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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 18, 2016 | 讟壮 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 67

The gemara struggles to understand Shmuel’s confusion about how to rule in the case where a husband said to 2 witnesses write and give a get to my wife and they asked a scribe to write the get. 聽Is the get valid or not? 聽If one is affected by the demon “kordayakus” after drinking wine, anything he tells a messenger to do regarding giving or canceling a get are disregarded. 聽What is the remedy for “kordayakus”? 聽What else can be remedied in the same way?

讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讞转诪讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚住讜驻专 讞讬讬砖讬 讜诪讞转诪讬 讞讚 诪讛谞讱 住讛讚讬 讜住讜驻专 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜讘注诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬

Tell a scribe and he will write the document and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they will sign it. And due to the shame of the scribe, who asks: Don鈥檛 you consider me a sufficiently upright person to sign the document as a witness, the agents are concerned to avoid that disgrace and have one of those witnesses and the scribe sign together with him, and the husband did not say to do so. The bill of divorce is invalid because it was signed contrary to the husband鈥檚 instructions, and the agents will mistakenly think it is valid.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: Since the Master said, as cited later, that such a bill of divorce is valid, however, it shall not be done in Israel, as the husband himself should appoint the scribe and the witnesses, it is an uncommon case for the husband to appoint an agent to arrange the bill of divorce, and the Sages do not issue a decree for cases that are uncommon.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜讗转诐 讞转讜诪讜 讜讗讝诇讬 讛谞讱 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚住讜驻专 讜诪讞转诪讬 诇讬讛 诇住讜驻专 讘讛讚讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讘注诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned lest the husband say to two people: Tell the scribe and he will write the document and you sign it, and these two, due to the shame of the scribe, go and have the scribe sign the document together with one of them, and the husband did not say to do so. The Sages say: In this case too, it is valid; however, it shall not be done. This too is uncommon, and there is neither concern nor a decree.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara responds: This works out well according to the one who said in this case as well: It is valid; however, it shall not be done. But according to the one who said: It is valid and it may be done, i.e., it is permitted ab initio, what is there to say?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讗诪专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

Rather, this is the explanation. Rabbi Yosei stated two halakhot: The first is that verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent. The second is that even when the husband said: Tell another to write the document, this agency cannot be transferred to another person. And Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in one case, i.e., that verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, and he disagrees with him in one case, as Shmuel holds that if the husband explicitly said: Tell another to write the document, this agency can be transferred.

讙讜驻讗 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 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 诪讗讞专 砖专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞谞讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讗讜谞讜 讞讜诇拽讬谉 注诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讛 专讗讛 专讘讬 诇讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 With regard to the previously cited matter itself, Shmuel says 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. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said before his father: Since Rabbi Meir and Rabbi 岣nina of Ono, who hold that verbal directives can be delegated to an agent, disagree with Rabbi Yosei, what led Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

讗诪专 诇讜 砖转讜拽 讘谞讬 砖转讜拽 诇讗 专讗讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诇诪诇讬 专讗讬转讜 谞诪讜拽讜 注诪讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Be silent, my son; be silent. You did not see Rabbi Yosei, as, if you had seen him, you would know that his reasoning [nimmuko] accompanies his statements. Therefore, I deem his opinion most reliable.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讛 诪讜谞讛 砖讘讞谉 砖诇 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讻诐 讜住讜驻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讻诐 诇讻砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讙诇 砖诇 讗讙讜讝讬谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讞谞讜转 诪讬讜讝谞转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜爪专 讘诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽讜驻转 讛专讜讻诇讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 讘砖诪讬诐 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讜拽讜 注诪讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讟讜讞谉 讛专讘讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗 拽讬诪注讗

This is as it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda would recount the praise of the Sages by characterizing each of them: Rabbi Meir, a scholar and scribe; Rabbi Yehuda, a scholar when he chooses to be one; Rabbi Tarfon, a pile of nuts, as, just as when one removes a nut from a pile all the other nuts fall, so too, when a student would ask Rabbi Tarfon with regard to one matter, he would cite sources from all the disciplines of the Torah; Rabbi Yishmael, a well-stocked store; Rabbi Akiva, a full storehouse; Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, a peddler鈥檚 basket, in which there is a small amount of each product; Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a basket of fragrant spices, as everything he says is reasonable; the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov is measured [kav] and immaculate; Rabbi Yosei, his reasoning accompanies his statements; Rabbi Shimon grinds much and removes little.

