Gittin 65

כעין דאורייתא תקון

they instituted parallel to Torah law, and they did not innovate novel halakhic models.

ואידך כי אמרינן כל דתקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון במילתא דאית לה עיקר מן התורה אבל מילתא דלית לה עיקר מן התורה לא

And the other Sage, Rav Ḥinnana of Vardonia, why was he silent? He holds that when we say: All ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted parallel to Torah law, it is with regard to a matter that is rooted in the Torah, and upon which the Sages instituted an ordinance. However, with regard to a matter that is not rooted in the Torah, e.g., the halakhot of joining courtyards and merging alleyways, no, they did not institute the ordinances parallel to Torah law.

מתיב רב אויא מערימין על מעשר שני כיצד אומר אדם לבנו ובתו הגדולים לעבדו ושפחתו העברים הא לכם מעות הללו ופדו בהן מעשר שני זה ואוכלו בלא חומש

Rav Avya raises another objection to Shmuel’s opinion, according to Rav Ḥisda’s explanations, that a minor cannot acquire property on behalf of others, based on a mishna in tractate Ma’aser Sheni (4:4): One may employ artifice to exempt himself from the obligation to add one-fifth to the sum when redeeming second tithe, which the owner of the tithe is required to add. How so? A person says to his adult son or daughter, or to his Hebrew slave or his maidservant: Here you are, take money and redeem second tithe with it. After they redeem the second tithe, they give it to their father or master and he eats it without adding one-fifth.

האי שפחה היכי דמי אי דאתיא שתי שערות מאי בעיא גביה אלא לאו דלא אתיא שתי שערות הכא במאי עסקינן במעשר בזמן הזה דרבנן

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 produce? 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? Apparently, a minor can also acquire property on behalf of others. The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? It is with tithes today, which is in effect by rabbinic law, and the Sages ruled leniently in matters of rabbinic law.

ואמה העבריה בזמן הזה מי איכא והתניא אין עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג אלא בעציץ שאינו נקוב דרבנן

The Gemara asks: And is there a Hebrew maidservant today? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The provision of a Hebrew slave is in practice only during a period when the Jubilee Year is in practice. Therefore, there have been no Hebrew slaves or maidservants since observance of the Jubilee Year ceased, before the destruction of the First Temple. Rather, it must be that the mishna is referring to a case where the produce grew in an unperforated pot, which one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law.

אמר רבא שלש מדות בקטן צרור וזורקו אגוז ונוטלו זוכה לעצמו ואין זוכה לאחרים וכנגדן בקטנה מתקדשת למיאון

Apropos the capacity of minors to acquire property, Rava says that there are three stages in the development of a minor: With regard to a minor who is given a pebble and he throws it away but when given a nut he takes it, he acquires property for himself but does not acquire property on behalf of others. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding stage of intellectual development, after the death of her father she can be betrothed by her mother and her brother by rabbinic law, and can opt out of that betrothal through refusal.

הפעוטות מקחן מקח וממכרן ממכר במטלטלין וכנגדן בקטנה מתגרשת בקידושי אביה

At the next stage of development are young children aged approximately six through eight, whose purchase is a purchase and whose sale is a sale, with regard to movable property. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding stage of development, she is divorced by receipt of her bill of divorce, even if it is from betrothal by her father, which is by Torah law.

הגיעו לעונת נדרים נדריהן נדר והקדשן הקדש וכנגדן בקטנה חולצת ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים

The third stage of development is when they have reached the age of vows, when their vows are valid vows and their consecration is valid consecration. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding stage of development, she performs ḥalitza to free herself from her levirate bond. And with regard to selling his father’s landed property, a minor cannot sell it until he will reach the age of twenty.

מתני׳ קטנה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אינו גט עד שיגיע גט לידה לפיכך אם רצה הבעל לחזור יחזור שאין קטן עושה שליח

MISHNA: In the case of a minor girl who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. Therefore, if the husband seeks to retract his decision before his wife receives the bill of divorce, he can retract it, as a minor does not designate an agent. Consequently, the agent is not an agent for receipt, and the divorce does not take effect when the husband hands the document to the agent. The agent is an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce enters the wife’s possession.

