: In the case of orphans who came to divide their father鈥檚 property, the court appoints a steward [apotropos] for them, and they select for them, i.e., for each of the orphans, a fine portion. When the orphans have grown up, they can protest the division and demand the redistribution of the property. And Rav Na岣an said his own statement: When they have grown up, they cannot protest, for if so, what advantage does the court have? This demonstrates that Rav Na岣an agrees with the principle of: If so, what advantage does the court have?
讛转诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗
The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction between Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement concerning the inheritance of orphans and his statement with regard to rendering a bill of divorce void. There, in the former case, it is in the realm of monetary matters, and the preservation of the court鈥檚 honor is more important than the accurate distribution of the property. Here, in the case of divorce, it is in the realm of matters of prohibition, and one would not permit a married woman to remarry in order to strengthen the authority of the court.
讙讬讚讜诇 讘专 专注讬诇讗讬 砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗讝诇 砖诇讬讞讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讚讛讜讛 讬转讘讛 讜谞讜讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转讞 讜讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘
搂 The Gemara relates: A man named Giddul bar Re鈥檌lai sent a bill of divorce to his wife. The agent went and found that she was sitting and weaving [navla]. He said to her: This is your bill of divorce. She said to him: At least go away from here now and come tomorrow to give me the bill of divorce. The agent went to Giddul bar Re鈥檌lai and told him what had occurred. Giddul bar Re鈥檌lai opened his mouth and said: Blessed is He Who is good and does good, as he was happy that the bill of divorce was not delivered.
讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讜诇讗 讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讜讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗
The Sages disagreed with regard to the status of this bill of divorce. Abaye said that he said: Blessed is He Who is good and does good, as he was happy that it was not delivered, but the bill of divorce is not rendered void through this statement. Rava said that he said: Blessed is He Who is good and does good, and the bill of divorce is rendered void.
讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗讘讬讬 住讘专 讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜专讘讗 住讘专 讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree in their understanding of disclosure of intent with regard to a bill of divorce, i.e., when the husband demonstrates that he does not desire the bill of divorce to be delivered, but does not render it void explicitly. As Abaye holds: Disclosure of intent with regard to a bill of divorce is not a significant matter and does not render it void, and Rava holds: Disclosure of intent with regard to a bill of divorce is a significant matter, and does render it void.
讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇住讛讚讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讻讜 专讘 砖砖转 诇讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讜讗爪专讻讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讙讬讟讗 讗讞专讬谞讗
Rava said: From where do I say this halakha? From a case where Rav Sheshet extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce from a certain man against his will, and that man then said to the witnesses: This is what Rav Sheshet said to you: Let the bill of divorce be rendered void, and Rav Sheshet required him to write another bill of divorce. Evidently, though the man did not explicitly render the bill of divorce void with his statement, but only demonstrated that he did not want the bill of divorce to be given, Rav Sheshet considered the bill of divorce to be rendered void.
讜讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 专讘 砖砖转 诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讛讜讛 讗讬讛讜 讘讟诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚驻谞讜讬
And Abaye would respond: Is that to say Rav Sheshet would render void the bills of divorce of other people? Rather, the husband rendered void the bill of divorce himself. And the reason why he told them this, that it was Rav Sheshet鈥檚 instructions that the bill of divorce be rendered void, was due to the lashes that he would have received from the court appointees if he said that he was rendering the bill of divorce void against the wishes of Rav Sheshet.
讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讞转谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讜讘讟诇讬讛 转谞讗 讗砖拽诇讬讛 讜讘讟诇讬讛 讛讚专 转谞讗 讜讗砖拽诇讬讛 注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇住讛讚讬 讗讜转讬讘讜 拽专讬 讘讗讜谞讬讻讜 讜讻转讜讘讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讙诇讜讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讛讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讬讛讜
And Abaye said: From where do I say that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is disregarded? From the case where Rav Yehuda extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce from the son-in-law of Rabbi Yirmeya Bira鈥檃, and the man rendered the bill of divorce void. Rav Yehuda again extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce, and the man rendered the bill of divorce void. Rav Yehuda returned and again extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce against his will, and said to the witnesses: Place pieces of gourd in your ears and write the bill of divorce for him, so that you will not hear if he renders the bill of divorce void again. Abaye states his proof: And if it enters your mind that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is a significant matter, in this case the witnesses see that he is running after them even though they do not hear him, so the bill of divorce should be rendered void.