转谞讗 诪砖讻讞 拽讬诪注讗 讜诪讛 砖诪讜爪讬讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诇讗 住讜讘讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讘谞讬讬 砖谞讜 诪讚讜转讬 砖诪讚讜转讬 转专讜诪讜转 诪转专讜诪讜转 诪讬讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

It is taught in explanation: Rabbi Shimon would forget little of his studies, and what he removed from his memory, he removed only chaff. And likewise, Rabbi Shimon said to his students: My sons, accept my halakhic rulings, as my rulings are the finest rulings of the finest rulings of Rabbi Akiva.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讞转诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讝讗转 讘讬砖专讗诇

搂 With regard to the matter previously cited itself, a case where one who said to two people: Tell a scribe and he will write the document and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they will sign it, Rav Huna says that Rav says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done in Israel ab initio. The husband himself must appoint the scribe and witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 诪讗讞专 讚讻砖专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讝讗转 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转砖讻讜专 注讚讬诐

Ulla said to Rav Na岣an, and some say that Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: Since it is valid, why shall it not be done in Israel? He said to him: We are concerned lest the woman hire witnesses. Since this is permitted by means of an agent, and the witnesses themselves do not know what the husband said, a woman could hire witnesses to tell a scribe to write a bill of divorce on her behalf and hire witnesses to sign it without her husband鈥檚 knowledge.

讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 砖讚讛 诪拽讞 讜注诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诇讗 讞砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专 讝讛 诪注砖讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讚讘讜专讗 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara asks: But are we concerned about that possibility? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Yevamot 4:7): With regard to witnesses who are signed on a field of sale and a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce, the Sages were not concerned with regard to this matter of forgery, that perhaps these documents were written without consent of the owner and the husband, respectively. The Gemara answers: Although they would not perform an action and forge a bill of divorce, they would utter a statement and tell another to forge a document. The other person acts unknowingly, unaware of the impropriety involved.

讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜讗转诐 讞转讜诪讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛

The Gemara cites another halakha: If one said to two people: Tell the scribe and he will write the document and you sign it, Rav 岣sda says: This bill of divorce is valid; however, it shall not be done ab initio. Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is valid and it may be done ab initio.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛

Several other amora鈥檌m dispute this matter. Rav Na岣an says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done ab initio. Rav Sheshet says: It is valid and it may be done ab initio. Rabba says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done. Rav Yosef says: It is valid and it may be done.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬讱 诇讛讜

And there are those who reverse the attribution of the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef with regard to this matter.

讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇诐 讻讜诇讻诐 讻转讜讘讜 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讘诪注诪讚 讻讜诇诐 讛讜诇讬讻讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 诪讜诇讬讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇诐 讻讜诇讻诐 讛讜诇讬讻讜 讗讞讚 诪讜诇讬讱 讘诪注诪讚 讻讜诇诐

The mishna teaches that 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. The Sages taught: If one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, one writes on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you write the document, one writes it in the presence of them all. If he said: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, one person brings it on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you deliver a bill of divorce, then one brings it in the presence of them all.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪谞讛 讗讜转谉 诪讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讻讻讜诇讻诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诪谉 专讜诪讛 讗诪专 诪谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讻讜诇讻诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he said: Write a bill of divorce, and he enumerated them by name, what is the halakha? Can one of them write the bill of divorce on behalf of them all? Or perhaps it is comparable to a situation where one says: All of you write, when it must be written in the presence of them all. Rav Huna says: If one enumerated them by name, it is not comparable to saying: All of you write. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar of Rome: If one enumerated them by name, it is comparable to saying: All of you write.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚诪谞讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讜讛讗 讚诪谞讛 诪拽爪转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗

Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree. This is referring to a case where he enumerated them all, and that is referring to a case where he enumerated some of them. Some say that the distinction between the cases should be explained in this manner, and some say it in that manner. Some explain that the distinction is that if he enumerated them all, he insists that they all participate, but if he enumerated some of them, he does not insist that they do so. He enumerated the names that he did only to indicate that he wants the people performing the task to be chosen from those people. Others explain that if he enumerated only some of them, he thereby expressed his intent that they alone participate, but if he enumerated them all but did not say: All of you write, that is not the case.

讗转拽讬谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讚讻讜诇讻诐 讻转讜讘讜 讗讜 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讗讜 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讞转讜诪讜 讗讜 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讗讜 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讗讜讘讬诇讜 讗讜 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讗讜 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉

The Gemara recounts: Rav Yehuda instituted in the case of a bill of divorce with regard to which the husband gave instructions in the presence of many people and the concern is that it will be interpreted that he said: All of you write, and if they do not all sign there will be uncertainty whether or not the woman is divorced, that he should say: Write it, either all of you or each and every one of you; sign it, either all of you or every two of you; deliver it, either all of you or each and every one of you. In that way, there is no concern that the bill of divorce will be invalid if one of them fails to participate.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讙讗讬讝 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬

Rava said: This ordinance still leaves room for a pitfall. Since Rav Yehuda instituted a formula that is that long and complex, sometimes the husband may truncate his statement and say: All of you, but he will not say: Every one of you. And the bill of divorce will be invalidated as a result.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻转讜讘讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讞转讜诪讜 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讗讜讘讬诇讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉

Rather, Rava said that he must say: Each of you may write it, every two of you may sign it, each one of you may deliver it. However, he should not say: All of you, so that the bill of divorce will not be invalidated if one fails to do so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讜诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜讗讞讝讜 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讗 转讻转讘谞讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who was afflicted with temporary insanity [kordeyakos] and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, he said nothing, because he was not lucid at the time. If he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, when he was lucid, and was then afflicted with temporary insanity and he retracted his previous statement and said: Do not write it, his latter statement is considered to be nothing, i.e., it is not halakhically valid.

谞砖转转拽 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讻转讜讘 讙讟 诇讗砖转讱 讜讛专讻讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇砖讛 驻注诪讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专 注诇 诇讗讜 诇讗讜 讜注诇 讛谉 讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

The mishna continues: In a case where the husband became mute, and two people said to him: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head indicating his agreement, they examine him with various questions three times. If he responded to questions that have a negative answer: No, and responded to questions that have a positive answer: Yes, indicating his competence, they shall write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife based on the nod of his head.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚谞讻转讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讚诪注爪专转讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讗 专讜讞讗 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 砖诪讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the nature of the temporary insanity mentioned in the mishna? Shmuel said: The reference is to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine that came directly from the winepress. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna of the mishna then teach explicitly: With regard to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the name of the demon that causes this insanity is Kordeyakos.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽诪讬注讗 诪讗讬 讗住讜转讬讛 讘讬砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗

The Gemara asks: What difference is there? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to writing an amulet to prevent harm caused by the demon. The amulet must include the name of the demon. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for that illness? The Gemara responds: The afflicted person should eat red meat roasted over coals and drink wine diluted [marka] with a large amount of water.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 诇砖讬诪砖讗 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讻讜讝讗 讚诪讬讗 讘转 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 住讬讻讜专讬 讘转 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讘砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗 注转讬拽转讗 诇讬转讬 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讗讜讻诪转讬 讜诇讬拽专注讛 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讜诇讬讙诇讞讬讛 诇诪爪讬注转讗 讚专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讜转讘讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜谞谞讞讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 注讚 讚诪讬住专讱

Abaye said: My mother told me that the remedy for a day-old fever, i.e., one contracted that day, is drinking a jug [kuza] of water. The remedy for a fever two days old is bloodletting [sikurei]. The remedy for a fever three days old is eating red meat roasted over coals and drinking diluted wine. For an old fever that lasts for an extended period of time, the remedy is to bring a black hen, tear it lengthwise and widthwise, shave the middle of the sufferer鈥檚 head, and place the hen upon it, and leave the hen upon him until it adheres to his head due to the blood.

讜诇讬谞讞讜转 讜诇讬拽讜诐 讘诪讬讗 注讚 爪讜讗专讬讛 注讚 讚讞诇讬砖 注诇诪讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诇讬诪讜讚 讜诇住诇讬拽 讜诇讬转讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬讻讜诇 讻专转讬 讜诇讬谞讞讜转 讜诇讬拽讜诐 讘诪讬讗 注讚 爪讜讗专讬讛 注讚 讚讞诇讬砖 注诇诪讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诇讬诪讜讚 讜诇住诇讬拽 讜诇讬转讬讘

And let him descend into the water and let him stand in the water up to his neck until the world appears faint for him, i.e., he feels faint. And let him submerge himself in the water, and emerge from the water and sit and rest. And if he is not able to undergo this process, let him eat leeks, and descend into the water, and stand in the water up to his neck until the world appears faint for him. And let him submerge himself in the water, and emerge from the water and sit and rest.

诇砖讬诪砖讗 讘讬砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗 诇转诇讙讗 讘讬砖专讗 砖诪讬谞讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 讞讬讬讗

The remedy for a fever is eating red meat that was roasted over coals and drinking diluted wine. A remedy for the chills is eating fatty meat that was roasted over coals and drinking undiluted wine.

