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

Daf Yomi

May 22, 2023 | 讘壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • 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 6

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family in honor of their three dear friends, “each of whom revel in the glories of Hashem鈥檚 world. Marsha Morman scaled to the base camp of Everest, Daf Yomi in her hand and Rabbanit Michelle in her ear. Judi Felber finished Shas, climbing through reams of pages over 7 years. And Debbie Gvir reclaimed her health again. Aleina (literally) v’hitzlachna!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in loving memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam on her 19th yahrzeit. “A pioneer in women’s Torah learning, whereby hundreds of her students continue to spread the light of the Torah. Yehi zichra baruch!

Is Babylonia considered like Israel for gittin and therefore one who brings from place to place in Babylonia would not need to say “in front of me it was written…”? Rav and Shmuel disagree about this. First, they suggest that the root of the debate is based on the debate between Rava and Raba, but they reject it and explain that it is because there are now yeshivot in Babylonia. Rav holds that since they now travel from place to place to learn, they recognize signatures. Shmuel holds that they are busy learning and therefore do not recognize the signatures of others. What are the boundaries of Babylonia? Some places have unique laws related to this that are dependent on the nature of the places and whether or not people from one place would recognize the signatures of the other. Rav Kahana brought a get from one big city in Babylonia to the other and Rav told him that he did not need to say “In front of me it was written…” but if he did, it would help – in the event that the husband will try to claim it was not a valid get,聽as can be learned from a different story told in a braita of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Evyatar ruled that there is no need to say the declaration if bringing a get from Babylonia to Israel as there are always people traveling from one place to the other. Is Rabbi Evyatar someone who can be relied on in his rulings?

讗驻讬诇讜 拽谉 拽讜诇诪讜住讗 讜拽谉 诪讙讬诇转讗


Even if he heard the sound of the quill [kulmusa] and the sound of the scroll when the scribe was writing the bill of divorce for the sake of that woman, this is sufficient.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讜住讜驻专 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛讜讗 讘注诇讬讬讛 讜住讜驻专 讘讘讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讻砖专


It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, even if he was in the house but the scribe was in the loft writing the bill of divorce, or if he was in the loft and the scribe was in the house writing the bill of divorce, and even if he was entering and exiting the entire day the bill of divorce is valid and he can testify that it was written properly.


讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讜住讜驻专 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚砖诪注 拽谉 拽讜诇诪讜住讗 讜拽谉 诪讙讬诇转讗


The Gemara notes: If he was in the house and the scribe was in the loft, he does not see him at all. Rather, is it not correct to say that the baraita is speaking about a case where he heard the sound of the quill and the sound of the scroll? This is a proof which supports the statement of Rav Ashi.


讗诪专 诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讻砖专 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬讞 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讜住讜驻专 讘注诇讬讬讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专转 讻砖专 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 住讜驻专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 谞驻住诇讬谞讬讛


The Master said above, in the baraita: Even if he was entering and exiting the entire day, the bill of divorce is valid. The Gemara asks: Who is the one entering and exiting? If we say that this is referring to the agent, who is required to later testify about the bill of divorce, now that in the case where he was in the house and the scribe was in the loft, when the agent does not see the scribe at all and nevertheless you said that the bill of divorce is valid, is it necessary to say that it is valid when he was entering and exiting the place where the bill of divorce was written? Rather, perhaps this is referring to the scribe himself, i.e., he enters and exits all day and does not write the bill of divorce in one uninterrupted act. The Gemara asks: This halakha is obvious, as would we render the bill of divorce invalid merely because he was entering and exiting?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽 诇砖讜拽讗 讜讗转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where the scribe exited the house to go to the market and returned to continue writing the bill of divorce. Lest you say that perhaps while he was in the market another person found him and told him to write a bill of divorce on his behalf, and he is now writing a bill of divorce for the sake of a woman other than the one for which he was writing it at the outset, the baraita therefore teaches us that this possibility is disregarded and the bill of divorce is valid.


讗讬转诪专 讘讘诇 专讘 讗诪专 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed concerning the status of Babylonia with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce: Rav says that Babylonia is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and Shmuel says that it is considered like outside of Eretz Yisrael.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬 讜诪专 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 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬


The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to this, that one Sage, Rav, holds that the reason an agent is required 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 these Babylonians are learned. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these Babylonians are also not frequently available.


讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand it that way? But it was already stated above that Rabba, who says that the concern is whether the document was written for her sake, is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who maintains that witnesses are also required to ratify the bill of divorce. Therefore, even if Babylonians are knowledgeable about writing a bill of divorce for the woman鈥檚 sake, Babylonia should be treated like anywhere else outside of Eretz Yisrael because witnesses are not readily available.


讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 专讘 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪转讬讘转讗 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诪转讬讘转讗 讘讙讬专住讬讬讛讜 讟专讬讚讬


Rather, everyone agrees that we require witnesses to ratify it, and they disagree with regard to this: Rav holds that since there are central academies where people study, witnesses are frequently available to ratify bills of divorce. And Shmuel holds that those studying in the academies are preoccupied by their studies; therefore, they cannot be used as witnesses to confirm a bill of divorce, as they will not recognize peoples鈥 signatures.


讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注砖讬谞讜 注爪诪讬谞讜 讘讘讘诇 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 诪讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 诇讘讘诇


It was also stated that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says: We made ourselves in Babylonia like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, from the time when Rav came to Babylonia.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪专拽诐 诇诪讝专讞 讜专拽诐 讻诪讝专讞 诪讗砖拽诇讜谉 诇讚专讜诐 讜讗砖拽诇讜谉 讻讚专讜诐 诪注讻讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜注讻讜 讻爪驻讜谉 讜讛讗 讘讘诇 诇爪驻讜谞讛 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇讬 诪爪驻讜谉 转驻转讞 讛专注讛


Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem eastward is considered to be part of the overseas country, and Rekem itself is like east of Eretz Yisrael. From Ashkelon southward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Ashkelon itself is like south of Eretz Yisrael. From Akko northward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yirmeya explains his objection: But Babylonia is situated north of Eretz Yisrael, as it is written with regard to the destruction that will come through Babylonia: 鈥淭hen the Lord said to me: Out of the north the evil shall break forth鈥 (Jeremiah 1:14).


讜转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注讻讜 讚诪拽专讘讗 讗讘诇 讘讘诇 讚诪专讞拽讗 诇讗 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇讘专 诪讘讘诇


And we further learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and even Rabbi Meir said this only with regard to Akko, which is close to Eretz Yisrael. However, with regard to Babylonia, which is far from Eretz Yisrael, no, he did not dispute the ruling that it is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yirmeya raised the objection and he resolved it himself: This border of Eretz Yisrael was stated with the exception of Babylonia.


注讚 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讗 讘讘诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讚 讗专讘讗 转谞讬讬谞讗 讚讙讬砖专讗


The Gemara inquires: Until where is Babylonia? In other words, what are the boundaries of Babylonia with regard to this issue? Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute concerning the boundaries of Babylonia with regard to lineage (Kiddushin 72a), as Babylonian Jews were considered to have a more prestigious lineage than those of Eretz Yisrael, so is there the same dispute with regard to bills of divorce. And Rav Yosef says: The dispute that is stated there applies only to lineage. However, with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that the boundary of Babylonia is until the second arch of the bridge over the Euphrates River.


专讘 讞住讚讗 诪爪专讬讱 诪讗拽讟讬住驻讜谉 诇讘讬 讗专讚砖讬专 讜诪讘讬 讗专讚砖讬专 诇讗拽讟讬住驻讜谉 诇讗 诪爪专讬讱 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬


The Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda required even those who delivered bills of divorce from Akteisfon to Bei Ardeshir to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. But for bills of divorce brought from Bei Ardeshir to Akteisfon he did not require this declaration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that he holds that the reason an agent is required to say that it was written and it was signed in his presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Bei Ardeshir are learned in this matter?


讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讝诇讬 诇砖讜拽讗 诇讛转诐 讛谞讱 讬讚注讬 讘讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讗 讚讛谞讬


The Gemara asks: And can you understand it that way? But Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that it is necessary to ratify a bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the presence of two witnesses to ratify the document, and with regard to these residents of Bei Ardeshir, since they go to the market there, in Akteisfon, these residents of Akteisfon recognize the signatures of these inhabitants of Bei Ardeshir.


讜讛谞讬 讘讚讛谞讱 诇讗 讬讚注讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘砖讜拽讬讬讛讜 讟专讬讚讬


But these residents of Bei Ardeshir do not recognize the signatures of these residents of Akteisfon. What is the reason for this? They are preoccupied by their market business, as they are buying and selling their merchandise, and therefore they are not familiar with the signatures of the residents of Akteisfon.


