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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 15, 2016 | 讜壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Gittin 64

Can a messenger sent by the husband to deliver to the woman also function as a messenger to accept the get for the woman? 聽If the husband gave a get to a middleman and the middleman claims he was given the get to accept on behalf of the wife and the husband claims he gave it to him to hold for him but not to accept it, who is believed? 聽Would the same laws regarding monetary issues and middlemen apply or is this case different? 聽Can the father or the daughter accept the get in the case of a betrothed na’ara (in between stage between child and adult)?

讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉

or if there is one witness from the first pair of witnesses and one witness from the latter pair, and one additional witness joins with them as the second witness in both testimonies.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讘注诇 讗讜诪专 诇驻拽讚讜谉 讜砖诇讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 诪讬 谞讗诪谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘注诇 谞讗诪谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉

GEMARA: It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute in a case where a husband says that he handed the bill of divorce to another as a deposit for safekeeping and not to deliver it to his wife, and that consequently she is not divorced, and the third party [shalish], to whom the husband gave the document, says that he was serving as an agent for receipt and the husband gave him the document for the purpose of divorce. In such a case, who is deemed credible? Rav Huna says: The husband is deemed credible, and Rav 岣sda says: The third party is deemed credible.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘注诇 谞讗诪谉 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讛 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉 讚讛讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: Rav Huna said that the husband is deemed credible, as, if it is so that he gave it to the third party for the purpose of divorce, he would have given the bill of divorce directly to her. Both husband and wife are in the same city. Why did he give it to a third party? Apparently, he merely entrusted him with the bill of divorce for safekeeping. And Rav 岣sda said: The third party is deemed credible, as the husband himself deemed him credible by entrusting him with the bill of divorce.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讜砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉 诪砖谞讬讛诐 讻讬爪讚 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉

Rabbi Abba raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita in the Tosefta (Bava Metzia 1:10): The legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to that of the testimony of one hundred witnesses, and the statement of a third party is deemed more credible than the statements of both of the litigants. How so? If this litigant, the creditor, says that the debtor owes him this sum, and that litigant, the debtor, says that he owes that lower sum, the third party to whom the debtor gave the money to pay the creditor is deemed credible to establish the sum of the debt. This contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the husband, not the third party, is deemed credible.

砖讗谞讬 诪诪讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛讬讘 诇诪讞讬诇讛

The Gemara rejects that objection: A monetary debt is different, as it can be forgiven. Since one can forgive a monetary debt outright, he can also accept upon himself to abide by the statement of a third party as to the sum of the debt. Therefore, even if the third party deviates from the truth, because it is a case involving money, they accept his determination. However, no proof may be cited from that case to the matter of the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of forgiveness with regard to ritual matters, e.g., divorce.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讙讬讟讬 诪诪讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 诇砖讟专讜转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: And likewise that is the halakha with regard to bills of divorce [gittin], i.e., the halakha is that the third party is deemed credible? The Gemara answers: The reference in the baraita is not to bills of divorce. Rather, the reference is to monetary documents [gittei mamon]. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: And likewise that is the halakha with regard to monetary documents [shetarot]? The fact that monetary documents are labeled as shetarot indicates that the term gittin refers to bill of divorce.

诪讬讚讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 转谞讬讗

The Gemara rejects that proof: Are they, the two expressions, taught together? If there were a passage in one baraita that said: And likewise, that is the halakha with regard to gittin and documents, one could infer that the term gittin is referring to bills of divorce, as the term documents is referring to all other documents. However, since these are two discrete baraitot, perhaps one is referring to monetary documents as gittin and the other is referring to them as shetarot.

转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗诪专讛 讜砖谞讬诐 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 拽讘诇 讜拽专注 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛诪谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖

The Gemara cites proof with regard to the credibility of the third party. We learned in the mishna that a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, requires two sets of witnesses to confirm that she was divorced when the agent received the bill of divorce. She requires two witnesses who say: In our presence she said to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf, and two others who say: In our presence the agent received the bill of divorce and tore it. The Gemara asks: And why are the witnesses necessary? Let us deem the third party, to whom the husband handed the bill of divorce, credible and not require witnesses.

诪讬 拽讗 谞驻讬拽 讙讬讟讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讬讛 讚诇讬讛诪谞讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: Does the bill of divorce emerge from his possession, i.e., does he have the bill of divorce, such that it would lead one to deem him credible? The third party is believed only in a case where the item in question is under his control, as then he can do with it as he wishes. However, in this case the bill of divorce is no longer in his possession, as it has been torn, and the credibility attributed to the third party is no longer relevant.

