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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2016 | 讞壮 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 66

What are laws regarding one who says to others to write a get for him but doesn’t say to deliver it. 聽In which circumstances do we think he meant to deliver it and in which do we not assume that? 聽What if he told a group of people? 聽Depending what wording he used and what he commanded them, they may have to all sign, and they may not be able to appoint others in place of them.

讚专讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 诇住讬诇转讬讛 讜讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讬讟讜 讻诪转谞转讜 诪讛 诪转谞转讜 讗诐 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讗祝 讙讬讟讜 讗诐 注诪讚 讞讜讝专

Let Rabbi Avina lift his basket and go to Rav Huna his teacher, as in order to acquire the item he must rely on the opinion of his teacher, as Rav Huna said: The legal status of one鈥檚 bill of divorce is like that of his gift.Just as with regard to a gift given by one on his deathbed, if he recovered from his illness and arose from his deathbed, he revokes his gift, so too, with regard to his bill of divorce given by one on his deathbed, if he recovered from his illness and arose from his deathbed, he revokes the bill of divorce.

讜诪讛 讙讬讟讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 讗祝 诪转谞转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 转谞讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛

And just as with regard to the bill of divorce of one on his deathbed, even though he did not specify, once he said: Write the bill of divorce, even though he did not say: Give it to my wife, they write and give it to his wife, as it was taught in the mishna. So too, with regard to a gift given by one on his deathbed, once he said: Give the gift, even though the recipients did not acquire the item from him by means of an act of acquisition, the one on his deathbed has given the gift. Based on the parallel drawn by Rav Huna between a bill of divorce and a gift, Rabbi Avina can go and collect the gift given him by Geneiva.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讬 诪讛 诪转谞讛 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗祝 讙讟 讬砖谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讛 讗讬转讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

Rabbi Abba objects to that conclusion. If that parallel is valid, extend it and say: Just as a gift is valid after death, so too, a bill of divorce is valid after death. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Granted, a gift is valid after death; however, is a bill of divorce valid after death? A bill of divorce severs the bond between husband and wife. After the husband dies, the bill of divorce is pointless. Therefore, the parallel certainly does not extend to after death.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讛讬讗 讜诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗

Rather, this is what is difficult according to Rabbi Abba: Geneiva鈥檚 instruction is the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate, and the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate requires an act of acquisition. The Gemara asks: Is that to say, by inference, that Rav Huna, according to whose opinion Rabbi Avina acquired the gift, holds that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate does not require an act of acquisition? But don鈥檛 we maintain that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate requires an act of acquisition? The Gemara answers: It is different here, as this is not a standard case of the gift of a person on his deathbed. This is a case where one issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death. In that case, the principle: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the deceased, applies even if it is a gift of a portion of his estate.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 住讘专 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬 拽谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Abba holds that one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death requires an act of acquisition? But don鈥檛 we maintain that one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death does not require an act of acquisition? What, then, is difficult for Rabbi Abba?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讚诪讬 讞诪专讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪讞诪专讗 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讞诪专讗 讻讚讬 诇讬讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讞讜 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 诪讞诪专讗 讻讚讬 诇讬讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讞讜

Rather, this is what is difficult according to Rabbi Abba: Geneiva did not say to give four hundred dinars of wine to Rabbi Avina, and he did not say: The monetary value of four hundred dinars of wine. He said: Four hundred dinars from wine. The question is: What did Geneiva seek to convey with that ambiguous expression? And the other amora, Rabbi Zeira, who does not find this difficult, holds that when Geneiva said: Four hundred dinars from wine, it was in order to enhance Rabbi Avina鈥檚 ability to collect the gift. Geneiva sought to give him a gift of value; in order to guarantee that Rabbi Avina would have access to his property and that the heirs would not be able to prevent him from receiving the gift with various claims, he specifically designated from which property Rabbi Avina could collect the gift. The Gemara notes: They sent a message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the term: From wine, is in order to enhance Rabbi Avina鈥檚 ability to collect the gift.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讜砖诇讱 诇讘讜专 讜讗诪专 讻诇 讛砖讜诪注 讗转 拽讜诇讜 讬讻转讜讘 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who was thrown into a pit and thought that he would die there, and he said that anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife, and he specified his name, her name, and all relevant details, those who hear him should write this bill of divorce and give it to his wife, even though they do not see the man and do not know him.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 砖讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖专讗讜 诇讜 讚诪讜转 讗讚诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a demon, as no one saw the person in the pit. Rav Yehuda says: It is referring to a case where they saw that the being in the pit has human form.

讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬讚诪讜讬讬 讗讬讚诪讜 讚讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讘讘讜讗讛 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘讘讜讗讛 讚讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讘讘讜讗讛 讚讘讘讜讗讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讬诪讚谞讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谞讬 讘讘讜讗讛 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘讘讜讗讛 讚讘讘讜讗讛 诇讬转 诇讛讜

The Gemara objects: Demons too can appear in human form, and therefore the fact that the being looked human is not a proof that it is not a demon. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has a shadow [bavua]. The Gemara objects: Demons also have a shadow. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has the shadow of a shadow. The Gemara objects: And perhaps demons too have the shadow of a shadow? Rabbi 岣nina says: Yonatan my son taught me that demons have a shadow but they do not have the shadow of a shadow.

讜讚诇诪讗 爪专讛 讛讬讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a rival wife of the woman who is to be divorced. She seeks to cause her rival to receive a bill of divorce under false pretenses, leading her to believe that she is divorced. Based on that mistaken belief, she will remarry without a divorce and will then be forbidden to both her first and second husband. The Gemara answers: A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a time of danger, when there is the likelihood that the wife would assume deserted wife status, one writes and gives a bill of divorce even though the people instructed to do so are not familiar with the man who gave the instructions. Here too, when a voice is heard from a pit, one writes and gives the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of properly clarifying the issue.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘专讬讗 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇砖讞拽 讘讛

MISHNA: A healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. Since he told them to write the bill of divorce and not to give it, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

诪注砖讛 讘讘专讬讗 讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞驻诇 讜诪转 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诐 诪注爪诪讜 谞驻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讗诐 讛专讜讞 讚讞转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讟

The mishna relates: There was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and then ascended to the roof and fell, and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own initiative, taking his own life, it is a valid bill of divorce, as it is clear that he anticipated his death and instructed those listening to write the bill of divorce with the intent of giving it to her. However, if the wind forced him to fall, it is not a valid bill of divorce, as there was no clear intent to give her the bill of divorce.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the halakha stated in the mishna? The halakha is that in a case where a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is not valid. From the incident it is clear that under certain circumstances when a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is valid.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜讻讬讞 住讜驻讜 注诇 转讞讬诇转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讘专讬讗 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞驻诇 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诐 诪注爪诪讜 谞驻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讗诐 讛专讜讞 讚讞转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讟

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In the case of a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but he did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. However, if his ultimate actions prove the nature of his initial intent, that he seeks to give the bill of divorce because he is about to die, it is a valid bill of divorce. And there was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and he then ascended to the roof and fell and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own initiative, it is a valid bill of divorce. However, if the wind forced him to fall, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚注诇 诇讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗砖讻讞 诪拽专讬 讬谞讜拽讗 讜讘专讬讛 讚讬转讘讬 讜讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 谞讻转讘讜 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 诇住讜祝 砖讻讬讘 诪拽专讬 讬谞讜拽讗 诪讬 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who entered the synagogue and found a schoolteacher and his son who were sitting there, and another person also sat with them. The man said to them: Two of you should write a bill of divorce for my wife. Ultimately, the schoolteacher died. The Sages considered the following question: Do people designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father, even though the two of them could not serve together as witnesses because they are relatives, or not? As the man鈥檚 intent was to designate two people who could serve as witnesses, the schoolteacher and the other person, the question is whether the son of the schoolteacher and the other person are agents and eligible to write and give the bill of divorce.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讗 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗 讜专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗

Rav Na岣an said: People do not designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father. And Rav Pappi said: People designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father. Rava said that the halakha is: People designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬

MISHNA: If a man said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife,

讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讗诪专 诇砖诇砖讛 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讬讻转讘讜 诪驻谞讬 砖注砖讗谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. If he said to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, these people should tell others, and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讛注诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讗讜谞讜 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诪拽讜讘诇 讗谞讬 讘讗讜诪专 诇砖诇砖讛 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讬讻转讘讜 诪驻谞讬 砖注砖讗谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉

And it is that halakha that Rabbi 岣nina of Ono brought up from prison in the name of Rabbi Akiva, who was incarcerated there: I received a tradition from my teachers that in a case where a man says to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that these people should tell others and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讜诪讬谞讜 诇砖诇讬讞 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪拽讜讘诇讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讜讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

Rabbi Yosei said: We said [nomeinu] to the agent, Rabbi 岣nina of Ono: We too received a tradition. However, it is a different one, that even if a man said to the High Court [Sanhedrin] in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讻讜诇讻诐 讻转讜讘讜 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讜讻讜诇诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讘讟诇

If a man said to ten people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, one of the ten writes the bill of divorce and two sign it. If he said: All of you write the document, one of them writes the bill of divorce and all of them sign it. Therefore, if one of them died, then this is a bill of divorce that is null and void, as he directed all of them to participate in the process.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讘讬 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讻转讘 讜讞转诪讜 讛谉 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 转爪讗 讜讛讚讘专 爪专讬讱 转诇诪讜讚

GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: After Rav鈥檚 death, they sent a question from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: In a case where a man said to two people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they told the scribe and he wrote the bill of divorce and they signed it, what is the halakha? He sent this response to them: If the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, she should leave her second husband, and the matter requires study. It is necessary to clarify the halakha, as there is fundamental uncertainty with regard to this matter.

诪讗讬 讛讚讘专 爪专讬讱 转诇诪讜讚 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诪讬诇讬 讜诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇讬 讗讬 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞 讗讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The matter requires study? What aspect of this question requires study? If we say that the uncertainty arises due to the fact that these are verbal directives, as the husband merely gave them instructions and did not hand them anything tangible, and Shmuel is uncertain whether verbal directives, instructions given to one agent, are transferred to another agent or whether verbal directives are not transferred to another agents; this leads to the question of whether the agents designated by the husband to write the bill of divorce can designate the scribe to write it. That cannot be the question.

讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

The Gemara explains why not: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Shmuel was not uncertain concerning this issue.

讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讻转讜讘讜 讗讬 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讗讬 讻转讘 讛讙讟

Rather, this is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, the question is whether he was referring to their signatures, in which case they could designate the scribe to write the document, or whether he was referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce, in which case it would be incumbent upon them alone to write and sign the document.

讜转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

The Gemara asks: But let Shmuel resolve the dilemma from the mishna: If a man said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. Apparently, they must write the bill of divorce themselves.

讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻转讜讘讜 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 讗讜 讻转讘 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻转讘 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讜诪讬谞讜 诇砖诇讬讞 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪拽讜讘诇讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讜讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 诇讛

The Gemara answers: The proper interpretation of the mishna itself is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, was he referring to their signatures, or was he referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce? The Gemara explains: It is obvious that it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: We said to the agent, Rabbi 岣nina of Ono: We too received a tradition; that even if a man said to the High Court in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻转讘 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 诪讞转诐 讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讞讚转讗

Granted, if you say it means the writing of the bill of divorce, that they must write the actual bill of divorce, this works out well, as a certain degree of expertise is necessary in order to write a bill of divorce correctly. However, if you say that it means their signatures, is there a court whose members do not know how to sign their signatures? The Gemara responds: Yes, there is a new court, whose members have not yet learned to sign a unique signature that will be recognizable to the public.

讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讛讗讬 讻转讜讘讜 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 讛讗 讻转讘 讛讙讟 讻砖专 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: But if we hold that this instruction: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, is the writing of the bill of divorce by a scribe valid? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 住讘讬专讬 诇谉 讚讻转讜讘讜 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 讻转讘 讛讙讟 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 讜诪讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 讜讛转谞谉 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讜注讚 讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞转诐 住讜驻专 砖谞讬谞讜

The Sages say in response that if we hold that the phrase: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, the writing of the bill of divorce becomes as one who says to those agents: Tell another to write it. And Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, that the agent can designate another to write the document. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei concede in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (87b): If a bill of divorce has the writing of a scribe, and the scribe identifies his handwriting, and one witness verifies his signature, it is valid as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: We learned in the mishna that this is the halakha with regard to the scribe鈥檚 signature and not the scribe鈥檚 writing.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

And Rav 岣sda said: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, and there is no concern that the scribe signed the document without the husband instructing him to do so.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讛 讞讜专讘讛 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇砖谞讬诐