专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪爪专讬讱 诪注专住讗 诇注专住讗 专讘 砖砖转 诪爪专讬讱 诪砖讻讜谞讛 诇砖讻讜谞讛 讜专讘讗 诪爪专讬讱 讘讗讜转讛 砖讻讜谞讛


搂 The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Avuh would require that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one side of the public domain to the other side [me鈥檃rsa le鈥檃rsa]. Rav Sheshet required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one group of houses to another group of houses on the same side of the public domain. And Rava required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses.


讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖讗谞讬 讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讚谞讬讬讚讬


The Gemara asks: But Rava is the one who said that the reason an agent must state the declaration is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, so why would he require the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses? The Gemara explains: Rava issued this decree only with regard to his city of Me岣za. The reason is that the residents of Me岣za are different, as they are constantly mobile, and do not stay in one place. Therefore, it is possible that the witnesses who were present when the bill of divorce was written have already moved elsewhere.


专讘 讞谞讬谉 诪讬砖转注讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪住讜专讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讗讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诇住讜专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 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 爪专讬讻谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转


Rav 岣nin relates: Rav Kahana brought a bill of divorce, and I do not know if he brought it from Sura to Neharde鈥檃 or if he brought it from Neharde鈥檃 to Sura. He came before Rav and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state this declaration? Rav said to him: You are not required to do so.


讜讗讬 注讘讚转 讗讛谞讬转 诪讗讬 讗讬 注讘讚转 讗讛谞讬转 讚讗讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讬谞谉 讘讬讛


But if you do this then you provide benefit. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: If you do this you provide benefit? This means that if the husband comes to contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we pay no attention to him and his claim.


讻讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讟 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讛讬讻谉 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 诪讻驻专 住讬住讗讬 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 爪专讬讱 讗转讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 转讬讝拽拽 诇注讚讬诐


As it is taught in the Tosefta (1:3): An incident occurred involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to Rabbi Yishmael: My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses if the husband contests its validity.


诇讗讞专 砖讬爪讗 谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讜讛诇讗 讻驻专 住讬住讗讬 诪讜讘诇注转 讘转讞讜诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽专讜讘讛 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讬讜转专 诪注讻讜 讜转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘注讻讜 讚诪专讞拽讗 讗讘诇 讻驻专 住讬住讗讬 讚诪拽专讘讗 诇讗


After that man left, Rabbi Elai entered before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: My teacher, but isn鈥檛 the village of Sisai located within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and it is even closer to Tzippori, which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, more so than Akko. And we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, with regard to the village of Sisai, which is close, no, they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.


讗诪专 诇讜 砖转讜拽 讘谞讬 砖转讜拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 讛讚讘专 讘讛讬转专 讬爪讗


Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Elai: Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter of her divorce was issued as permitted, it was issued, and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage.


讛讗 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 转讬讝拽拽 诇注讚讬诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛


The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? But after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael also stated his reason, as he said to the man: Do this so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses. The Gemara answers: Those who were present did not conclude Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 reasoning, and therefore he questioned him.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讬讟讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 诪砖诐 诇讻讗谉 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 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬


搂 The Gemara relates that Rabbi Evyatar sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to Rav 岣sda in which he wrote the following: With regard to bills of divorce that come from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, the agent is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Babylonia are learned with regard to this issue?


讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讘讬诐 讚住诇拽讬 讜谞讞转讬 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬


The Gemara challenges: And can you understand it in this way? After all, Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the declaration to ratify the document. But since there are many people who ascend to Eretz Yisrael and descend from there to Babylonia, witnesses are frequently available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 讘专 住诪讻讗 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛注讜诇讬谉 诪砖诐 诇讻讗谉 讛谉 拽讬讬诪讜 讘注爪诪谉 讜讬转谞讜 (讗转) 讛讬诇讚 讘讝讜谞讛 讜讛讬诇讚讛 诪讻专讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讬砖转讜 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 砖讬专讟讜讟


Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us that Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable authority? And furthermore, there is good reason to question his statement: He is the one who sent a letter to Rav Yehuda, and wrote: People who ascend from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, fulfill by themselves the verse: 鈥淎nd they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk鈥 (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. And Rabbi Evyatar wrote him this verse without scoring, i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖转讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖诇砖 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 砖诇砖 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗专讘注 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉


And Rabbi Yitz岣k says with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: One may write two words without scoring the parchment, but one may not write three words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And it was taught in a baraita: One may write three, but one may not write four. Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讗讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚转诇讬讗 讘住讘专讗 诇讞讬讬 讛讗 讙诪专讗 讛讬讗 讜讙诪专讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛


Abaye said to him: Is that to say that anyone who does not know this halakha of Rabbi Yitz岣k is not a great man? Granted, with regard to a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a halakha that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, this halakha is a tradition, and it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply did not hear this tradition.