转讬谞讞 讗诪专讛 拽讬讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara asks: That works out well in explaining why witnesses are required to testify that she said to the agent in their presence: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf. However, why do I need witnesses to testify: In our presence the agent received the bill of divorce and tore it? From the point that the bill of divorce was in his possession no testimony should be necessary. Rabba said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. The divorce takes effect primarily by means of its transmission to the woman in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, witnesses are necessary to testify that the transmission took place in their presence.

拽专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 砖谞讜

The Gemara seeks to clarify a different matter mentioned in the mishna. Why do I need the witnesses to testify that the third party tore the bill of divorce? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Sages taught the mishna during a period of religious persecution, when the government decreed that it is prohibited to write bills of divorce. Therefore, immediately after the divorce took effect they would destroy any evidence that a bill of divorce had been written by tearing it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专讛 讗讬讛讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 砖诇讬砖 讚诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚砖诇讬砖 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬讛讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗

Rabba said: And although he said that the husband is deemed credible, Rav Huna concedes that if the wife said: The third party said to me that my husband gave the bill of divorce to him for the purpose of divorce, she is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: Is there anything with regard to which, according to Rav Huna, the third party himself is not deemed credible, but the wife is deemed credible when quoting him?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专讛 拽诪讗讬 讚讬讚讬 诇讙专讜砖讬谉 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讚讬讚讛 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘注诇

Rather, Rabba said that Rav Huna concedes that if she said: In my presence my husband gave the bill of divorce to the third party for the purpose of divorce, she is deemed credible. Her credibility is based on the principle of miggo, that the ability to make a more advantageous claim grants credibility to the claim one actually makes. Since, if she wished, she could have said that the husband gave it to her and she was divorced, therefore, when she says that the husband gave it to an agent for the purpose of divorce she is deemed credible.

讘注诇 讗诪专 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 谞转谉 诇讬 讜讗讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

搂 The Gemara proceeds to a related matter. If the husband said that he gave the bill of divorce to the third party as an agent of delivery for the purpose of divorce, and the third party says that the husband gave it to him as an agent of delivery for the purpose of divorce, and the wife says: The third party gave me the bill of divorce and it was lost, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations. And there is no resolution of a matter of forbidden relations with fewer than two witnesses.

讜讗诪讗讬 讜诇讬讛讬诪谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖 诪讬 拽讗 谞驻讬拽 讙讬讟讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讬讛 讚诇讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But why is this case one of uncertainty? But let us deem the third party credible, i.e., let us believe his statement that the husband gave him the bill of divorce for the purpose of divorce. The Gemara rejects this: Does the bill of divorce emerge from his possession, such that it would lead one to deem him credible?

讜诇讛讬诪谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙讬专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉 诪讬 拽讗诪专 讙讬专砖转讬

The Gemara asks: But let one deem the husband credible, as Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A husband who says: I divorced my wife, is deemed credible. The Gemara rejects this: In the case under discussion does the husband say: I divorced her? He merely stated that he handed the bill of divorce to the third party.

讜诇讬诪讗 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜拽讚砖 诇讬 讗砖讛 住转诐 讜诪转 砖诇讜讞讜 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜

The Gemara asks: But let us say that there is a presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says that in the case of one who says to his agent: Go out and betroth a woman for me, and he did not specify which woman, and his agent died without informing him whether he betrothed a woman or the identity of the woman he betrothed, it is prohibited for him to marry all the women in the world, as there is a presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency. Apparently, one relies on this presumption even with regard to matters of forbidden relations. Because the identity of the woman is unknown, one must be concerned with regard to all women; perhaps they are relatives of the woman whom the agent betrothed on his behalf.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讘诇 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This matter, the presumption that an agent performs his agency, applies only when its application leads to stringency, as there is a concern that the agent performed his agency. However, when its application leads to leniency, no, the presumption does not apply.

讜诇讬讛诪谞讛 诇讚讬讚讛 诪讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讙讬专砖转谞讬 谞讗诪谞转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪注讬讝讛 驻谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But let one deem the wife herself credible, based on the statement of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: A woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible, as there is a presumption that a woman would not be insolent in the presence of her husband and lie.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讛 诪注讬讝讛 讜诪注讬讝讛

The Gemara answers: This matter applies only in a case where there is no factor that supports her claim, as the presumption is that she would not be so insolent as to tell a lie that has no basis. However, in a case where there is a factor that supports her claim, as in this case both the husband and the third party claim that the husband sent a bill of divorce, she would indeed be insolent. Therefore, her claim that she was divorced is accepted only if she can produce the bill of divorce.