专讘 注诪专诐 讞住讬讚讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪爪注专讬谉 诇讬讛 讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讛讜讜 诪讙谞讜 诇讬讛 讗转诇讙讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讚诇讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讛谞讬 讻诇 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讬驻讱 讗驻讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讘讬砖专讗 砖诪讬谞讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 讞讬讬讗

It was related: When the members of the Exilarch鈥檚 house would afflict Rav Amram the pious they would make him lie down to sleep all night on the snow. The next day they would say to him: What is preferable for the Master, i.e., Rav Amram, for us to bring him to eat? Rav Amram said to himself: Anything I say to them, they will do the opposite. He said to them: Bring me red meat roasted over coals and diluted wine. They brought him fatty meat roasted over coals and undiluted wine instead, which is what Rav Amram had intended, because this is the remedy for one who suffers from the chills.

砖诪注讛 讬诇转讗 讜诪注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诇讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讜诪讜拽诪讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讚讘讬 诪住讜转讗 注讚 讚诪讛驻讻讬 诪讬讗 讚讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讜讛讜讜 讚诪讗 讜拽讗讬 讘讬砖专讬讛 驻砖讬讟讬 驻砖讬讟

Yalta, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 wife, heard what the members of the Exilarch鈥檚 house did, and that Rav Amram was suffering from the chills. And she brought him to the bathhouse, and placed him in the water of the bathhouse until the water of the bathhouse turned red like blood. And his flesh became covered with spots that looked like coins [peshitei].

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬注住拽 讘专讬讞讬讗 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬注住拽 讘讻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖诪讞诪诪转 讗转 讘注诇讬讛

It is related: When Rav Yosef suffered from the cold he would work by grinding with millstones in order to keep warm. When Rav Sheshet suffered from the cold he would work by lifting beams. He said: Great is labor, as it warms its master.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 住注讬讚 诪专 讙讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诪注诇讜 注讘讚讬 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讞讜讬谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讙谞讜讘 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讞讚讗 讻专注讗 诪讞讬讜转讗

搂 The Gemara relates another incident of the house of the Exilarch: The Exilarch said to Rav Sheshet: What is the reason that the Master, i.e., Rav Sheshet, does not eat with us? He said to him: Because the slaves do not act according to a high standard, as they are suspected of transgressing the prohibition against eating a limb severed from a living animal. The Exilarch said to him: Who says that this is so? Rav Sheshet said to him: I will now show you. Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Go steal one leg from the animal that the servants of the Exilarch鈥檚 house slaughtered for a meal and bring it to me.

讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讛讚诪讜 诇讬 讛讚诪讬 讚讞讬讜转讗 讗讬讬转讜 转诇转 讻专注讬 讗讜转讬讘讜 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬 驻住讜拽 讗讬讬转讜 讞讚讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗讜转讬讘讜 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讜转讘讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讛讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讜转讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 讘转 讞诪砖 专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬

Rav Sheshet鈥檚 servant brought one leg to him and afterward Rav Sheshet said to the servants of the Exilarch鈥檚 household: Set out the portions of the animal for me. They brought him only three legs and placed them before him, because the fourth leg had been stolen. Rav Sheshet said to them: Did this animal have only three legs? When the servants heard this they cut one leg from another living animal and they brought it and placed it before Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Bring out this leg of yours, i.e., that you stole, as well. He placed that leg on the table and Rav Sheshet said to them: Did this animal have five legs?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬注讘讚讜 拽诪讬讛 (砖诪注讬讛) 讚诪专 讜诇讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬 拽专讬讘讜 转讻讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬讬转讜 拽诪讬讛 讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讜转讬讘讜 拽诪讬讛 专讬住转谞讗 讚讞谞拽讗 讞诪转讗 讙砖砖讬讛 讜砖拽诇讛 讻专讻讛 讘住讜讚专讬讛

The Exilarch realized that he could not rely on his servants. He said to Rav Sheshet: If so, they should prepare the meat in the presence of my Master鈥檚 servant and then you can eat without concern. Rav Sheshet said to him: Very well. They brought a table before them, and they brought the meat before him. And the servants placed a small bone in the meat before him so that it would cause Rav Sheshet to choke. Since Rav Sheshet was blind, they thought that he would be unable to notice the bone. He felt it, took the entire piece of meat and wrapped it in his scarf [sudarei] out of concern that he would be hurt by the small bones that he could not see.