讜注讜讚 讛讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 讛讜讗 讚讗住讻讬诐 诪专讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讝谞讛 注诇讬讜 驻讬诇讙砖讜 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 讗诪专 讝讘讜讘 诪爪讗 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 谞讬诪讗 诪爪讗 诇讛


And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one that his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with in his interpretation of a verse, as it is written with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: 鈥淎nd his concubine went away from him鈥 (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her responsible for a fly in the food that she prepared for him, while Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her responsible for a hair [nima].


讜讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 诇讗诇讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注住讬拽 讘驻讬诇讙砖 讘讙讘注讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬转专 讘谞讬 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讜谞转谉 讘谞讬 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专


And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 住驻讬拽讗 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛谉 讝讘讜讘 诪爪讗 讜诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 谞讬诪讗 诪爪讗 讜讛拽驻讬讚


Rabbi Evyatar said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? Doesn鈥檛 God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God, i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: He found a fly in his food and did not take umbrage, and later he found a hair and took umbrage.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讘讜讘 讘拽注专讛 讜谞讬诪讗 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讝讘讜讘 诪讗讬住讜转讗 讜谞讬诪讗 住讻谞转讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘拽注专讛 讝讘讜讘 讗讜谞住讗 讜谞讬诪讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗


Rav Yehuda says a different explanation: The man found a fly in the dish that she cooked for him, and he found a hair in that place, i.e., in her genital area. When he found a fly it produced a reaction of disgust, and he did not grow angry with her, but the hair was a matter of danger, as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. There are those who say: This and that were found in a dish. The difference is that the fly was a result of circumstances beyond her control, as it fell into the dish on its own, but the hair was found in the dish due to her negligence.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬讟讬诇 讗讚诐 讗讬诪讛 讬转讬专讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖讛专讬 驻讬诇讙砖 讘讙讘注讛 讛讟讬诇 注诇讬讛 讘注诇讛 讗讬诪讛 讬转讬专讛 讜讛驻讬诇讛 讻诪讛 专讘讘讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇


Rav 岣sda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19鈥20).


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 讗讬诪讛 讬转讬专讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 住讜祝 讛讜讗 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 砖诇砖 注讘讬专讜转 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讞讬诇讜诇 砖讘转


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 注砖专转诐 注专讘转诐 讛讚诇讬拽讜 讗转 讛谞专 爪专讬讱


Rabba bar bar 岣na said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that one must


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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

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

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

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

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

Gittin 6: But What About Bavel

The Gemara discusses how does one establish that a get was written lishmah. There is also a lengthy discussion about...

Gittin 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 6

讗驻讬诇讜 拽谉 拽讜诇诪讜住讗 讜拽谉 诪讙讬诇转讗


Even if he heard the sound of the quill [kulmusa] and the sound of the scroll when the scribe was writing the bill of divorce for the sake of that woman, this is sufficient.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讜住讜驻专 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛讜讗 讘注诇讬讬讛 讜住讜驻专 讘讘讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讻砖专


It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, even if he was in the house but the scribe was in the loft writing the bill of divorce, or if he was in the loft and the scribe was in the house writing the bill of divorce, and even if he was entering and exiting the entire day the bill of divorce is valid and he can testify that it was written properly.


讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讜住讜驻专 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚砖诪注 拽谉 拽讜诇诪讜住讗 讜拽谉 诪讙讬诇转讗


The Gemara notes: If he was in the house and the scribe was in the loft, he does not see him at all. Rather, is it not correct to say that the baraita is speaking about a case where he heard the sound of the quill and the sound of the scroll? This is a proof which supports the statement of Rav Ashi.