诪转谞讬壮 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讘讬讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讝讜讻讜转 讻讗讞转 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 诪拽讘诇 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讘诇讘讚 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转讙专砖

MISHNA: With regard to a betrothed young woman, she and her father are each eligible to receive her bill of divorce, and the divorce takes effect at the moment that either of them receives the bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehuda said: Two hands do not have the right to acquire an item on behalf of one person as one. Rather, her father alone receives her bill of divorce on her behalf. And there is another principle: Any female who is unable to safeguard her bill of divorce is unable to be divorced.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬讚讗 讬转讬专转讗 讝讻讬 诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讛 讬讚 讚讬诇讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the Rabbis, who stated the unattributed first opinion in the mishna, and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Rabbis hold: The Merciful One grants the betrothed young woman an additional hand, beyond the hand of her father, who can receive the bill of divorce on her behalf. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: In a place, i.e., situation, where her father is alive, her hand is nothing and she is ineligible to receive her bill of divorce.

讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讟谞讛 讛讬讜讚注转 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜讚注转 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讬讜讚注转 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讻诇 砖诪砖诪专转 讙讬讟讛 讜讚讘专 讗讞专

The mishna teaches: And any woman who is unable to safeguard her bill of divorce is unable to be divorced. The Sages taught: A minor girl who knows how to safeguard her bill of divorce can be divorced, and one who does not know how to safeguard her bill of divorce cannot be divorced. And which is the minor girl who knows how to safeguard her bill of divorce? It is any minor girl who safeguards her bill of divorce and something else.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖诪砖诪专转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪讞诪转 讙讬讟讛

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying in the statement: Who safeguards her bill of divorce and something else? Rabbi Yo岣nan says that this is what he is saying: Any minor who safeguards something else due to her bill of divorce, i.e., she lost her bill of divorce itself but she guards something else that she mistook for her bill of divorce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 讛讗 砖讜讟讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讻诇 砖诪讘讞谞转 讘讬谉 讙讬讟讛 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 objects to this: That minor girl is merely an imbecile, as she keeps something else in lieu of her bill of divorce. Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 says in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: The reference is to any girl who distinguishes between her bill of divorce and something else, and safeguards her bill of divorce and does not safeguard less significant items.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 爪专讜专 讜讝讜专拽讜 讗讙讜讝 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讝讜讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讝讜讻讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讞驻抓 讜诪讞讝讬专讜 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 讝讜讻讛 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐

Apropos minors, Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Asi says: If one gives a child a pebble and he throws it away and one gives him a nut and he takes it, he is capable of distinguishing between items of value and worthless items, and he acquires property for himself but does not acquire property on behalf of others. If the child develops to the extent that he is given an item and he returns it to its owners later, because he understands the concept of ownership, he acquires property both for himself and on behalf of others.

讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讝讜讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讝讜讻讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

Rav Yehuda continued. When I stated Rabbi Asi鈥檚 ruling before Shmuel he said to me: This and that are one. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: This and that are one? Rav 岣sda says: With regard to both this child and that child, each acquires property for himself but does not acquire property on behalf of others, and there is no distinction in this regard between the developmental stages of a minor.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讜讜专讚讗谉 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讛诪讘讜讬 讜诪讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐

Rav 岣nnana of Vardania raises an objection based on what was taught in a mishna (Eiruvin 79b): How does one merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his wine and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. And he may confer possession of the wine to the other residents of the alleyway by means of his adult son or daughter, or by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant.

讛讗讬 砖驻讞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗转讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讗讬 讘注讬讗 讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜拽转谞讬 讝讜讻讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this maidservant? If she developed two pubic hairs, indicating that she reached majority, what is she doing with the owner of the barrel? A Hebrew maidservant is emancipated when she reaches puberty. Rather, is the reference here not to a case where she did not yet develop two pubic hairs, and she is a minor, and it is taught that she can acquire on behalf of others? Apparently, a minor can acquire property on behalf of other people.

砖讗谞讬 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: The merging of alleyways is different, as it is an ordinance by rabbinic law. The Sages ruled leniently with regard to this rabbinic ordinance and allowed a minor to acquire property on behalf of others.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜讜专讚讗谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉

Rav 岣sda said: Rav 岣nnana of Vardonia was silent and had no response. The Gemara asks: What could he have said in response? The Gemara answers that he could have responded: All ordinances that the Sages instituted,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 64

讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉

or if there is one witness from the first pair of witnesses and one witness from the latter pair, and one additional witness joins with them as the second witness in both testimonies.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讘注诇 讗讜诪专 诇驻拽讚讜谉 讜砖诇讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 诪讬 谞讗诪谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘注诇 谞讗诪谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉

GEMARA: It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute in a case where a husband says that he handed the bill of divorce to another as a deposit for safekeeping and not to deliver it to his wife, and that consequently she is not divorced, and the third party [shalish], to whom the husband gave the document, says that he was serving as an agent for receipt and the husband gave him the document for the purpose of divorce. In such a case, who is deemed credible? Rav Huna says: The husband is deemed credible, and Rav 岣sda says: The third party is deemed credible.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讘注诇 谞讗诪谉 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讛 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉 讚讛讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: Rav Huna said that the husband is deemed credible, as, if it is so that he gave it to the third party for the purpose of divorce, he would have given the bill of divorce directly to her. Both husband and wife are in the same city. Why did he give it to a third party? Apparently, he merely entrusted him with the bill of divorce for safekeeping. And Rav 岣sda said: The third party is deemed credible, as the husband himself deemed him credible by entrusting him with the bill of divorce.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讜砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉 诪砖谞讬讛诐 讻讬爪讚 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 砖诇讬砖 谞讗诪谉

Rabbi Abba raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita in the Tosefta (Bava Metzia 1:10): The legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to that of the testimony of one hundred witnesses, and the statement of a third party is deemed more credible than the statements of both of the litigants. How so? If this litigant, the creditor, says that the debtor owes him this sum, and that litigant, the debtor, says that he owes that lower sum, the third party to whom the debtor gave the money to pay the creditor is deemed credible to establish the sum of the debt. This contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the husband, not the third party, is deemed credible.

砖讗谞讬 诪诪讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛讬讘 诇诪讞讬诇讛

The Gemara rejects that objection: A monetary debt is different, as it can be forgiven. Since one can forgive a monetary debt outright, he can also accept upon himself to abide by the statement of a third party as to the sum of the debt. Therefore, even if the third party deviates from the truth, because it is a case involving money, they accept his determination. However, no proof may be cited from that case to the matter of the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of forgiveness with regard to ritual matters, e.g., divorce.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讙讬讟讬 诪诪讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 诇砖讟专讜转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: And likewise that is the halakha with regard to bills of divorce [gittin], i.e., the halakha is that the third party is deemed credible? The Gemara answers: The reference in the baraita is not to bills of divorce. Rather, the reference is to monetary documents [gittei mamon]. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: And likewise that is the halakha with regard to monetary documents [shetarot]? The fact that monetary documents are labeled as shetarot indicates that the term gittin refers to bill of divorce.

诪讬讚讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 转谞讬讗

The Gemara rejects that proof: Are they, the two expressions, taught together? If there were a passage in one baraita that said: And likewise, that is the halakha with regard to gittin and documents, one could infer that the term gittin is referring to bills of divorce, as the term documents is referring to all other documents. However, since these are two discrete baraitot, perhaps one is referring to monetary documents as gittin and the other is referring to them as shetarot.

转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗诪专讛 讜砖谞讬诐 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 拽讘诇 讜拽专注 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛诪谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖

The Gemara cites proof with regard to the credibility of the third party. We learned in the mishna that a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, requires two sets of witnesses to confirm that she was divorced when the agent received the bill of divorce. She requires two witnesses who say: In our presence she said to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf, and two others who say: In our presence the agent received the bill of divorce and tore it. The Gemara asks: And why are the witnesses necessary? Let us deem the third party, to whom the husband handed the bill of divorce, credible and not require witnesses.

诪讬 拽讗 谞驻讬拽 讙讬讟讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讬讛 讚诇讬讛诪谞讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: Does the bill of divorce emerge from his possession, i.e., does he have the bill of divorce, such that it would lead one to deem him credible? The third party is believed only in a case where the item in question is under his control, as then he can do with it as he wishes. However, in this case the bill of divorce is no longer in his possession, as it has been torn, and the credibility attributed to the third party is no longer relevant.