诇讘转专 讚讗讻讬诇 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛

After he ate, the servants realized what he had done and they wanted to show the Exilarch that Rav Sheshet did not eat the meat that was given to him. Therefore, the servants said to the Exilarch:

  • 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 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 67

讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讞转诪讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚住讜驻专 讞讬讬砖讬 讜诪讞转诪讬 讞讚 诪讛谞讱 住讛讚讬 讜住讜驻专 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜讘注诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬

Tell a scribe and he will write the document and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they will sign it. And due to the shame of the scribe, who asks: Don鈥檛 you consider me a sufficiently upright person to sign the document as a witness, the agents are concerned to avoid that disgrace and have one of those witnesses and the scribe sign together with him, and the husband did not say to do so. The bill of divorce is invalid because it was signed contrary to the husband鈥檚 instructions, and the agents will mistakenly think it is valid.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: Since the Master said, as cited later, that such a bill of divorce is valid, however, it shall not be done in Israel, as the husband himself should appoint the scribe and the witnesses, it is an uncommon case for the husband to appoint an agent to arrange the bill of divorce, and the Sages do not issue a decree for cases that are uncommon.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜讗转诐 讞转讜诪讜 讜讗讝诇讬 讛谞讱 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚住讜驻专 讜诪讞转诪讬 诇讬讛 诇住讜驻专 讘讛讚讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讘注诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned lest the husband say to two people: Tell the scribe and he will write the document and you sign it, and these two, due to the shame of the scribe, go and have the scribe sign the document together with one of them, and the husband did not say to do so. The Sages say: In this case too, it is valid; however, it shall not be done. This too is uncommon, and there is neither concern nor a decree.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara responds: This works out well according to the one who said in this case as well: It is valid; however, it shall not be done. But according to the one who said: It is valid and it may be done, i.e., it is permitted ab initio, what is there to say?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讗诪专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

Rather, this is the explanation. Rabbi Yosei stated two halakhot: The first is that verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent. The second is that even when the husband said: Tell another to write the document, this agency cannot be transferred to another person. And Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in one case, i.e., that verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, and he disagrees with him in one case, as Shmuel holds that if the husband explicitly said: Tell another to write the document, this agency can be transferred.

讙讜驻讗 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 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 诪讗讞专 砖专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞谞讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讗讜谞讜 讞讜诇拽讬谉 注诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讛 专讗讛 专讘讬 诇讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 With regard to the previously cited matter itself, Shmuel says 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. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said before his father: Since Rabbi Meir and Rabbi 岣nina of Ono, who hold that verbal directives can be delegated to an agent, disagree with Rabbi Yosei, what led Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

讗诪专 诇讜 砖转讜拽 讘谞讬 砖转讜拽 诇讗 专讗讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诇诪诇讬 专讗讬转讜 谞诪讜拽讜 注诪讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Be silent, my son; be silent. You did not see Rabbi Yosei, as, if you had seen him, you would know that his reasoning [nimmuko] accompanies his statements. Therefore, I deem his opinion most reliable.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讛 诪讜谞讛 砖讘讞谉 砖诇 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讻诐 讜住讜驻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讻诐 诇讻砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讙诇 砖诇 讗讙讜讝讬谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讞谞讜转 诪讬讜讝谞转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜爪专 讘诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽讜驻转 讛专讜讻诇讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 讘砖诪讬诐 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讜拽讜 注诪讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讟讜讞谉 讛专讘讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗 拽讬诪注讗

This is as it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda would recount the praise of the Sages by characterizing each of them: Rabbi Meir, a scholar and scribe; Rabbi Yehuda, a scholar when he chooses to be one; Rabbi Tarfon, a pile of nuts, as, just as when one removes a nut from a pile all the other nuts fall, so too, when a student would ask Rabbi Tarfon with regard to one matter, he would cite sources from all the disciplines of the Torah; Rabbi Yishmael, a well-stocked store; Rabbi Akiva, a full storehouse; Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, a peddler鈥檚 basket, in which there is a small amount of each product; Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a basket of fragrant spices, as everything he says is reasonable; the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov is measured [kav] and immaculate; Rabbi Yosei, his reasoning accompanies his statements; Rabbi Shimon grinds much and removes little.