ואם אמר לו אביה צא והתקבל לבתי גיטה אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור

And if her father said to the agent: Go out and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce on her behalf, then if the husband seeks to retract his decision, he cannot retract it. As a father can receive the bill of divorce on behalf of his minor daughter, he can designate an agent for receipt, and the divorce takes effect when the husband hands the document to the agent.

האומר תן גט זה לאשתי במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר פסול הרי היא במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר כשר

With regard to one who says to an agent: Give this bill of divorce to my wife in such and such a place, if the agent deviated and gave it to her in another place the divorce is invalid. However, if he said to the agent: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, she is in such and such a place, without explicitly instructing the agent to give her the document there, and he gave it to her in another place the divorce is valid.

האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי במקום פלוני וקיבלו לה במקום אחר פסול רבי אלעזר מכשיר הבא לי גיטי ממקום פלוני והביאו לה ממקום אחר כשר

With regard to the woman who when designating her agent for receipt said to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, and he received it for her in another place, the divorce is invalid; and Rabbi Elazar deems it valid. If she said to him: Bring me my bill of divorce from such and such a place, and he brought it for her from another place, it is valid. Because he is an agent for delivery, the woman is not particular where he receives the bill of divorce, as the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.

גמ׳ ורבי אלעזר מאי שנא רישא דלא פליג ומאי שנא סיפא דפליג

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, what is different in the first clause, where the agent deviated from the husband’s instructions and delivered the bill of divorce in a different place, where he does not disagree with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna that the divorce is invalid, and what is different in the latter clause, where the agent deviated from the wife’s instructions and received the bill of divorce in a different place, where he disagrees with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna and deems the divorce valid?

איהו דמדעתיה מגרש קפיד איהי דבעל כרחה מתגרשת מראה מקום היא לו

The Gemara answers: He, the husband, who divorces his wife of his own volition, insists that the divorce be effected in a certain place. However, she, the wife, who is divorced even against her will, is in no position to insist with regard to the manner in which the divorce will be effected, and is merely indicating a place for him to give her the bill of divorce.

מתני׳ הבא לי גיטי אוכלת בתרומה עד שיגיע גט לידה התקבל לי גיטי אסורה לאכול בתרומה מיד התקבל לי גיטי במקום פלוני אוכלת בתרומה עד שיגיע גט לאותו מקום רבי אלעזר אוסר מיד

MISHNA: An Israelite woman married to a priest partakes of teruma. If she says to an agent: Bring me my bill of divorce, designating him as an agent for delivery, she continues to partake of teruma until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. However, if she says: Receive my bill of divorce for me, thereby designating him as an agent for receipt, it is immediately prohibited for her to partake of teruma. Since the divorce takes effect when the husband hands the bill of divorce to the agent, the concern is that the agent encountered the husband nearby. If the woman said to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, then even if he received it elsewhere, she continues to partake of teruma until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rabbi Elazar prohibits her from partaking of teruma immediately.

גמ׳ וגיטא מיהא הוי והאמרת רישא לא הוי גיטא

GEMARA: In this mishna, the first tanna apparently states that if the agent for receipt received the bill of divorce in a place other than the place designated by the woman for receipt, the bill of divorce is valid when the agent brings it to the designated place. The Gemara asks: And in any event, is it a valid bill of divorce? But didn’t you say in the first clause, i.e., in the previous mishna, that if the agent received the bill of divorce in another place, it is not a valid bill of divorce?

לא צריכא דאמרה ליה התקבל לי גיטא במתא מחסיא וזימנין דמשכחת ליה בבבל והכי קאמר ליה משקל כל היכא דמשכחת ליה שקליה מיניה

The Gemara asks: No, this halakha is necessary with regard to a case where she said to him: Receive the bill of divorce for me in the city of Mata Meḥasya, and sometimes you can find him in the city of Babylon. And this is what she is saying: When taking the bill of divorce, anywhere that you find him, take it from him,

גיטא לא הוי עד דמטית למתא מחסיא

However, it is not a valid bill of divorce until you reach Mata Meḥasya.