转讬谞讞 讗诪专讛 拽讬讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara asks: That works out well in explaining why witnesses are required to testify that she said to the agent in their presence: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf. However, why do I need witnesses to testify: In our presence the agent received the bill of divorce and tore it? From the point that the bill of divorce was in his possession no testimony should be necessary. Rabba said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. The divorce takes effect primarily by means of its transmission to the woman in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, witnesses are necessary to testify that the transmission took place in their presence.

拽专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 砖谞讜

The Gemara seeks to clarify a different matter mentioned in the mishna. Why do I need the witnesses to testify that the third party tore the bill of divorce? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Sages taught the mishna during a period of religious persecution, when the government decreed that it is prohibited to write bills of divorce. Therefore, immediately after the divorce took effect they would destroy any evidence that a bill of divorce had been written by tearing it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专讛 讗讬讛讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 砖诇讬砖 讚诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚砖诇讬砖 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬讛讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗

Rabba said: And although he said that the husband is deemed credible, Rav Huna concedes that if the wife said: The third party said to me that my husband gave the bill of divorce to him for the purpose of divorce, she is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: Is there anything with regard to which, according to Rav Huna, the third party himself is not deemed credible, but the wife is deemed credible when quoting him?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专讛 拽诪讗讬 讚讬讚讬 诇讙专讜砖讬谉 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讚讬讚讛 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘注诇

Rather, Rabba said that Rav Huna concedes that if she said: In my presence my husband gave the bill of divorce to the third party for the purpose of divorce, she is deemed credible. Her credibility is based on the principle of miggo, that the ability to make a more advantageous claim grants credibility to the claim one actually makes. Since, if she wished, she could have said that the husband gave it to her and she was divorced, therefore, when she says that the husband gave it to an agent for the purpose of divorce she is deemed credible.

讘注诇 讗诪专 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 谞转谉 诇讬 讜讗讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

搂 The Gemara proceeds to a related matter. If the husband said that he gave the bill of divorce to the third party as an agent of delivery for the purpose of divorce, and the third party says that the husband gave it to him as an agent of delivery for the purpose of divorce, and the wife says: The third party gave me the bill of divorce and it was lost, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations. And there is no resolution of a matter of forbidden relations with fewer than two witnesses.

讜讗诪讗讬 讜诇讬讛讬诪谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖 诪讬 拽讗 谞驻讬拽 讙讬讟讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讬讛 讚诇讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But why is this case one of uncertainty? But let us deem the third party credible, i.e., let us believe his statement that the husband gave him the bill of divorce for the purpose of divorce. The Gemara rejects this: Does the bill of divorce emerge from his possession, such that it would lead one to deem him credible?

讜诇讛讬诪谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙讬专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉 诪讬 拽讗诪专 讙讬专砖转讬

The Gemara asks: But let one deem the husband credible, as Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A husband who says: I divorced my wife, is deemed credible. The Gemara rejects this: In the case under discussion does the husband say: I divorced her? He merely stated that he handed the bill of divorce to the third party.

讜诇讬诪讗 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜拽讚砖 诇讬 讗砖讛 住转诐 讜诪转 砖诇讜讞讜 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜

The Gemara asks: But let us say that there is a presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says that in the case of one who says to his agent: Go out and betroth a woman for me, and he did not specify which woman, and his agent died without informing him whether he betrothed a woman or the identity of the woman he betrothed, it is prohibited for him to marry all the women in the world, as there is a presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency. Apparently, one relies on this presumption even with regard to matters of forbidden relations. Because the identity of the woman is unknown, one must be concerned with regard to all women; perhaps they are relatives of the woman whom the agent betrothed on his behalf.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讘诇 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This matter, the presumption that an agent performs his agency, applies only when its application leads to stringency, as there is a concern that the agent performed his agency. However, when its application leads to leniency, no, the presumption does not apply.

讜诇讬讛诪谞讛 诇讚讬讚讛 诪讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讙讬专砖转谞讬 谞讗诪谞转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪注讬讝讛 驻谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But let one deem the wife herself credible, based on the statement of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: A woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible, as there is a presumption that a woman would not be insolent in the presence of her husband and lie.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讛 诪注讬讝讛 讜诪注讬讝讛

The Gemara answers: This matter applies only in a case where there is no factor that supports her claim, as the presumption is that she would not be so insolent as to tell a lie that has no basis. However, in a case where there is a factor that supports her claim, as in this case both the husband and the third party claim that the husband sent a bill of divorce, she would indeed be insolent. Therefore, her claim that she was divorced is accepted only if she can produce the bill of divorce.