转谞讗 诪砖讻讞 拽讬诪注讗 讜诪讛 砖诪讜爪讬讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诇讗 住讜讘讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讘谞讬讬 砖谞讜 诪讚讜转讬 砖诪讚讜转讬 转专讜诪讜转 诪转专讜诪讜转 诪讬讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

It is taught in explanation: Rabbi Shimon would forget little of his studies, and what he removed from his memory, he removed only chaff. And likewise, Rabbi Shimon said to his students: My sons, accept my halakhic rulings, as my rulings are the finest rulings of the finest rulings of Rabbi Akiva.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讞转诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讝讗转 讘讬砖专讗诇

搂 With regard to the matter previously cited itself, a case where one who said to two people: Tell a scribe and he will write the document and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they will sign it, Rav Huna says that Rav says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done in Israel ab initio. The husband himself must appoint the scribe and witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 诪讗讞专 讚讻砖专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讝讗转 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转砖讻讜专 注讚讬诐

Ulla said to Rav Na岣an, and some say that Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: Since it is valid, why shall it not be done in Israel? He said to him: We are concerned lest the woman hire witnesses. Since this is permitted by means of an agent, and the witnesses themselves do not know what the husband said, a woman could hire witnesses to tell a scribe to write a bill of divorce on her behalf and hire witnesses to sign it without her husband鈥檚 knowledge.

讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 砖讚讛 诪拽讞 讜注诇 讙讟 讗砖讛 诇讗 讞砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专 讝讛 诪注砖讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讚讘讜专讗 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara asks: But are we concerned about that possibility? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Yevamot 4:7): With regard to witnesses who are signed on a field of sale and a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce, the Sages were not concerned with regard to this matter of forgery, that perhaps these documents were written without consent of the owner and the husband, respectively. The Gemara answers: Although they would not perform an action and forge a bill of divorce, they would utter a statement and tell another to forge a document. The other person acts unknowingly, unaware of the impropriety involved.

讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇住讜驻专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讜讗转诐 讞转讜诪讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛

The Gemara cites another halakha: If one said to two people: Tell the scribe and he will write the document and you sign it, Rav 岣sda says: This bill of divorce is valid; however, it shall not be done ab initio. Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is valid and it may be done ab initio.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻砖专 讜转注砖讛

Several other amora鈥檌m dispute this matter. Rav Na岣an says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done ab initio. Rav Sheshet says: It is valid and it may be done ab initio. Rabba says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done. Rav Yosef says: It is valid and it may be done.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬讱 诇讛讜

And there are those who reverse the attribution of the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef with regard to this matter.

讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇注砖专讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇诐 讻讜诇讻诐 讻转讜讘讜 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讘诪注诪讚 讻讜诇诐 讛讜诇讬讻讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讞讚 诪讜诇讬讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇诐 讻讜诇讻诐 讛讜诇讬讻讜 讗讞讚 诪讜诇讬讱 讘诪注诪讚 讻讜诇诐

The mishna teaches that 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. The Sages taught: If one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, one writes on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you write the document, one writes it in the presence of them all. If he said: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, one person brings it on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you deliver a bill of divorce, then one brings it in the presence of them all.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪谞讛 讗讜转谉 诪讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讻讻讜诇讻诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诪谉 专讜诪讛 讗诪专 诪谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讻讜诇讻诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he said: Write a bill of divorce, and he enumerated them by name, what is the halakha? Can one of them write the bill of divorce on behalf of them all? Or perhaps it is comparable to a situation where one says: All of you write, when it must be written in the presence of them all. Rav Huna says: If one enumerated them by name, it is not comparable to saying: All of you write. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar of Rome: If one enumerated them by name, it is comparable to saying: All of you write.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚诪谞讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讜讛讗 讚诪谞讛 诪拽爪转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗

Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree. This is referring to a case where he enumerated them all, and that is referring to a case where he enumerated some of them. Some say that the distinction between the cases should be explained in this manner, and some say it in that manner. Some explain that the distinction is that if he enumerated them all, he insists that they all participate, but if he enumerated some of them, he does not insist that they do so. He enumerated the names that he did only to indicate that he wants the people performing the task to be chosen from those people. Others explain that if he enumerated only some of them, he thereby expressed his intent that they alone participate, but if he enumerated them all but did not say: All of you write, that is not the case.

讗转拽讬谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讚讻讜诇讻诐 讻转讜讘讜 讗讜 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讗讜 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讞转讜诪讜 讗讜 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讗讜 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讗讜讘讬诇讜 讗讜 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讗讜 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉

The Gemara recounts: Rav Yehuda instituted in the case of a bill of divorce with regard to which the husband gave instructions in the presence of many people and the concern is that it will be interpreted that he said: All of you write, and if they do not all sign there will be uncertainty whether or not the woman is divorced, that he should say: Write it, either all of you or each and every one of you; sign it, either all of you or every two of you; deliver it, either all of you or each and every one of you. In that way, there is no concern that the bill of divorce will be invalid if one of them fails to participate.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讙讗讬讝 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讻讜诇讻讜谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬

Rava said: This ordinance still leaves room for a pitfall. Since Rav Yehuda instituted a formula that is that long and complex, sometimes the husband may truncate his statement and say: All of you, but he will not say: Every one of you. And the bill of divorce will be invalidated as a result.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻转讜讘讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讞转讜诪讜 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讻讜谉 讗讜讘讬诇讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讻讜谉

Rather, Rava said that he must say: Each of you may write it, every two of you may sign it, each one of you may deliver it. However, he should not say: All of you, so that the bill of divorce will not be invalidated if one fails to do so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讜诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讜讗讞讝讜 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讗 转讻转讘谞讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who was afflicted with temporary insanity [kordeyakos] and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, he said nothing, because he was not lucid at the time. If he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, when he was lucid, and was then afflicted with temporary insanity and he retracted his previous statement and said: Do not write it, his latter statement is considered to be nothing, i.e., it is not halakhically valid.

谞砖转转拽 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讻转讜讘 讙讟 诇讗砖转讱 讜讛专讻讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇砖讛 驻注诪讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专 注诇 诇讗讜 诇讗讜 讜注诇 讛谉 讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜

The mishna continues: In a case where the husband became mute, and two people said to him: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head indicating his agreement, they examine him with various questions three times. If he responded to questions that have a negative answer: No, and responded to questions that have a positive answer: Yes, indicating his competence, they shall write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife based on the nod of his head.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚谞讻转讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讚诪注爪专转讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讗 专讜讞讗 拽讜专讚讬讬拽讜住 砖诪讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the nature of the temporary insanity mentioned in the mishna? Shmuel said: The reference is to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine that came directly from the winepress. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna of the mishna then teach explicitly: With regard to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the name of the demon that causes this insanity is Kordeyakos.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽诪讬注讗 诪讗讬 讗住讜转讬讛 讘讬砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗

The Gemara asks: What difference is there? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to writing an amulet to prevent harm caused by the demon. The amulet must include the name of the demon. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for that illness? The Gemara responds: The afflicted person should eat red meat roasted over coals and drink wine diluted [marka] with a large amount of water.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 诇砖讬诪砖讗 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讻讜讝讗 讚诪讬讗 讘转 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 住讬讻讜专讬 讘转 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讘砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗 注转讬拽转讗 诇讬转讬 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讗讜讻诪转讬 讜诇讬拽专注讛 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讜诇讬讙诇讞讬讛 诇诪爪讬注转讗 讚专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讜转讘讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜谞谞讞讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 注讚 讚诪讬住专讱

Abaye said: My mother told me that the remedy for a day-old fever, i.e., one contracted that day, is drinking a jug [kuza] of water. The remedy for a fever two days old is bloodletting [sikurei]. The remedy for a fever three days old is eating red meat roasted over coals and drinking diluted wine. For an old fever that lasts for an extended period of time, the remedy is to bring a black hen, tear it lengthwise and widthwise, shave the middle of the sufferer鈥檚 head, and place the hen upon it, and leave the hen upon him until it adheres to his head due to the blood.

讜诇讬谞讞讜转 讜诇讬拽讜诐 讘诪讬讗 注讚 爪讜讗专讬讛 注讚 讚讞诇讬砖 注诇诪讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诇讬诪讜讚 讜诇住诇讬拽 讜诇讬转讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬讻讜诇 讻专转讬 讜诇讬谞讞讜转 讜诇讬拽讜诐 讘诪讬讗 注讚 爪讜讗专讬讛 注讚 讚讞诇讬砖 注诇诪讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诇讬诪讜讚 讜诇住诇讬拽 讜诇讬转讬讘

And let him descend into the water and let him stand in the water up to his neck until the world appears faint for him, i.e., he feels faint. And let him submerge himself in the water, and emerge from the water and sit and rest. And if he is not able to undergo this process, let him eat leeks, and descend into the water, and stand in the water up to his neck until the world appears faint for him. And let him submerge himself in the water, and emerge from the water and sit and rest.

诇砖讬诪砖讗 讘讬砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗 诇转诇讙讗 讘讬砖专讗 砖诪讬谞讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 讞讬讬讗

The remedy for a fever is eating red meat that was roasted over coals and drinking diluted wine. A remedy for the chills is eating fatty meat that was roasted over coals and drinking undiluted wine.