ורבי אלעזר אוסר מיד פשיטא דהא מראה מקום היא לו

The mishna teaches that if the woman said to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, Rabbi Elazar prohibits her from partaking of teruma immediately. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as she is merely indicating a place for him to receive the bill of divorce and not stipulating that the divorce is contingent upon receipt of the document in that place.

לא צריכא דאמרה ליה זיל למזרח דאיתיה במזרח וקא אזל למערב מהו דתימא במערב הא ליתיה קא משמע לן דילמא בהדי דקאזיל מיגס גאיס ביה ויהב ליה גיטא

The Gemara answers: No, Rabbi Elazar’s ruling is necessary in a case where she said to him: Go to the east, as my husband is in the east, and the agent went to the west. Lest you say that since the husband is certainly not in the west and the agent will not find him there, the bill of divorce will certainly not take effect until later, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that perhaps while he was going west, the agent happened to encounter the husband, and the husband gave the bill of divorce to the agent.

האומר לשלוחו ערב לי בתמרים ועירב לו בגרוגרות בגרוגרות ועירב לו בתמרים תני חדא עירובו עירוב ותניא אידך אין עירובו עירוב

The Gemara cites a related halakha. With regard to one who says to his agent: Establish an eiruv of Shabbat boundaries on my behalf with dates, and he established an eiruv on his behalf with dried figs, or if said to his agent: Establish an eiruv on my behalf with dried figs, and he established an eiruv on his behalf with dates, it is taught in one baraita: His eiruv is a valid eiruv. And it is taught in another baraita: His eiruv is not a valid eiruv.

אמר רבה לא קשיא הא רבנן הא רבי אלעזר הא רבנן דאמרי קפידא הא רבי אלעזר דאמר מראה מקום היא לו

Rabba said: This is not difficult. This baraita, in which it is taught that it is not a valid eiruv, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita, in which it is taught that it is a valid eiruv, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. He explains: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: When one gives instructions to his agent, there is insistence on his part that the agent implement those instructions without deviation. Failure to do so revokes his designation as his agent. And that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: She is merely indicating a place for him to receive the bill of divorce and not stipulating that the divorce is contingent on receipt of the document in that place. In the baraita as well, he was not particular as to what food should be used to establish the eiruv.

ורב יוסף אמר הא והא רבנן כאן בשלו כאן בשל חבירו

And Rav Yosef said: Both this baraita and that baraita are the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: When one gives instructions to his agent, there is insistence on his part that the agent implement those instructions without deviation. However, not all deviations are equal. Here, where the baraita rules that it is a valid eiruv, the reference is to a case where the one who designated the agent instructed him to establish the joining of the courtyard with his dates or dried figs and the agent deviated and established the eiruv with the other type of fruit, but it belonged to the one issuing the instructions. There, where the baraita rules that it is not a valid eiruv, the reference is to a case where the one who designated the agent instructed him to establish the joining of the courtyard with the dates or dried figs of another, and the agent deviated and established the eiruv with the other type of fruit belonging to that other person. The eiruv is not valid because that other person authorized use of only a specific type of fruit.

אמר ליה אביי ואלא הא דתניא האומר לשלוחו ערב לי במגדל ועירב לו בשובך בשובך ועירב לו במגדל דתניא חדא עירובו עירוב ותניא אידך אין עירובו עירוב התם מאי שלו ושל חבירו איכא

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: However, that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to his agent: Establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries on my behalf in a tower, and he established the eiruv in a dovecote, or he said to the agent: Establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries on my behalf in a dovecote, and he established the eiruv in a tower, it is taught in one baraita: His joining of Shabbat boundaries is a valid eiruv. And it is taught in another baraita: His joining of Shabbat boundaries is not a valid eiruv. There, what distinction between his fruit and fruit of another is there?