讗诪专 诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讻砖专 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬讞 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讜住讜驻专 讘注诇讬讬讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专转 讻砖专 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 住讜驻专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 谞驻住诇讬谞讬讛


The Master said above, in the baraita: Even if he was entering and exiting the entire day, the bill of divorce is valid. The Gemara asks: Who is the one entering and exiting? If we say that this is referring to the agent, who is required to later testify about the bill of divorce, now that in the case where he was in the house and the scribe was in the loft, when the agent does not see the scribe at all and nevertheless you said that the bill of divorce is valid, is it necessary to say that it is valid when he was entering and exiting the place where the bill of divorce was written? Rather, perhaps this is referring to the scribe himself, i.e., he enters and exits all day and does not write the bill of divorce in one uninterrupted act. The Gemara asks: This halakha is obvious, as would we render the bill of divorce invalid merely because he was entering and exiting?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽 诇砖讜拽讗 讜讗转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where the scribe exited the house to go to the market and returned to continue writing the bill of divorce. Lest you say that perhaps while he was in the market another person found him and told him to write a bill of divorce on his behalf, and he is now writing a bill of divorce for the sake of a woman other than the one for which he was writing it at the outset, the baraita therefore teaches us that this possibility is disregarded and the bill of divorce is valid.


讗讬转诪专 讘讘诇 专讘 讗诪专 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed concerning the status of Babylonia with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce: Rav says that Babylonia is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and Shmuel says that it is considered like outside of Eretz Yisrael.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬 讜诪专 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 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬


The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to this, that one Sage, Rav, holds that the reason an agent is required 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 these Babylonians are learned. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these Babylonians are also not frequently available.


讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand it that way? But it was already stated above that Rabba, who says that the concern is whether the document was written for her sake, is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who maintains that witnesses are also required to ratify the bill of divorce. Therefore, even if Babylonians are knowledgeable about writing a bill of divorce for the woman鈥檚 sake, Babylonia should be treated like anywhere else outside of Eretz Yisrael because witnesses are not readily available.


讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 专讘 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪转讬讘转讗 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诪转讬讘转讗 讘讙讬专住讬讬讛讜 讟专讬讚讬


Rather, everyone agrees that we require witnesses to ratify it, and they disagree with regard to this: Rav holds that since there are central academies where people study, witnesses are frequently available to ratify bills of divorce. And Shmuel holds that those studying in the academies are preoccupied by their studies; therefore, they cannot be used as witnesses to confirm a bill of divorce, as they will not recognize peoples鈥 signatures.


讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注砖讬谞讜 注爪诪讬谞讜 讘讘讘诇 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 诪讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 诇讘讘诇


It was also stated that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says: We made ourselves in Babylonia like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, from the time when Rav came to Babylonia.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪专拽诐 诇诪讝专讞 讜专拽诐 讻诪讝专讞 诪讗砖拽诇讜谉 诇讚专讜诐 讜讗砖拽诇讜谉 讻讚专讜诐 诪注讻讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜注讻讜 讻爪驻讜谉 讜讛讗 讘讘诇 诇爪驻讜谞讛 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇讬 诪爪驻讜谉 转驻转讞 讛专注讛


Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem eastward is considered to be part of the overseas country, and Rekem itself is like east of Eretz Yisrael. From Ashkelon southward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Ashkelon itself is like south of Eretz Yisrael. From Akko northward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yirmeya explains his objection: But Babylonia is situated north of Eretz Yisrael, as it is written with regard to the destruction that will come through Babylonia: 鈥淭hen the Lord said to me: Out of the north the evil shall break forth鈥 (Jeremiah 1:14).


讜转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注讻讜 讚诪拽专讘讗 讗讘诇 讘讘诇 讚诪专讞拽讗 诇讗 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇讘专 诪讘讘诇


And we further learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and even Rabbi Meir said this only with regard to Akko, which is close to Eretz Yisrael. However, with regard to Babylonia, which is far from Eretz Yisrael, no, he did not dispute the ruling that it is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yirmeya raised the objection and he resolved it himself: This border of Eretz Yisrael was stated with the exception of Babylonia.


注讚 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讗 讘讘诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讚 讗专讘讗 转谞讬讬谞讗 讚讙讬砖专讗


The Gemara inquires: Until where is Babylonia? In other words, what are the boundaries of Babylonia with regard to this issue? Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute concerning the boundaries of Babylonia with regard to lineage (Kiddushin 72a), as Babylonian Jews were considered to have a more prestigious lineage than those of Eretz Yisrael, so is there the same dispute with regard to bills of divorce. And Rav Yosef says: The dispute that is stated there applies only to lineage. However, with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that the boundary of Babylonia is until the second arch of the bridge over the Euphrates River.


专讘 讞住讚讗 诪爪专讬讱 诪讗拽讟讬住驻讜谉 诇讘讬 讗专讚砖讬专 讜诪讘讬 讗专讚砖讬专 诇讗拽讟讬住驻讜谉 诇讗 诪爪专讬讱 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬


The Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda required even those who delivered bills of divorce from Akteisfon to Bei Ardeshir to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. But for bills of divorce brought from Bei Ardeshir to Akteisfon he did not require this declaration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that he holds that the reason an agent is required to say that it was written and it was signed in his presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Bei Ardeshir are learned in this matter?


讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讝诇讬 诇砖讜拽讗 诇讛转诐 讛谞讱 讬讚注讬 讘讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讗 讚讛谞讬


The Gemara asks: And can you understand it that way? But Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that it is necessary to ratify a bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the presence of two witnesses to ratify the document, and with regard to these residents of Bei Ardeshir, since they go to the market there, in Akteisfon, these residents of Akteisfon recognize the signatures of these inhabitants of Bei Ardeshir.


讜讛谞讬 讘讚讛谞讱 诇讗 讬讚注讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘砖讜拽讬讬讛讜 讟专讬讚讬


But these residents of Bei Ardeshir do not recognize the signatures of these residents of Akteisfon. What is the reason for this? They are preoccupied by their market business, as they are buying and selling their merchandise, and therefore they are not familiar with the signatures of the residents of Akteisfon.


专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪爪专讬讱 诪注专住讗 诇注专住讗 专讘 砖砖转 诪爪专讬讱 诪砖讻讜谞讛 诇砖讻讜谞讛 讜专讘讗 诪爪专讬讱 讘讗讜转讛 砖讻讜谞讛


搂 The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Avuh would require that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one side of the public domain to the other side [me鈥檃rsa le鈥檃rsa]. Rav Sheshet required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one group of houses to another group of houses on the same side of the public domain. And Rava required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses.


讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖讗谞讬 讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讚谞讬讬讚讬


The Gemara asks: But Rava is the one who said that the reason an agent must state the declaration is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, so why would he require the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses? The Gemara explains: Rava issued this decree only with regard to his city of Me岣za. The reason is that the residents of Me岣za are different, as they are constantly mobile, and do not stay in one place. Therefore, it is possible that the witnesses who were present when the bill of divorce was written have already moved elsewhere.


专讘 讞谞讬谉 诪讬砖转注讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬讬转讬 讙讬讟讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪住讜专讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讗讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诇住讜专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 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 爪专讬讻谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转


Rav 岣nin relates: Rav Kahana brought a bill of divorce, and I do not know if he brought it from Sura to Neharde鈥檃 or if he brought it from Neharde鈥檃 to Sura. He came before Rav and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state this declaration? Rav said to him: You are not required to do so.


讜讗讬 注讘讚转 讗讛谞讬转 诪讗讬 讗讬 注讘讚转 讗讛谞讬转 讚讗讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 诪注专注专 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讬谞谉 讘讬讛


But if you do this then you provide benefit. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: If you do this you provide benefit? This means that if the husband comes to contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we pay no attention to him and his claim.


讻讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讟 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讛讬讻谉 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 诪讻驻专 住讬住讗讬 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 爪专讬讱 讗转讛 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 砖诇讗 转讬讝拽拽 诇注讚讬诐


As it is taught in the Tosefta (1:3): An incident occurred involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to Rabbi Yishmael: My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses if the husband contests its validity.


诇讗讞专 砖讬爪讗 谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讜讛诇讗 讻驻专 住讬住讗讬 诪讜讘诇注转 讘转讞讜诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽专讜讘讛 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讬讜转专 诪注讻讜 讜转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘注讻讜 讚诪专讞拽讗 讗讘诇 讻驻专 住讬住讗讬 讚诪拽专讘讗 诇讗


After that man left, Rabbi Elai entered before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: My teacher, but isn鈥檛 the village of Sisai located within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and it is even closer to Tzippori, which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, more so than Akko. And we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, with regard to the village of Sisai, which is close, no, they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.


讗诪专 诇讜 砖转讜拽 讘谞讬 砖转讜拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬爪讗 讛讚讘专 讘讛讬转专 讬爪讗


Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Elai: Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter of her divorce was issued as permitted, it was issued, and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage.


讛讗 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 转讬讝拽拽 诇注讚讬诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛


The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? But after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael also stated his reason, as he said to the man: Do this so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses. The Gemara answers: Those who were present did not conclude Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 reasoning, and therefore he questioned him.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讬讟讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 诪砖诐 诇讻讗谉 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 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬


搂 The Gemara relates that Rabbi Evyatar sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to Rav 岣sda in which he wrote the following: With regard to bills of divorce that come from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, the agent is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Babylonia are learned with regard to this issue?


讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讘讬诐 讚住诇拽讬 讜谞讞转讬 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬


The Gemara challenges: And can you understand it in this way? After all, Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the declaration to ratify the document. But since there are many people who ascend to Eretz Yisrael and descend from there to Babylonia, witnesses are frequently available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 讘专 住诪讻讗 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛注讜诇讬谉 诪砖诐 诇讻讗谉 讛谉 拽讬讬诪讜 讘注爪诪谉 讜讬转谞讜 (讗转) 讛讬诇讚 讘讝讜谞讛 讜讛讬诇讚讛 诪讻专讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讬砖转讜 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 砖讬专讟讜讟


Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us that Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable authority? And furthermore, there is good reason to question his statement: He is the one who sent a letter to Rav Yehuda, and wrote: People who ascend from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, fulfill by themselves the verse: 鈥淎nd they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk鈥 (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. And Rabbi Evyatar wrote him this verse without scoring, i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖转讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖诇砖 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 砖诇砖 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗专讘注 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉


And Rabbi Yitz岣k says with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: One may write two words without scoring the parchment, but one may not write three words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And it was taught in a baraita: One may write three, but one may not write four. Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讗讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚转诇讬讗 讘住讘专讗 诇讞讬讬 讛讗 讙诪专讗 讛讬讗 讜讙诪专讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛


Abaye said to him: Is that to say that anyone who does not know this halakha of Rabbi Yitz岣k is not a great man? Granted, with regard to a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a halakha that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, this halakha is a tradition, and it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply did not hear this tradition.


讜注讜讚 讛讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 讛讜讗 讚讗住讻讬诐 诪专讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讝谞讛 注诇讬讜 驻讬诇讙砖讜 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 讗诪专 讝讘讜讘 诪爪讗 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 谞讬诪讗 诪爪讗 诇讛


And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one that his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with in his interpretation of a verse, as it is written with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: 鈥淎nd his concubine went away from him鈥 (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her responsible for a fly in the food that she prepared for him, while Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her responsible for a hair [nima].


讜讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬转专 诇讗诇讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注住讬拽 讘驻讬诇讙砖 讘讙讘注讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬转专 讘谞讬 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讜谞转谉 讘谞讬 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专


And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 住驻讬拽讗 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛谉 讝讘讜讘 诪爪讗 讜诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 谞讬诪讗 诪爪讗 讜讛拽驻讬讚


Rabbi Evyatar said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? Doesn鈥檛 God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God, i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: He found a fly in his food and did not take umbrage, and later he found a hair and took umbrage.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讘讜讘 讘拽注专讛 讜谞讬诪讗 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讝讘讜讘 诪讗讬住讜转讗 讜谞讬诪讗 住讻谞转讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘拽注专讛 讝讘讜讘 讗讜谞住讗 讜谞讬诪讗 驻砖讬注讜转讗


Rav Yehuda says a different explanation: The man found a fly in the dish that she cooked for him, and he found a hair in that place, i.e., in her genital area. When he found a fly it produced a reaction of disgust, and he did not grow angry with her, but the hair was a matter of danger, as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. There are those who say: This and that were found in a dish. The difference is that the fly was a result of circumstances beyond her control, as it fell into the dish on its own, but the hair was found in the dish due to her negligence.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬讟讬诇 讗讚诐 讗讬诪讛 讬转讬专讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖讛专讬 驻讬诇讙砖 讘讙讘注讛 讛讟讬诇 注诇讬讛 讘注诇讛 讗讬诪讛 讬转讬专讛 讜讛驻讬诇讛 讻诪讛 专讘讘讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇


Rav 岣sda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19鈥20).


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 讗讬诪讛 讬转讬专讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 住讜祝 讛讜讗 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 砖诇砖 注讘讬专讜转 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讞讬诇讜诇 砖讘转


Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 注砖专转诐 注专讘转诐 讛讚诇讬拽讜 讗转 讛谞专 爪专讬讱


Rabba bar bar 岣na said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that one must


Scroll To Top