And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, a pitfall will result from it. As sometimes, it happens that one said to two people:

  • 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 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 66

讚专讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 诇住讬诇转讬讛 讜讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讬讟讜 讻诪转谞转讜 诪讛 诪转谞转讜 讗诐 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讗祝 讙讬讟讜 讗诐 注诪讚 讞讜讝专

Let Rabbi Avina lift his basket and go to Rav Huna his teacher, as in order to acquire the item he must rely on the opinion of his teacher, as Rav Huna said: The legal status of one鈥檚 bill of divorce is like that of his gift.Just as with regard to a gift given by one on his deathbed, if he recovered from his illness and arose from his deathbed, he revokes his gift, so too, with regard to his bill of divorce given by one on his deathbed, if he recovered from his illness and arose from his deathbed, he revokes the bill of divorce.

讜诪讛 讙讬讟讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 讗祝 诪转谞转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 转谞讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛

And just as with regard to the bill of divorce of one on his deathbed, even though he did not specify, once he said: Write the bill of divorce, even though he did not say: Give it to my wife, they write and give it to his wife, as it was taught in the mishna. So too, with regard to a gift given by one on his deathbed, once he said: Give the gift, even though the recipients did not acquire the item from him by means of an act of acquisition, the one on his deathbed has given the gift. Based on the parallel drawn by Rav Huna between a bill of divorce and a gift, Rabbi Avina can go and collect the gift given him by Geneiva.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讬 诪讛 诪转谞讛 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗祝 讙讟 讬砖谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讛 讗讬转讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

Rabbi Abba objects to that conclusion. If that parallel is valid, extend it and say: Just as a gift is valid after death, so too, a bill of divorce is valid after death. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Granted, a gift is valid after death; however, is a bill of divorce valid after death? A bill of divorce severs the bond between husband and wife. After the husband dies, the bill of divorce is pointless. Therefore, the parallel certainly does not extend to after death.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讛讬讗 讜诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗

Rather, this is what is difficult according to Rabbi Abba: Geneiva鈥檚 instruction is the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate, and the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate requires an act of acquisition. The Gemara asks: Is that to say, by inference, that Rav Huna, according to whose opinion Rabbi Avina acquired the gift, holds that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate does not require an act of acquisition? But don鈥檛 we maintain that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate requires an act of acquisition? The Gemara answers: It is different here, as this is not a standard case of the gift of a person on his deathbed. This is a case where one issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death. In that case, the principle: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the deceased, applies even if it is a gift of a portion of his estate.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 住讘专 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬 拽谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Abba holds that one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death requires an act of acquisition? But don鈥檛 we maintain that one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death does not require an act of acquisition? What, then, is difficult for Rabbi Abba?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讚诪讬 讞诪专讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪讞诪专讗 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讞诪专讗 讻讚讬 诇讬讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讞讜 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 诪讞诪专讗 讻讚讬 诇讬讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讞讜

Rather, this is what is difficult according to Rabbi Abba: Geneiva did not say to give four hundred dinars of wine to Rabbi Avina, and he did not say: The monetary value of four hundred dinars of wine. He said: Four hundred dinars from wine. The question is: What did Geneiva seek to convey with that ambiguous expression? And the other amora, Rabbi Zeira, who does not find this difficult, holds that when Geneiva said: Four hundred dinars from wine, it was in order to enhance Rabbi Avina鈥檚 ability to collect the gift. Geneiva sought to give him a gift of value; in order to guarantee that Rabbi Avina would have access to his property and that the heirs would not be able to prevent him from receiving the gift with various claims, he specifically designated from which property Rabbi Avina could collect the gift. The Gemara notes: They sent a message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the term: From wine, is in order to enhance Rabbi Avina鈥檚 ability to collect the gift.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讜砖诇讱 诇讘讜专 讜讗诪专 讻诇 讛砖讜诪注 讗转 拽讜诇讜 讬讻转讜讘 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who was thrown into a pit and thought that he would die there, and he said that anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife, and he specified his name, her name, and all relevant details, those who hear him should write this bill of divorce and give it to his wife, even though they do not see the man and do not know him.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 砖讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖专讗讜 诇讜 讚诪讜转 讗讚诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a demon, as no one saw the person in the pit. Rav Yehuda says: It is referring to a case where they saw that the being in the pit has human form.

讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬讚诪讜讬讬 讗讬讚诪讜 讚讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讘讘讜讗讛 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘讘讜讗讛 讚讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讘讘讜讗讛 讚讘讘讜讗讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讬诪讚谞讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谞讬 讘讘讜讗讛 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘讘讜讗讛 讚讘讘讜讗讛 诇讬转 诇讛讜

The Gemara objects: Demons too can appear in human form, and therefore the fact that the being looked human is not a proof that it is not a demon. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has a shadow [bavua]. The Gemara objects: Demons also have a shadow. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has the shadow of a shadow. The Gemara objects: And perhaps demons too have the shadow of a shadow? Rabbi 岣nina says: Yonatan my son taught me that demons have a shadow but they do not have the shadow of a shadow.

讜讚诇诪讗 爪专讛 讛讬讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a rival wife of the woman who is to be divorced. She seeks to cause her rival to receive a bill of divorce under false pretenses, leading her to believe that she is divorced. Based on that mistaken belief, she will remarry without a divorce and will then be forbidden to both her first and second husband. The Gemara answers: A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a time of danger, when there is the likelihood that the wife would assume deserted wife status, one writes and gives a bill of divorce even though the people instructed to do so are not familiar with the man who gave the instructions. Here too, when a voice is heard from a pit, one writes and gives the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of properly clarifying the issue.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘专讬讗 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇砖讞拽 讘讛

MISHNA: A healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. Since he told them to write the bill of divorce and not to give it, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

诪注砖讛 讘讘专讬讗 讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞驻诇 讜诪转 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诐 诪注爪诪讜 谞驻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讗诐 讛专讜讞 讚讞转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讟

The mishna relates: There was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and then ascended to the roof and fell, and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own initiative, taking his own life, it is a valid bill of divorce, as it is clear that he anticipated his death and instructed those listening to write the bill of divorce with the intent of giving it to her. However, if the wind forced him to fall, it is not a valid bill of divorce, as there was no clear intent to give her the bill of divorce.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the halakha stated in the mishna? The halakha is that in a case where a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is not valid. From the incident it is clear that under certain circumstances when a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is valid.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜讻讬讞 住讜驻讜 注诇 转讞讬诇转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讘专讬讗 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞驻诇 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诐 诪注爪诪讜 谞驻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讗诐 讛专讜讞 讚讞转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讟

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In the case of a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but he did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. However, if his ultimate actions prove the nature of his initial intent, that he seeks to give the bill of divorce because he is about to die, it is a valid bill of divorce. And there was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and he then ascended to the roof and fell and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own initiative, it is a valid bill of divorce. However, if the wind forced him to fall, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚注诇 诇讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗砖讻讞 诪拽专讬 讬谞讜拽讗 讜讘专讬讛 讚讬转讘讬 讜讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 谞讻转讘讜 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 诇住讜祝 砖讻讬讘 诪拽专讬 讬谞讜拽讗 诪讬 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who entered the synagogue and found a schoolteacher and his son who were sitting there, and another person also sat with them. The man said to them: Two of you should write a bill of divorce for my wife. Ultimately, the schoolteacher died. The Sages considered the following question: Do people designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father, even though the two of them could not serve together as witnesses because they are relatives, or not? As the man鈥檚 intent was to designate two people who could serve as witnesses, the schoolteacher and the other person, the question is whether the son of the schoolteacher and the other person are agents and eligible to write and give the bill of divorce.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讗 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗 讜专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 诪砖讜讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讘专讗 砖诇讬讞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讗

Rav Na岣an said: People do not designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father. And Rav Pappi said: People designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father. Rava said that the halakha is: People designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬

MISHNA: If a man said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife,

讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讗诪专 诇砖诇砖讛 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讬讻转讘讜 诪驻谞讬 砖注砖讗谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. If he said to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, these people should tell others, and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讛注诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讗讜谞讜 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诪拽讜讘诇 讗谞讬 讘讗讜诪专 诇砖诇砖讛 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讬讻转讘讜 诪驻谞讬 砖注砖讗谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉

And it is that halakha that Rabbi 岣nina of Ono brought up from prison in the name of Rabbi Akiva, who was incarcerated there: I received a tradition from my teachers that in a case where a man says to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that these people should tell others and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讜诪讬谞讜 诇砖诇讬讞 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪拽讜讘诇讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讜讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

Rabbi Yosei said: We said [nomeinu] to the agent, Rabbi 岣nina of Ono: We too received a tradition. However, it is a different one, that even if a man said to the High Court [Sanhedrin] in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讻讜诇讻诐 讻转讜讘讜 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讜讻讜诇诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讘讟诇

If a man said to ten people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, one of the ten writes the bill of divorce and two sign it. If he said: All of you write the document, one of them writes the bill of divorce and all of them sign it. Therefore, if one of them died, then this is a bill of divorce that is null and void, as he directed all of them to participate in the process.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讘讬 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讻转讘 讜讞转诪讜 讛谉 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 转爪讗 讜讛讚讘专 爪专讬讱 转诇诪讜讚

GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: After Rav鈥檚 death, they sent a question from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: In a case where a man said to two people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they told the scribe and he wrote the bill of divorce and they signed it, what is the halakha? He sent this response to them: If the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, she should leave her second husband, and the matter requires study. It is necessary to clarify the halakha, as there is fundamental uncertainty with regard to this matter.

诪讗讬 讛讚讘专 爪专讬讱 转诇诪讜讚 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诪讬诇讬 讜诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇讬 讗讬 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞 讗讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The matter requires study? What aspect of this question requires study? If we say that the uncertainty arises due to the fact that these are verbal directives, as the husband merely gave them instructions and did not hand them anything tangible, and Shmuel is uncertain whether verbal directives, instructions given to one agent, are transferred to another agent or whether verbal directives are not transferred to another agents; this leads to the question of whether the agents designated by the husband to write the bill of divorce can designate the scribe to write it. That cannot be the question.

讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

The Gemara explains why not: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Shmuel was not uncertain concerning this issue.

讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讻转讜讘讜 讗讬 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讗讬 讻转讘 讛讙讟

Rather, this is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, the question is whether he was referring to their signatures, in which case they could designate the scribe to write the document, or whether he was referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce, in which case it would be incumbent upon them alone to write and sign the document.

讜转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

The Gemara asks: But let Shmuel resolve the dilemma from the mishna: If a man said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. Apparently, they must write the bill of divorce themselves.

讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻转讜讘讜 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 讗讜 讻转讘 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻转讘 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讜诪讬谞讜 诇砖诇讬讞 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪拽讜讘诇讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讜讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 诇讛

The Gemara answers: The proper interpretation of the mishna itself is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, was he referring to their signatures, or was he referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce? The Gemara explains: It is obvious that it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: We said to the agent, Rabbi 岣nina of Ono: We too received a tradition; that even if a man said to the High Court in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻转讘 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 诪讞转诐 讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讞讚转讗

Granted, if you say it means the writing of the bill of divorce, that they must write the actual bill of divorce, this works out well, as a certain degree of expertise is necessary in order to write a bill of divorce correctly. However, if you say that it means their signatures, is there a court whose members do not know how to sign their signatures? The Gemara responds: Yes, there is a new court, whose members have not yet learned to sign a unique signature that will be recognizable to the public.

讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讛讗讬 讻转讜讘讜 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 讛讗 讻转讘 讛讙讟 讻砖专 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: But if we hold that this instruction: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, is the writing of the bill of divorce by a scribe valid? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 住讘讬专讬 诇谉 讚讻转讜讘讜 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛讜讗 讻转讘 讛讙讟 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 讜诪讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 讜讛转谞谉 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讜注讚 讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞转诐 住讜驻专 砖谞讬谞讜

The Sages say in response that if we hold that the phrase: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, the writing of the bill of divorce becomes as one who says to those agents: Tell another to write it. And Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, that the agent can designate another to write the document. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei concede in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (87b): If a bill of divorce has the writing of a scribe, and the scribe identifies his handwriting, and one witness verifies his signature, it is valid as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: We learned in the mishna that this is the halakha with regard to the scribe鈥檚 signature and not the scribe鈥檚 writing.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

And Rav 岣sda said: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, and there is no concern that the scribe signed the document without the husband instructing him to do so.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 讗诪专讜 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讛 讞讜专讘讛 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇砖谞讬诐

And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, a pitfall will result from it. As sometimes, it happens that one said to two people:

Scroll To Top