התם נמי איכא פירי דמגדל ופירי דשובך

The Gemara answers: There too, there is a distinction between fruit of the tower and fruit of the dovecote. In these baraitot the instruction did not relate to the location of the placement of the eiruv; rather, the instruction was related to the location of the fruit to be used in establishing the eiruv. In one baraita, the produce in both locations belongs to the one who designated the agent; in the other baraita, the produce in both locations belongs to another.

מתני׳ האומר כתבו גט ותנו לאשתי גרשוה כתבו איגרת ותנו לה הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו

MISHNA: With regard to a husband who says to two people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, or: Divorce her, or: Write a letter and give it to her, they should write the document and give it to her. In each of those cases his intent is clear. He is instructing them to effect her divorce.

פטרוה פרנסוה עשו לה כנימוס עשו לה כראוי לא אמר כלום

However, one who said: Release her, or: Sustain her, or: Treat her according to the law [nimus], or: Treat her appropriately, said nothing, as none of these expressions clearly expresses his desire to divorce his wife.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן שלחוה שבקוה תרכוה הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו פטרוה פרנסוה עשו לה כנימוס עשו לה כראוי לא אמר כלום

GEMARA: The Sages taught that if the husband said: Send her, or: Separate her, or: Banish her, then all of these expressions convey his will to divorce her, and consequently, they should write the bill of divorce and give it to her. However, one who said: Release her [patruha], or: Sustain her, or: Treat her according to the law, or: Treat her appropriately, said nothing.

תניא רבי נתן אומר פטרוה דבריו קיימין פיטרוה לא אמר כלום אמר רבא רבי נתן דבבלאה הוא ודייק בין פיטרוה לפטרוה תנא דידן דבר ארץ ישראל הוא לא דייק

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: If one said patruha, his statement stands, and they give her a bill of divorce. However, if one said pitruha, he said nothing. Rava said: Rabbi Natan, who is a Babylonian, distinguished between pitruha and patruha. Pitruha means exempt her, which is unrelated to divorce; patruha means release her, which is very much related to divorce. However, the tanna of our mishna, who is a resident of Eretz Yisrael, did not distinguish between these two expressions.

איבעיא להו הוציאוה מהו עזבוה מהו התירוה מהו הניחוה מהו הועילו לה מהו עשו לה כדת מהו

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the husband said: Remove her, what is the halakha? If he said: Abandon her, what is the halakha? If he said: Unbind her, what is the halakha? If he said: Let her be, what is the halakha? If he said: Be useful for her, what is the halakha? If he said: Treat her according to the custom, what is the halakha?

פשוט מיהא חדא דתניא עשו לה כדת עשו לה כנימוס עשו לה כראוי לא אמר כלום

The Gemara answers: Resolve at least one of these expressions, as it is taught in a baraita: One who said: Treat her according to the custom, or: Treat her according to the law, or: Treat her appropriately, said nothing and it is not a valid bill of divorce. Apparently, the expression: Treat her according to the custom, is not an unequivocal instruction to effect divorce.

מתני׳ בראשונה היו אומרים היוצא בקולר ואמר כתבו גט לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו חזרו לומר אף המפרש והיוצא בשיירא רבי שמעון שזורי אומר אף המסוכן

MISHNA: At first the Sages would say: In the case of one who is taken out in a neck chain [kolar] to be executed and who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people should write the document and give it to his wife even though there was no explicit instruction to give it to her. They then said: Even with regard to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan to a far-off place and says: Write a bill of divorce to my wife, his intention is to write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if one who is dangerously ill gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.

גמ׳ גניבא יוצא בקולר הוה כי הוה קא נפיק אמר הבו ארבע מאה זוזי לרבי אבינא מחמרא דנהר פניא אמר רבי זירא

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: Geneiva was one who went out in a neck chain to be executed. When he was going out, he said to the people there as his dying bequest: Give four hundred dinars to Rabbi Avina from wine that I have in the city of Nehar Panya. Rabbi Zeira said: