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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 16, 2016 | 讝壮 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 65

There is halachic validity to various acts of children depending on their level of maturity. 聽There are various stages mapped out in the gemara for different acts. 聽A minor however cannot appoint a messenger. 聽If a man or woman appoints a messenger to deliver (man) or accept (woman) the get and specifies a location, if the messenger does it in a different location, is it valid? 聽Does it depend if it was the man or the woman’s messenger, does it depend on how the request was worded? 聽If a woman appointed a messenger to accept her get, from what point is she not allowed to eat truma in the event that she was married to a kohen? 聽What types of commands would be clear that a man intends to send messengers to write a deliver a get? 聽Which wording does not indicate such?

讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉

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

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诇讗

And the other Sage, Rav 岣nnana 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪注专讬诪讬谉 注诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 诇注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讛讗 诇讻诐 诪注讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜驻讚讜 讘讛谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讝讛 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讘诇讗 讞讜诪砖

Rav Avya raises another objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, according to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 explanations, that a minor cannot acquire property on behalf of others, based on a mishna in tractate Ma鈥檃ser 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.

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 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉

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.

讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And is there a Hebrew maidservant today? But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘拽讟谉 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 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘拽讟谞讛 诪转拽讚砖转 诇诪讬讗讜谉

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.

讛驻注讜讟讜转 诪拽讞谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专谉 诪诪讻专 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘拽讟谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗讘讬讛

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.

讛讙讬注讜 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 谞讚专讬讛谉 谞讚专 讜讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘拽讟谞讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇诪讻讜专 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

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 岣litza to free herself from her levirate bond. And with regard to selling his father鈥檚 landed property, a minor cannot sell it until he will reach the age of twenty.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讟谞讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 砖讗讬谉 拽讟谉 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞

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鈥檚 possession.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讛 爪讗 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讘转讬 讙讬讟讛 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

And if her father said to the agent: Go out and receive my daughter鈥檚 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.

讛讗讜诪专 转谉 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻住讜诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻砖专

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.

讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜拽讬讘诇讜 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 诪诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻砖专

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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚驻诇讬讙

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, what is different in the first clause, where the agent deviated from the husband鈥檚 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鈥檚 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?

讗讬讛讜 讚诪讚注转讬讛 诪讙专砖 拽驻讬讚 讗讬讛讬 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诪转讙专砖转 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 诪讬讚

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.

讙诪壮 讜讙讬讟讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗

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鈥檛 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?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讗 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讘讘讘诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖拽诇 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 砖拽诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

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 Me岣sya, 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,

讙讬讟讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 诇诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗

However, it is not a valid bill of divorce until you reach Mata Me岣sya.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 诪讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讗 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇诪讝专讞 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜拽讗 讗讝诇 诇诪注专讘 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘诪注专讘 讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬讙住 讙讗讬住 讘讬讛 讜讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗

The Gemara answers: No, Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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.

讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 注专讘 诇讬 讘转诪专讬诐 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘转诪专讬诐 转谞讬 讞讚讗 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 拽驻讬讚讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜

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.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讜 讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 注专讘 诇讬 讘诪讙讚诇 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘砖讜讘讱 讘砖讜讘讱 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘诪讙讚诇 讚转谞讬讗 讞讚讗 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讛转诐 诪讗讬 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬讻讗

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?

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 驻讬专讬 讚诪讙讚诇 讜驻讬专讬 讚砖讜讘讱

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讙专砖讜讛 讻转讘讜 讗讬讙专转 讜转谞讜 诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

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.

驻讟专讜讛 驻专谞住讜讛 注砖讜 诇讛 讻谞讬诪讜住 注砖讜 诇讛 讻专讗讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇讞讜讛 砖讘拽讜讛 转专讻讜讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 驻讟专讜讛 驻专谞住讜讛 注砖讜 诇讛 讻谞讬诪讜住 注砖讜 诇讛 讻专讗讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 驻讟专讜讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 驻讬讟专讜讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讘讘诇讗讛 讛讜讗 讜讚讬讬拽 讘讬谉 驻讬讟专讜讛 诇驻讟专讜讛 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚讘专 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诇讗 讚讬讬拽

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诪讛讜 注讝讘讜讛 诪讛讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诪讛讜 讛谞讬讞讜讛 诪讛讜 讛讜注讬诇讜 诇讛 诪讛讜 注砖讜 诇讛 讻讚转 诪讛讜

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?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 注砖讜 诇讛 讻讚转 注砖讜 诇讛 讻谞讬诪讜住 注砖讜 诇讛 讻专讗讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪住讜讻谉

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.

讙诪壮 讙谞讬讘讗 讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讛讜讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 谞驻讬拽 讗诪专 讛讘讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 诪讞诪专讗 讚谞讛专 驻谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗

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:

  • 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 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 65

讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉

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

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诇讗

And the other Sage, Rav 岣nnana 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪注专讬诪讬谉 注诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 诇注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讛讗 诇讻诐 诪注讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜驻讚讜 讘讛谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讝讛 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讘诇讗 讞讜诪砖

Rav Avya raises another objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, according to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 explanations, that a minor cannot acquire property on behalf of others, based on a mishna in tractate Ma鈥檃ser 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.

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 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉

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.

讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And is there a Hebrew maidservant today? But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘拽讟谉 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 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘拽讟谞讛 诪转拽讚砖转 诇诪讬讗讜谉

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.

讛驻注讜讟讜转 诪拽讞谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专谉 诪诪讻专 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘拽讟谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗讘讬讛

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.

讛讙讬注讜 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 谞讚专讬讛谉 谞讚专 讜讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘拽讟谞讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇诪讻讜专 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

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 岣litza to free herself from her levirate bond. And with regard to selling his father鈥檚 landed property, a minor cannot sell it until he will reach the age of twenty.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讟谞讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 砖讗讬谉 拽讟谉 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞

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鈥檚 possession.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讛 爪讗 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讘转讬 讙讬讟讛 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

And if her father said to the agent: Go out and receive my daughter鈥檚 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.

讛讗讜诪专 转谉 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻住讜诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻砖专

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.

讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜拽讬讘诇讜 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 诪诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻砖专

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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚驻诇讬讙

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, what is different in the first clause, where the agent deviated from the husband鈥檚 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鈥檚 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?

讗讬讛讜 讚诪讚注转讬讛 诪讙专砖 拽驻讬讚 讗讬讛讬 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诪转讙专砖转 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 诪讬讚

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.

讙诪壮 讜讙讬讟讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗

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鈥檛 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?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讗 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讘讘讘诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖拽诇 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 砖拽诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

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 Me岣sya, 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,

讙讬讟讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚诪讟讬转 诇诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗

However, it is not a valid bill of divorce until you reach Mata Me岣sya.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 诪讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讗 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇诪讝专讞 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜拽讗 讗讝诇 诇诪注专讘 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘诪注专讘 讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬讙住 讙讗讬住 讘讬讛 讜讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗

The Gemara answers: No, Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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.

讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 注专讘 诇讬 讘转诪专讬诐 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘转诪专讬诐 转谞讬 讞讚讗 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 拽驻讬讚讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪专讗讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讗 诇讜

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.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讜 讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 注专讘 诇讬 讘诪讙讚诇 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘砖讜讘讱 讘砖讜讘讱 讜注讬专讘 诇讜 讘诪讙讚诇 讚转谞讬讗 讞讚讗 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讛转诐 诪讗讬 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬讻讗

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?

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 驻讬专讬 讚诪讙讚诇 讜驻讬专讬 讚砖讜讘讱

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讙专砖讜讛 讻转讘讜 讗讬讙专转 讜转谞讜 诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

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.

驻讟专讜讛 驻专谞住讜讛 注砖讜 诇讛 讻谞讬诪讜住 注砖讜 诇讛 讻专讗讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇讞讜讛 砖讘拽讜讛 转专讻讜讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 驻讟专讜讛 驻专谞住讜讛 注砖讜 诇讛 讻谞讬诪讜住 注砖讜 诇讛 讻专讗讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 驻讟专讜讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 驻讬讟专讜讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讘讘诇讗讛 讛讜讗 讜讚讬讬拽 讘讬谉 驻讬讟专讜讛 诇驻讟专讜讛 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚讘专 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诇讗 讚讬讬拽

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 诪讛讜 注讝讘讜讛 诪讛讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诪讛讜 讛谞讬讞讜讛 诪讛讜 讛讜注讬诇讜 诇讛 诪讛讜 注砖讜 诇讛 讻讚转 诪讛讜

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?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 注砖讜 诇讛 讻讚转 注砖讜 诇讛 讻谞讬诪讜住 注砖讜 诇讛 讻专讗讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪住讜讻谉

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.

讙诪壮 讙谞讬讘讗 讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讛讜讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 谞驻讬拽 讗诪专 讛讘讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 诪讞诪专讗 讚谞讛专 驻谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗

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:

Scroll To Top