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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 18, 2015 | 讜壮 讘讟讘转 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 5

Three sources are brought to question Raba’s opinion and all are resolved. 聽It is stated that the same argument between Raba and Rava was also argued by two Rabbis amoraim from Israel. 聽Another argument which is possibly linked is mentioned – before how many people does the messenger need to be to deliver the get and recite befanai nechtav ubefanai nechtam 2 or 3?


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

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞专砖 讞专砖 讘专 讗讬转讜讬讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

If we say that this is referring to a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to halakha.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗

And Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent gave the bill of divorce to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute. In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything. This works out well according to the opinion of Rava. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, as he requires testimony that the bill of divorce was written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This does not refer to the main period of the decree. Rather, it is speaking of later generations, after the residents of countries overseas learned that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, so there is no need for the declaration. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, meaning that this is referring to a situation where everyone is assumed to be knowledgeable, even if the agent is able to testify he should also not be required to say: It was written in my presence, as it should be sufficient to confirm the witnesses鈥 signatures. The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, Rabba maintains that the agent must testify, due to a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state, i.e., they might forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 驻拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: If it is so, that the Sages decreed that the statement must be issued even in this case, then one who is unable to speak should also be obligated to state the declaration, and be disqualified from serving as an agent due to his inability to speak. The Gemara answers: This case of a halakhically competent individual who became a deaf-mute is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.

讜讛讗 讗砖讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘砖诇讬讞讜转

The Gemara asks: But the case of a woman who brings her own bill of divorce is also an uncommon matter, and yet we learned in a mishna (23a): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she too is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this ordinance so that you will not distinguish with regard to different types of agency. To avoid confusion, the Sages decreed that all agents who bring a bill of divorce must state the declaration, even the woman herself.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注诇 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

The Gemara asks: If so, then a husband who brings his wife鈥檚 bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. Why then, is it taught in a baraita: In the case of the husband himself who brought his own bill of divorce, he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讬谞拽讟 谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜注专注讜专讬 拽讗 诪注专注专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the agent of a bill of divorce is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The reason for the decree is that perhaps the husband will come to contest and invalidate the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself now holds the document in his hand, and yet you are concerned that he will contest it? If he does not wish to give the bill of divorce to the woman he can simply tear it up. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree to this case.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讙专砖讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬

搂 The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: Come and hear, as Shmuel raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to state this declaration? Rav Huna said to him: They are not required to say it. Rav Huna explained his ruling: And if these two individuals would say, testifying: She was divorced in our presence, even without bringing a bill of divorce, aren鈥檛 they deemed credible and isn鈥檛 she considered divorced? Therefore, in this case too, they are deemed credible when they claim that the bill of divorce was written correctly.

诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as the matter depends on the availability of witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, and there are two witnesses in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, it is difficult, as he requires the additional testimony that the document was written for the woman鈥檚 sake. The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of Rabba, with what are we dealing here? He maintains that this ruling is referring to the period after the people living overseas learned the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讚 谞诪讬 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one person who brings a bill of divorce should also not be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence. The Gemara explains: One witness is still required to state the declaration for the aforementioned reason: It is a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚诪讬讬转讜 讙讬讟讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara further asks: If so, two who bring a bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in their presence, due to this same decree. The Gemara answers: Two people who bring a bill of divorce is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.

讜讛讗 讗砖讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘砖诇讬讞讜转

The Gemara asks: But the case of a woman who brings her own bill of divorce is also an uncommon matter, and yet we learned in a mishna (23a): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she too is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this decree so that you will not distinguish with regard to different types of agency.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注诇 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讬谞拽讟 谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜注专注讜专讬 拽讗 诪注专注专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, then a husband who brings his wife鈥檚 bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. Why then, is it taught in a baraita: If the husband himself brings his own bill of divorce he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the agent of a bill of divorce is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The reason for the decree is that perhaps the husband will come to contest and invalidate the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself now holds the document in his hand, and yet you are concerned that he will contest it?

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诐 谞转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the Tosefta (1:1): With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and gave it to the woman, but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce is ratified through its signatories, i.e., other people testify about the witnesses鈥 signatures, it is valid, but if not it is invalid. This is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her, to spare the court from having to ratify the bill of divorce.

诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜

The Gemara explains the proof: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as according to him the statement of the agent is to avoid the need for the court to ratify the bill of divorce, which is a leniency for her. However, according to the opinion of Rabba it is difficult, as he holds that the agent is required to state the declaration due to the concern that the bill of divorce may not have been written for her sake, which is a stringency for her. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With the period after they learned the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讜讛讗诪专转 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讛讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜 讻砖谞讬住转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讬住转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that there is a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state? Why didn鈥檛 the Sages enforce their decree in this case? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the woman had already married again after having received the bill of divorce, and the Sages did not want to enforce their decree at the expense of forcing her to get divorced. The Gemara questions this explanation: If so, the explanation provided by the Tosefta for the ruling in the mishna, that the reason is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her, is not accurate. Instead, the true reason for this leniency is because she had already married someone else.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讛 讜诇驻拽讛 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the baraita is saying: And if you would say that one should be stringent with her and remove her from her new husband, to counter that claim the tanna adds: This is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her.

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讘注诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪注专注专 讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞注专注专 注诇讛

What is the reason that the Sages required this testimony at all? Perhaps the husband will come to contest, and invalidate the bill of divorce. Now, in this case, where the husband is not contesting its validity, will we, the court, arise and contest it?

讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讞讚 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

搂 The Gemara comments: Rabba and Rava disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the reason the Sages required an agent to say: 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. And one said that the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讻谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, as Rabbi Shimon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or not?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 诇讗 转住转讬讬诐

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: You are not required to do so, as they said that one was required to state this declaration only in the earlier generations, when they were not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. However, in the later generations, when they are experts about writing it for her sake, no, this declaration is no longer necessary. The Gemara states: It may be concluded from here that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was of this opinion.

讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

The Gemara asks: And can you understand that an individual agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? But it was demonstrated earlier that Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, and the issue of the availability of witnesses cannot be resolved by the fact that later generations are knowledgeable about writing a bill of divorce for the woman鈥檚 sake. And furthermore, we said that according to the opinion of Rabba an agent must still say that it was written and signed in his presence, lest the matter return to its corrupt state.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba had another person with him, who served as a second witness, and the reason that the account of the incident did not mention him was due to the honor of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, as that man was unlearned. As for the halakha, since there were two witnesses the concern for ratification does not apply in this case. As stated above, in this situation the Sages did not apply their decree due to a concern that the matter would return to its corrupt state.

讗讬转诪专 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

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following question: In the presence of how many people must an agent who delivers a bill of divorce from overseas give it to the woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina disagreed with regard to this matter. One says that he must give it in the presence of at least two witnesses, and one says that he must give it in the presence of at least three witnesses.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讚专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讛 讘讗驻讬 转专讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the one who said that the agent must give the bill of divorce in the presence of two witnesses, as Ravin bar Rav 岣sda brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go and give the bill of divorce to her in the presence of two witnesses, and say to them: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara states: It may be concluded from here that Rabbi Yo岣nan was of this opinion.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this issue, as the one who said that the agent must deliver the bill of divorce in the presence of two witnesses holds that the reason is: Because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. Therefore, it is sufficient for there to be testimony that it was written for her sake. And the one who said that he must testify in the presence of three people holds that the reason is: Because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. Consequently, he must testify in the presence of three people, who are considered a court, as is the halakha for the ratification of all documents.

讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara rejects this argument: And can you understand it that way? But from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, as proven above, that the reason for the decree is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, it follows that Rabbi Yo岣nan, who disagrees with him, said the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. And if so, here, how can Rabbi Yo岣nan say that it can be delivered in the presence of two people? If a court is needed to ratify the document, Rabbi Yo岣nan should require three people.

讜注讜讚 讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗

And furthermore, it was demonstrated earlier that Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Consequently, even the one who says that this decree was enacted because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for the woman鈥檚 sake still requires witnesses to ratify the document. If a court is necessary for this purpose, the presence of two people is not enough.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛讻讗 讘砖诇讬讞 谞注砖讛 注讚 讜注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 拽住讘专 砖诇讬讞 谞注砖讛 注讚 讜注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 砖诇讬讞 谞注砖讛 注讚 讜讗讬谉 注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉

Rather, everyone agrees that we require witnesses who are available to ratify it, and here they disagree with regard to whether an agent can become a witness to testify about the matter of his agency, and whether a witness can become a judge for the matter about which he testified. The Gemara explains: The one who said that the agent must state the declaration in the presence of two witnesses holds that an agent can become a witness, and a witness can become a judge. Consequently, this agent can join with the other two people to form a court that ratifies the document. And the one who said that it must be delivered in the presence of three holds that an agent can become a witness, but a witness cannot become a judge. Therefore, the agent must issue his statement in the presence of three other people.

讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讘讚专讘谞谉 讚注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don鈥檛 we maintain with regard to matters of rabbinic law that a witness can become a judge, and the ratification of documents is a requirement by rabbinic law?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讬转讗 诇讬讛 讗讬转转讗 讜住诪讻讬 注诇讛

Rather, the Gemara suggests that here they disagree with regard to this issue: As one Sage, Rabbi 岣nina, who rules that a bill of divorce must be given in the presence of three people, holds that since a woman is also fit to bring the bill of divorce there is a concern that sometimes a woman will bring it, and those to whom the bill of divorce is delivered will rely upon her. They will not know that ordinarily an agent can testify in the presence of two people only because the agent himself joins with them. In this situation, as a woman cannot join the court, there is no court to receive the testimony and ratify the bill of divorce. Consequently, the Sages required the presence of three people in all cases.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖讛 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讜诇讗 住诪讻讬 注诇讛

And the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that with regard to a woman, people know that a woman cannot serve as a judge and they would not rely on her. Instead they would bring a third person, and therefore there is no need to enact a decree due to this case.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that it is sufficient that the agent state his declaration before an additional two people: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and gave it to the woman but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and she remarries, her second husband must divorce her, and the offspring of the second marriage is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬讟诇谞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

And the Rabbis say: The offspring is not a mamzer. How should the agent act to remedy the situation? He should return, take the bill of divorce from her, and again give it to her in the presence of two witnesses, and he should say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Although the dispute in this baraita is referring to a different issue, it mentions incidentally that the document must be transmitted in the presence of two people, not three.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

After citing the baraita the Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, does he maintain that merely because the agent did not say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, the second husband must divorce her and the offspring is a mamzer? Is the halakha so strict that the divorce is invalidated even if the witness actually saw the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and simply neglected to state the declaration?

讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Meir conforms to his own line of reasoning with regard to this issue. As Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say that in any case where one who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce, and the woman married despite this, the second husband must divorce the woman who married him on the basis of that bill of divorce, and the offspring is a mamzer.

讘专 讛讚讬讗 讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讚讛讜讛 诪诪讜谞讛 讗讙讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讱 讗转讛 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 讻诇 讗讜转 讜讗讜转 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转

搂 The Gemara relates: Bar Haddaya sought to bring a bill of divorce from one country to another. He came before Rabbi A岣i, who was appointed over bills of divorce in his location to ask him how to proceed. Rabbi A岣i said to him: You are required to stand over each and every letter when the scribe writes the bill of divorce, to see that everything is performed in the correct manner. Bar Haddaya came before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi to ask if this is required, and they said to him: You are not required to do this; rather, it is enough for you to be present and oversee in general that it is done in the proper manner.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗注讘讬讚 诇讞讜诪专讗 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讙讬讟讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐

And if you would say: I will act stringently, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi A岣i, then you are casting aspersions on the earlier bills of divorce, i.e., bills of divorce written in previous generations, as the agents who delivered them did not examine them to this extent.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 驻诇讙讗 讗讬讻转讘 拽诪讬讛 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讗讬讻转讘 拽诪讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讘讜 讗诇讗 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 诇砖诪讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专

The Gemara further relates: Rabba bar bar 岣na brought a bill of divorce, half of which was written in his presence and half of which was not written in his presence. He came before Rabbi Elazar to clarify the halakha in this case. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Even if the scribe wrote only one line of it for her sake in the presence of the agent, he is no longer required to observe further, as it can be assumed that he wrote all of it for her sake. Rav Ashi said:

  • 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 Shlemah 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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 5

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞专砖 讞专砖 讘专 讗讬转讜讬讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

If we say that this is referring to a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to halakha.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗

And Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent gave the bill of divorce to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute. In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything. This works out well according to the opinion of Rava. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, as he requires testimony that the bill of divorce was written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This does not refer to the main period of the decree. Rather, it is speaking of later generations, after the residents of countries overseas learned that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, so there is no need for the declaration. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, meaning that this is referring to a situation where everyone is assumed to be knowledgeable, even if the agent is able to testify he should also not be required to say: It was written in my presence, as it should be sufficient to confirm the witnesses鈥 signatures. The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, Rabba maintains that the agent must testify, due to a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state, i.e., they might forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 驻拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: If it is so, that the Sages decreed that the statement must be issued even in this case, then one who is unable to speak should also be obligated to state the declaration, and be disqualified from serving as an agent due to his inability to speak. The Gemara answers: This case of a halakhically competent individual who became a deaf-mute is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.

讜讛讗 讗砖讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘砖诇讬讞讜转

The Gemara asks: But the case of a woman who brings her own bill of divorce is also an uncommon matter, and yet we learned in a mishna (23a): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she too is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this ordinance so that you will not distinguish with regard to different types of agency. To avoid confusion, the Sages decreed that all agents who bring a bill of divorce must state the declaration, even the woman herself.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注诇 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

The Gemara asks: If so, then a husband who brings his wife鈥檚 bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. Why then, is it taught in a baraita: In the case of the husband himself who brought his own bill of divorce, he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讬谞拽讟 谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜注专注讜专讬 拽讗 诪注专注专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the agent of a bill of divorce is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The reason for the decree is that perhaps the husband will come to contest and invalidate the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself now holds the document in his hand, and yet you are concerned that he will contest it? If he does not wish to give the bill of divorce to the woman he can simply tear it up. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree to this case.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗讜 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞转诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讙专砖讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬

搂 The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: Come and hear, as Shmuel raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to state this declaration? Rav Huna said to him: They are not required to say it. Rav Huna explained his ruling: And if these two individuals would say, testifying: She was divorced in our presence, even without bringing a bill of divorce, aren鈥檛 they deemed credible and isn鈥檛 she considered divorced? Therefore, in this case too, they are deemed credible when they claim that the bill of divorce was written correctly.

诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as the matter depends on the availability of witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, and there are two witnesses in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, it is difficult, as he requires the additional testimony that the document was written for the woman鈥檚 sake. The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of Rabba, with what are we dealing here? He maintains that this ruling is referring to the period after the people living overseas learned the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讚 谞诪讬 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one person who brings a bill of divorce should also not be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence. The Gemara explains: One witness is still required to state the declaration for the aforementioned reason: It is a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚诪讬讬转讜 讙讬讟讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara further asks: If so, two who bring a bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in their presence, due to this same decree. The Gemara answers: Two people who bring a bill of divorce is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.

讜讛讗 讗砖讛 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 注爪诪讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讙讬讟讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘砖诇讬讞讜转

The Gemara asks: But the case of a woman who brings her own bill of divorce is also an uncommon matter, and yet we learned in a mishna (23a): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she too is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this decree so that you will not distinguish with regard to different types of agency.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注诇 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讬谞拽讟 谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜注专注讜专讬 拽讗 诪注专注专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, then a husband who brings his wife鈥檚 bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. Why then, is it taught in a baraita: If the husband himself brings his own bill of divorce he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the agent of a bill of divorce is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The reason for the decree is that perhaps the husband will come to contest and invalidate the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself now holds the document in his hand, and yet you are concerned that he will contest it?

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诐 谞转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the Tosefta (1:1): With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and gave it to the woman, but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce is ratified through its signatories, i.e., other people testify about the witnesses鈥 signatures, it is valid, but if not it is invalid. This is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her, to spare the court from having to ratify the bill of divorce.

诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖诇诪讚讜

The Gemara explains the proof: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as according to him the statement of the agent is to avoid the need for the court to ratify the bill of divorce, which is a leniency for her. However, according to the opinion of Rabba it is difficult, as he holds that the agent is required to state the declaration due to the concern that the bill of divorce may not have been written for her sake, which is a stringency for her. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With the period after they learned the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake.

讜讛讗诪专转 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讛讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜 讻砖谞讬住转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讬住转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that there is a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state? Why didn鈥檛 the Sages enforce their decree in this case? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the woman had already married again after having received the bill of divorce, and the Sages did not want to enforce their decree at the expense of forcing her to get divorced. The Gemara questions this explanation: If so, the explanation provided by the Tosefta for the ruling in the mishna, that the reason is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her, is not accurate. Instead, the true reason for this leniency is because she had already married someone else.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讛 讜诇驻拽讛 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the baraita is saying: And if you would say that one should be stringent with her and remove her from her new husband, to counter that claim the tanna adds: This is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her.

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讘注诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪注专注专 讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞注专注专 注诇讛

What is the reason that the Sages required this testimony at all? Perhaps the husband will come to contest, and invalidate the bill of divorce. Now, in this case, where the husband is not contesting its validity, will we, the court, arise and contest it?

讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讞讚 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

搂 The Gemara comments: Rabba and Rava disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the reason the Sages required an agent to say: 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. And one said that the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讻谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, as Rabbi Shimon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or not?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 诇讗 转住转讬讬诐

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: You are not required to do so, as they said that one was required to state this declaration only in the earlier generations, when they were not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. However, in the later generations, when they are experts about writing it for her sake, no, this declaration is no longer necessary. The Gemara states: It may be concluded from here that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was of this opinion.

讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

The Gemara asks: And can you understand that an individual agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? But it was demonstrated earlier that Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, and the issue of the availability of witnesses cannot be resolved by the fact that later generations are knowledgeable about writing a bill of divorce for the woman鈥檚 sake. And furthermore, we said that according to the opinion of Rabba an agent must still say that it was written and signed in his presence, lest the matter return to its corrupt state.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba had another person with him, who served as a second witness, and the reason that the account of the incident did not mention him was due to the honor of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, as that man was unlearned. As for the halakha, since there were two witnesses the concern for ratification does not apply in this case. As stated above, in this situation the Sages did not apply their decree due to a concern that the matter would return to its corrupt state.

讗讬转诪专 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

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following question: In the presence of how many people must an agent who delivers a bill of divorce from overseas give it to the woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina disagreed with regard to this matter. One says that he must give it in the presence of at least two witnesses, and one says that he must give it in the presence of at least three witnesses.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讚专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讛 讘讗驻讬 转专讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the one who said that the agent must give the bill of divorce in the presence of two witnesses, as Ravin bar Rav 岣sda brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go and give the bill of divorce to her in the presence of two witnesses, and say to them: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara states: It may be concluded from here that Rabbi Yo岣nan was of this opinion.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this issue, as the one who said that the agent must deliver the bill of divorce in the presence of two witnesses holds that the reason is: Because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. Therefore, it is sufficient for there to be testimony that it was written for her sake. And the one who said that he must testify in the presence of three people holds that the reason is: Because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. Consequently, he must testify in the presence of three people, who are considered a court, as is the halakha for the ratification of all documents.

讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara rejects this argument: And can you understand it that way? But from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, as proven above, that the reason for the decree is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, it follows that Rabbi Yo岣nan, who disagrees with him, said the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. And if so, here, how can Rabbi Yo岣nan say that it can be delivered in the presence of two people? If a court is needed to ratify the document, Rabbi Yo岣nan should require three people.

讜注讜讚 讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗

And furthermore, it was demonstrated earlier that Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Consequently, even the one who says that this decree was enacted because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for the woman鈥檚 sake still requires witnesses to ratify the document. If a court is necessary for this purpose, the presence of two people is not enough.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛讻讗 讘砖诇讬讞 谞注砖讛 注讚 讜注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 拽住讘专 砖诇讬讞 谞注砖讛 注讚 讜注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 砖诇讬讞 谞注砖讛 注讚 讜讗讬谉 注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉

Rather, everyone agrees that we require witnesses who are available to ratify it, and here they disagree with regard to whether an agent can become a witness to testify about the matter of his agency, and whether a witness can become a judge for the matter about which he testified. The Gemara explains: The one who said that the agent must state the declaration in the presence of two witnesses holds that an agent can become a witness, and a witness can become a judge. Consequently, this agent can join with the other two people to form a court that ratifies the document. And the one who said that it must be delivered in the presence of three holds that an agent can become a witness, but a witness cannot become a judge. Therefore, the agent must issue his statement in the presence of three other people.

讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讘讚专讘谞谉 讚注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don鈥檛 we maintain with regard to matters of rabbinic law that a witness can become a judge, and the ratification of documents is a requirement by rabbinic law?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讬转讗 诇讬讛 讗讬转转讗 讜住诪讻讬 注诇讛

Rather, the Gemara suggests that here they disagree with regard to this issue: As one Sage, Rabbi 岣nina, who rules that a bill of divorce must be given in the presence of three people, holds that since a woman is also fit to bring the bill of divorce there is a concern that sometimes a woman will bring it, and those to whom the bill of divorce is delivered will rely upon her. They will not know that ordinarily an agent can testify in the presence of two people only because the agent himself joins with them. In this situation, as a woman cannot join the court, there is no court to receive the testimony and ratify the bill of divorce. Consequently, the Sages required the presence of three people in all cases.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖讛 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讜诇讗 住诪讻讬 注诇讛

And the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that with regard to a woman, people know that a woman cannot serve as a judge and they would not rely on her. Instead they would bring a third person, and therefore there is no need to enact a decree due to this case.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that it is sufficient that the agent state his declaration before an additional two people: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and gave it to the woman but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and she remarries, her second husband must divorce her, and the offspring of the second marriage is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬讟诇谞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐

And the Rabbis say: The offspring is not a mamzer. How should the agent act to remedy the situation? He should return, take the bill of divorce from her, and again give it to her in the presence of two witnesses, and he should say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Although the dispute in this baraita is referring to a different issue, it mentions incidentally that the document must be transmitted in the presence of two people, not three.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

After citing the baraita the Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, does he maintain that merely because the agent did not say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, the second husband must divorce her and the offspring is a mamzer? Is the halakha so strict that the divorce is invalidated even if the witness actually saw the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and simply neglected to state the declaration?

讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Meir conforms to his own line of reasoning with regard to this issue. As Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say that in any case where one who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce, and the woman married despite this, the second husband must divorce the woman who married him on the basis of that bill of divorce, and the offspring is a mamzer.

讘专 讛讚讬讗 讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讚讛讜讛 诪诪讜谞讛 讗讙讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讱 讗转讛 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 讻诇 讗讜转 讜讗讜转 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转

搂 The Gemara relates: Bar Haddaya sought to bring a bill of divorce from one country to another. He came before Rabbi A岣i, who was appointed over bills of divorce in his location to ask him how to proceed. Rabbi A岣i said to him: You are required to stand over each and every letter when the scribe writes the bill of divorce, to see that everything is performed in the correct manner. Bar Haddaya came before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi to ask if this is required, and they said to him: You are not required to do this; rather, it is enough for you to be present and oversee in general that it is done in the proper manner.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗注讘讬讚 诇讞讜诪专讗 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讙讬讟讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐

And if you would say: I will act stringently, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi A岣i, then you are casting aspersions on the earlier bills of divorce, i.e., bills of divorce written in previous generations, as the agents who delivered them did not examine them to this extent.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 驻诇讙讗 讗讬讻转讘 拽诪讬讛 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讗讬讻转讘 拽诪讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讘讜 讗诇讗 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 诇砖诪讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专

The Gemara further relates: Rabba bar bar 岣na brought a bill of divorce, half of which was written in his presence and half of which was not written in his presence. He came before Rabbi Elazar to clarify the halakha in this case. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Even if the scribe wrote only one line of it for her sake in the presence of the agent, he is no longer required to observe further, as it can be assumed that he wrote all of it for her sake. Rav Ashi said:

Scroll To Top