专讘 注诪专诐 讞住讬讚讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪爪注专讬谉 诇讬讛 讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讛讜讜 诪讙谞讜 诇讬讛 讗转诇讙讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讚诇讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讛谞讬 讻诇 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讬驻讱 讗驻讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讬砖专讗 住讜诪拽讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 诪专拽讗 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讘讬砖专讗 砖诪讬谞讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 讞讬讬讗

It was related: When the members of the Exilarch鈥檚 house would afflict Rav Amram the pious they would make him lie down to sleep all night on the snow. The next day they would say to him: What is preferable for the Master, i.e., Rav Amram, for us to bring him to eat? Rav Amram said to himself: Anything I say to them, they will do the opposite. He said to them: Bring me red meat roasted over coals and diluted wine. They brought him fatty meat roasted over coals and undiluted wine instead, which is what Rav Amram had intended, because this is the remedy for one who suffers from the chills.

砖诪注讛 讬诇转讗 讜诪注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诇讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讜诪讜拽诪讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讚讘讬 诪住讜转讗 注讚 讚诪讛驻讻讬 诪讬讗 讚讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讜讛讜讜 讚诪讗 讜拽讗讬 讘讬砖专讬讛 驻砖讬讟讬 驻砖讬讟

Yalta, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 wife, heard what the members of the Exilarch鈥檚 house did, and that Rav Amram was suffering from the chills. And she brought him to the bathhouse, and placed him in the water of the bathhouse until the water of the bathhouse turned red like blood. And his flesh became covered with spots that looked like coins [peshitei].

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬注住拽 讘专讬讞讬讗 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬注住拽 讘讻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖诪讞诪诪转 讗转 讘注诇讬讛

It is related: When Rav Yosef suffered from the cold he would work by grinding with millstones in order to keep warm. When Rav Sheshet suffered from the cold he would work by lifting beams. He said: Great is labor, as it warms its master.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 住注讬讚 诪专 讙讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诪注诇讜 注讘讚讬 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讞讜讬谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讙谞讜讘 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讞讚讗 讻专注讗 诪讞讬讜转讗

搂 The Gemara relates another incident of the house of the Exilarch: The Exilarch said to Rav Sheshet: What is the reason that the Master, i.e., Rav Sheshet, does not eat with us? He said to him: Because the slaves do not act according to a high standard, as they are suspected of transgressing the prohibition against eating a limb severed from a living animal. The Exilarch said to him: Who says that this is so? Rav Sheshet said to him: I will now show you. Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Go steal one leg from the animal that the servants of the Exilarch鈥檚 house slaughtered for a meal and bring it to me.

讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讛讚诪讜 诇讬 讛讚诪讬 讚讞讬讜转讗 讗讬讬转讜 转诇转 讻专注讬 讗讜转讬讘讜 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬 驻住讜拽 讗讬讬转讜 讞讚讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗讜转讬讘讜 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讜转讘讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讛讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讜转讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 讘转 讞诪砖 专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬

Rav Sheshet鈥檚 servant brought one leg to him and afterward Rav Sheshet said to the servants of the Exilarch鈥檚 household: Set out the portions of the animal for me. They brought him only three legs and placed them before him, because the fourth leg had been stolen. Rav Sheshet said to them: Did this animal have only three legs? When the servants heard this they cut one leg from another living animal and they brought it and placed it before Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Bring out this leg of yours, i.e., that you stole, as well. He placed that leg on the table and Rav Sheshet said to them: Did this animal have five legs?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬注讘讚讜 拽诪讬讛 (砖诪注讬讛) 讚诪专 讜诇讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬 拽专讬讘讜 转讻讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬讬转讜 拽诪讬讛 讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讜转讬讘讜 拽诪讬讛 专讬住转谞讗 讚讞谞拽讗 讞诪转讗 讙砖砖讬讛 讜砖拽诇讛 讻专讻讛 讘住讜讚专讬讛

The Exilarch realized that he could not rely on his servants. He said to Rav Sheshet: If so, they should prepare the meat in the presence of my Master鈥檚 servant and then you can eat without concern. Rav Sheshet said to him: Very well. They brought a table before them, and they brought the meat before him. And the servants placed a small bone in the meat before him so that it would cause Rav Sheshet to choke. Since Rav Sheshet was blind, they thought that he would be unable to notice the bone. He felt it, took the entire piece of meat and wrapped it in his scarf [sudarei] out of concern that he would be hurt by the small bones that he could not see.

诇讘转专 讚讗讻讬诇 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛

After he ate, the servants realized what he had done and they wanted to show the Exilarch that Rav Sheshet did not eat the meat that was given to him. Therefore, the servants said to the Exilarch:

Scroll To Top