诪转谞讬壮 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讘讬讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讝讜讻讜转 讻讗讞转 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 诪拽讘诇 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讘诇讘讚 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛转讙专砖

MISHNA: With regard to a betrothed young woman, she and her father are each eligible to receive her bill of divorce, and the divorce takes effect at the moment that either of them receives the bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehuda said: Two hands do not have the right to acquire an item on behalf of one person as one. Rather, her father alone receives her bill of divorce on her behalf. And there is another principle: Any female who is unable to safeguard her bill of divorce is unable to be divorced.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬讚讗 讬转讬专转讗 讝讻讬 诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讛 讬讚 讚讬诇讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the Rabbis, who stated the unattributed first opinion in the mishna, and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Rabbis hold: The Merciful One grants the betrothed young woman an additional hand, beyond the hand of her father, who can receive the bill of divorce on her behalf. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: In a place, i.e., situation, where her father is alive, her hand is nothing and she is ineligible to receive her bill of divorce.

讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讟谞讛 讛讬讜讚注转 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜讚注转 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讬讜讚注转 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讻诇 砖诪砖诪专转 讙讬讟讛 讜讚讘专 讗讞专

The mishna teaches: And any woman who is unable to safeguard her bill of divorce is unable to be divorced. The Sages taught: A minor girl who knows how to safeguard her bill of divorce can be divorced, and one who does not know how to safeguard her bill of divorce cannot be divorced. And which is the minor girl who knows how to safeguard her bill of divorce? It is any minor girl who safeguards her bill of divorce and something else.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖诪砖诪专转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪讞诪转 讙讬讟讛

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying in the statement: Who safeguards her bill of divorce and something else? Rabbi Yo岣nan says that this is what he is saying: Any minor who safeguards something else due to her bill of divorce, i.e., she lost her bill of divorce itself but she guards something else that she mistook for her bill of divorce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 讛讗 砖讜讟讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讻诇 砖诪讘讞谞转 讘讬谉 讙讬讟讛 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 objects to this: That minor girl is merely an imbecile, as she keeps something else in lieu of her bill of divorce. Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 says in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: The reference is to any girl who distinguishes between her bill of divorce and something else, and safeguards her bill of divorce and does not safeguard less significant items.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 爪专讜专 讜讝讜专拽讜 讗讙讜讝 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讝讜讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讝讜讻讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讞驻抓 讜诪讞讝讬专讜 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 讝讜讻讛 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐

Apropos minors, Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Asi says: If one gives a child a pebble and he throws it away and one gives him a nut and he takes it, he is capable of distinguishing between items of value and worthless items, and he acquires property for himself but does not acquire property on behalf of others. If the child develops to the extent that he is given an item and he returns it to its owners later, because he understands the concept of ownership, he acquires property both for himself and on behalf of others.

讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讝讜讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讝讜讻讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

Rav Yehuda continued. When I stated Rabbi Asi鈥檚 ruling before Shmuel he said to me: This and that are one. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: This and that are one? Rav 岣sda says: With regard to both this child and that child, each acquires property for himself but does not acquire property on behalf of others, and there is no distinction in this regard between the developmental stages of a minor.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讜讜专讚讗谉 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讛诪讘讜讬 讜诪讝讻讛 诇讛诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐

Rav 岣nnana of Vardania raises an objection based on what was taught in a mishna (Eiruvin 79b): How does one merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his wine and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. And he may confer possession of the wine to the other residents of the alleyway by means of his adult son or daughter, or by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant.

讛讗讬 砖驻讞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗转讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讗讬 讘注讬讗 讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜拽转谞讬 讝讜讻讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this maidservant? If she developed two pubic hairs, indicating that she reached majority, what is she doing with the owner of the barrel? A Hebrew maidservant is emancipated when she reaches puberty. Rather, is the reference here not to a case where she did not yet develop two pubic hairs, and she is a minor, and it is taught that she can acquire on behalf of others? Apparently, a minor can acquire property on behalf of other people.

砖讗谞讬 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: The merging of alleyways is different, as it is an ordinance by rabbinic law. The Sages ruled leniently with regard to this rabbinic ordinance and allowed a minor to acquire property on behalf of others.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜讜专讚讗谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉

Rav 岣sda said: Rav 岣nnana of Vardonia was silent and had no response. The Gemara asks: What could he have said in response? The Gemara answers that he could have responded: All ordinances that the Sages instituted,

Scroll To Top