讜专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚拽讗 专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗砖讜专 讛讘讜 诇讛 讛讬讬讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖诇诐 爪注专讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗
And Rava would respond: Since they cannot hear him, his intent is not disclosed; this, that he is running after them, does not prove that he wishes to render the bill of divorce void, as it could be that he wishes to say to them: Make haste [ashur], give her the bill of divorce speedily [hayya] in order to end the pain of that man, i.e., my pain, that I am divorcing my wife.
讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 讜驻住拽讬讛 诪讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗
And Abaye said further: From where do I say that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is disregarded? From the case where there was a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: If I do not arrive from now until thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came after thirty days had passed, but was prevented from crossing the river by the ferry that was located on the other side of the river, so he did not arrive within the designated time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have arrived, see that I have arrived, and Shmuel said: It is not considered to be an arrival, even though it is clear that this was his intention, and the bill of divorce is not void.
讜专讘讗 讗讟讜 讛转诐 诇讘讟讜诇讬 讙讬讟讗 讘注讬 讛转诐 诇拽讬讜诪讬 转谞讗讬讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 转谞讗讬讛
And Rava said: This case cannot serve as a proof; is that to say that there he desires to render the bill of divorce void? There, in that case, he desires to fulfill his stipulation, and he did not fulfill his condition, as he did not arrive. Therefore, the bill of divorce remains valid.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘谞讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讻讬 诪讟讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讟专讞谞讗
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to witnesses when he gave a bill of divorce to his betrothed: If I do not marry her within up to thirty days, then this will be a bill of divorce. When thirty days arrived, he said to them: I took the trouble but I did not succeed in marrying her.
诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讜谞住讗 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙诇讜讬讬 讚注转讗 讘讙讬讟讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讛讜讗
The Gemara asks: With regard to what need we be concerned in the case of this bill of divorce? If we are concerned because he attempted to marry her and there were circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from doing so, isn鈥檛 there a principle that unavoidable circumstances have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce? If the concern is due to disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce, and the husband demonstrated that he does not want the bill of divorce to take effect, then this is a dispute of Abaye and Rava, and, as the Gemara explains later, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘谞讗 诇专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚讗讚专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讻讬 诪讟讗 专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚讗讚专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诇专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚谞讬住谉 讗诪专讬 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讜谞住 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙诇讜讬讬 讚注转讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to witnesses: If I do not marry my betrothed by the New Moon of Adar then this will be a bill of divorce. When the New Moon of Adar arrived, he said to them: I said by the New Moon of Nisan. With regard to what need we be concerned? If we are concerned because he attempted to marry her and there were circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from doing so, isn鈥檛 there a principle that unavoidable circumstances have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce? If the concern is due to disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce, and the husband demonstrated that he does not want the bill of divorce to take effect, then this is a dispute of Abaye and Rava, and, as the Gemara explains later, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.
讜讛诇讻转讗 讻谞讞诪谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻谞讞诪谉
The Gemara states several conclusions: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who ruled that one can render a bill of divorce void in the presence of two people. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in both of his disputes with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
讜讛诇讻转讗 讻谞讞诪谞讬
And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Na岣ani, i.e., Abaye, that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is disregarded.
诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 诪砖谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖讬讛讗 讻讜转讘 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐
MISHNA: Initially, the husband would change his name and her name, from the names by which they were known where they formerly lived to the names by which they were known where the bill of divorce was written, and write the name of his city and the name of her city. One was not required to list all of the names by which the husband and the wife were known, but only the names in the place where the bill of divorce was being written. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that the scribe should write in the bill of divorce: The man so-and-so, and any other name that he has, and: The woman so-and-so, and any other name that she has. The reason for this ordinance was for the betterment of the world, as perhaps the people of a different city would not recognize the name written in the bill of divorce, and would claim that this bill of divorce does not belong to her.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪砖诐 诇讻讗谉 砖诪讜 讬讜住祝 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗讱 诪讙专砖讬谉 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 注诪讚 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛转拽讬谉 砖讬讛讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讜讗 讚讗转讞讝拽 讘转专讬 砖诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 诪专讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讬讬诪讬 讻讜讜转讱
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The residents of a country overseas sent an inquiry to Rabban Gamliel: With regard to people who come from there, Eretz Yisrael, to here, for example, someone whose name is Yosef but here they call him Yo岣nan, or someone whose name is Yo岣nan, but here they call him Yosef, how do they write bills of divorce to effectively divorce their wives? Rabban Gamliel arose and instituted that they should write: The man so-and-so, and any other name that he has, the woman so-and-so, and any other name that she has, for the betterment of the world. Rav Ashi said: And this applies only when he is known by two names. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Rabbi Mari and Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with your opinion.
转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讞转 讘讙诇讬诇 讜诇讜 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讗讞讚 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 注讚 砖讬讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诐 讚讙诇讬诇 注诪讜 讜讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讘砖诪讜 砖讘讙诇讬诇 讜砖诐 讚讬讛讜讚讛 注诪讜 讬爪讗 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讙专砖 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讙讜专砖转
The Gemara adds: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: If a husband has two wives, one in Judea and one in the Galilee; and he has two names, one that he is known by in Judea and one that he is known by in the Galilee; and he divorces his wife who is in Judea with a bill of divorce listing the name that he is known by in Judea, and he divorces his other wife who is in the Galilee with a bill of divorce listing the name that he is known by in the Galilee, then neither of his wives is divorced until he divorces his wife who is in Judea with a bill of divorce listing the name that he is known by in Judea and the name used by the people of the Galilee appended to it, and he also divorces his wife who is in the Galilee with the name that he is known by in the Galilee and the name used by the people of Judea appended to it. If he leaves to a different place, and divorces his wife with a bill of divorce listing one of these names, then she is divorced.
讜讛讗诪专转 砖诐 讚讙诇讬诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚讗转讞讝拽 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转讞讝拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that even in Judea his name used by people of the Galilee must be appended to it? Why then is he not required to list all of the names that he is known by? Rather, learn from it that there is a difference between the two cases: This former case is one where he is known to have several names, for example when those in Judea are aware that the husband is known by a different name in the Galilee. And this latter case is one where he is not known to have two names, as he traveled to a place where he was not known. Therefore, he is required to write only the name that he is known by in that place. The Gemara determines: Conclude from it that one must list all of the names that he is known by only if it is known that he has several names.
讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讛 诪专讬诐 讜驻讜专转讗 砖专讛 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪专讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜诇讗 砖专讛 讜讻诇 砖讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讛
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who many people called Miriam, and a few people called her Sara; the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: In her bill of divorce, one must write: Miriam, and any other name that she has, and one should not write: Sara, and any other name that she has, as one must use the name that she is primarily known by.
诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 谞驻专注转 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛砖讘讬注讛 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖转讛讗 谞讜讚专转 诇讬转讜诪讬诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讜 讜讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛
MISHNA: A widow can collect payment of her marriage contract from the property of orphans only by means of an oath that she did not receive any part of the payment of the marriage contract during her husband鈥檚 lifetime. The mishna relates: The courts refrained from administering an oath to her, leaving the widow unable to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take, for the benefit of the orphans, any vow that the orphans wished to administer to her, e.g., that all produce will become prohibited to her if she received any payment of her marriage contract, and after stating this vow, she collects payment of her marriage contract.
讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛讙讟 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讜讛诇诇 讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐
The mishna lists additional ordinances that were instituted for the betterment of the world: The witnesses sign their names on the bill of divorce, even though the bill of divorce is valid without their signatures, for the betterment of the world, as the Gemara will explain. And Hillel instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] for the betterment of the world, as the Gemara will explain.
讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛讘讗 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why discuss specifically a widow? This halakha should apply to everyone, as we maintain that anyone who comes to collect payment from the property of orphans can collect only by means of an oath. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention a widow, as it might enter your mind to say:
