According to Rav, a deaf person who can write can write a note instructing others to give a get to his wife. The Gemara points out that his law is debated among tanaim. The Gemara here is grappling with issues of people with disabilities and is aware of the fact that although people may be categorized into a particular group, there are shades within each group and there are those with higher intellectual capabilities.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Gittin 71
אֶלָּא בְּפֵירֵי.
Rather, it means that the court asks him questions with regard to produce that is not found during that season.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַב: חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב, כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: נִשְׁתַּתֵּק, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ?״ וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים, אִם אָמַר עַל לָאו – ״לָאו״, וְעַל הֵן – ״הֵן״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ.
Rav Kahana says that Rav says: With regard to a deaf-mute who can express himself through writing, the judges of the court may write and give a bill of divorce to his wife based on his written instructions. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We already learned in the mishna: In a case where the husband became mute, and the members of the court 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִלֵּם קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי אִלֵּם – דְּתַנְיָא: מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ – זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר – זֶהוּ אִלֵּם, וְזֶה וָזֶה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפִקְחִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם.
Rabbi Zeira said to him: A mute, you say? Is your challenge based on the mishna which discusses one who is mute? A mute is different because it is clear that his mind is intact. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:2): With regard to one who speaks but cannot hear, this individual is categorized as a deaf person. With regard to one who hears but cannot speak, this individual is categorized as a mute person, and both this one and that one are considered to be like halakhically competent people with regard to all their matters. Rav Kahana stated his ruling with regard to one who can neither hear nor speak. This goes beyond the halakha of the mishna, as Rav Kahana says that the written statement of a deaf-mute is an indication of his mental competence.
וּמִמַּאי דִּמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר זֶהוּ אִלֵּם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי כְחֵרֵשׁ לֹא אֶשְׁמָע וּכְאִלֵּם לֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אִישְׁתְּקִיל מִילּוּלֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we learn that one who speaks but cannot hear, this individual is categorized as a deaf person, and that with regard to one who hears but cannot speak, this individual is categorized as a mute person? As it is written: “And I am like a deaf man, I do not hear, and like the mute man who will not open his mouth” (Psalms 38:14). And if you wish, say as people say: The word for a mute [ilem] is a contraction of the expression his speech has been taken [ishtakil millulei].
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי – הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד״ – פְּרָט לְאִלֵּם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיד. אַמַּאי? הָא יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיד מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב!
Rabbi Zeira said: If Rav Kahana’s statement is difficult for me, this is difficult for me, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of one who was called to testify and failed to do so: “If he does not utter his testimony then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1). The Sages derive from this that the verse serves to exclude a mute who is unable to utter his testimony, and he is exempt from bringing the offering of one who refuses to testify. And it is possible to raise the following question: Why is he exempt from bringing the offering; but he is able to utter his testimony through writing? Apparently, written testimony is not valid testimony.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֵדוּת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי עֵדוּת, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״מִפִּיהֶם״ – וְלֹא מִפִּי כְתָבָם.
Abaye said to him: You say testimony? Testimony is different, as the Merciful One states: “From their mouths” (Deuteronomy 17:6), which emphasizes that testimony must come from the witnesses’ mouths and not from their writing.
מֵיתִיבִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ לְגִיטִּין, כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ לְמַשָּׂאוֹת, וּלְמַתָּנוֹת, וּלְעֵדִיּוֹת, וְלִירוּשּׁוֹת. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת – ״עֵדִיּוֹת״!
The Gemara raises an objection to this based on that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:1): Just as the judges of the court investigate him, one who lost his ability to speak, with regard to bills of divorce, so too, the judges investigate him with regard to business transactions, testimonies, and inheritances. In any event it teaches: Testimonies, which proves that even one unable to speak can give testimony.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה, דַּאֲקִילּוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.
Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Sheshet said: This is not referring to testimony in general. Rather, it is referring to testimony with regard to a woman whose husband died, as the Sages were lenient with her and allowed testimony that would normally not be accepted, in order to permit her to remarry.
וְהָא קָתָנֵי: ״יְרוּשּׁוֹת״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: יְרוּשַּׁת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר.
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it also taught: Inheritances. This seems to be referring to monetary matters, where proper testimony is required. Rabbi Abbahu said: The baraita is referring to the inheritance of his own firstborn son, meaning that he is not testifying about other people’s property but testifying which one of his sons is the firstborn. Since this testimony is merely considered to be a division of the property that belongs to him, the testimony of one who is unable to speak is valid.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת – ״לְמַשָּׂאוֹת וּלְמַתָּנוֹת״, מַאי, לָאו לְעָלְמָא? לָא, לְדִידֵיהּ.
The Gemara continues to challenge: In any event it teaches in the baraita: With regard to business transactions, what, does it not mean that a mute may testify with regard to business transactions for everyone else? The Gemara answers: No, he may testify for himself only. The baraita is saying that when a mute conducts business the court must first check if he is mentally capable.
מֵיתִיבִי: חֵרֵשׁ, לֹא הָלְכוּ בּוֹ אַחַר רְמִיזוֹתָיו וְאַחַר קְפִיצוֹתָיו וְאַחַר כְּתַב יָדוֹ, אֶלָּא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין; אֲבָל לֹא לְגִיטִּין.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a deaf-mute, the judges of the court follow his signals, and follow the movement of his lips, and follow his handwriting only for matters of buying and selling movable property but not for bills of divorce. This appears to contradict Rav Kahana’s statement that it is permitted for a deaf-mute husband to give written instructions to divorce his wife.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּחֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, אֲבָל פִּיקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ – הוּא כּוֹתֵב וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין.
The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:1) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement that the court may not rely on the written testimony of a deaf-mute with regard to a bill of divorce said? Only in the case of a deaf-mute who was deaf from the outset, i.e., from birth. But if he had been halakhically competent, i.e., he could previously hear, but became a deaf-mute later, then he may write instructions to give his wife a bill of divorce and they, the witnesses, should sign, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana.
וְחֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – לֹא?! כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹנְסָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ מוֹצִיאָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה!
The Gemara asks: And one who is a deaf-mute from the outset cannot give written instructions with regard to a bill of divorce? Isn’t it true that just as he marries her with intimation, i.e., without speaking, so too, he divorces her with intimation.
אִי בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּיבִמְתּוֹ.
The Gemara answers: If the baraita is referring to his wife, indeed this would be the case and he could divorce her through intimations, because such a marriage is not a fully valid marriage by Torah law. But with what are we dealing here? With his yevama, his sister-in-law whose husband, his brother, died childless to whom he performed levirate marriage, and whom he subsequently wishes to divorce. This marriage is a fully valid marriage.
יְבִמְתּוֹ מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ – כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכְּנִיסָתָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ יְצִיאָתָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה! אֶלָּא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו פִּיקֵּחַ.
The Gemara asks: His yevama from whom? If we say that she fell to him from his brother who was also a deaf-mute, then just as her marriage to the brother was through intimation, so too, her divorce from the yavam can be through intimation. Rather, it must be that she fell to him from his halakhically competent brother. Consequently, the bond of the levirate marriage is by Torah law, whereas the deaf-mute man’s intimations that he desires to divorce her are valid only by rabbinic law.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ, וּגְזֵירָה אָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ אַטּוּ אָחִיו פִּיקֵּחַ.
And if you wish, say instead: Actually, explain that she fell to him from his deaf-mute brother, and the Sages instituted a rabbinic decree with regard to a woman bound in a levirate marriage from his deaf-mute brother due to the death of his halakhically competent brother.
אִי הָכִי, אִשְׁתּוֹ נָמֵי! יְבִמְתּוֹ בִּיבִמְתּוֹ מִיחַלְּפָא, אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּיבִמְתּוֹ לָא מִיחַלְּפָא.
The Gemara challenges: If so, and the Sages made such a decree with regard to a case where a deaf-mute brother died due to the case where a brother who is halakhically competent died, then with regard to his own wife as well, they should have made a decree that a deaf-mute husband cannot divorce her with a bill of divorce if he married her as a deaf-mute. The Gemara answers: His yevama who was married to his halakhically competent brother might be confused with his yevama who was married to his deaf-mute brother. But people would not confuse his own wife with his yevama. Therefore, there was no need to institute such a decree.
וּמִי גָּזְרִינַן חֵרֵשׁ אַטּוּ פִּיקֵּחַ?!
The Gemara asks: And do we, the Sages, decree with regard to his deaf-mute brother due to confusion between him and his halakhically competent brother?
וְהָתְנַן: שְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין – נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת פִּיקְּחוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת אַחַת פִּיקַּחַת וְאַחַת חֵרֶשֶׁת; וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת – נְשׂוּאוֹת לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין פִּיקְּחִין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין אֶחָד פִּיקֵּחַ וְאֶחָד חֵרֵשׁ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 112b): In a case where there were two deaf-mute brothers, whose marriage is valid by rabbinic law, married to two halakhically competent sisters, or to two deaf-mute sisters, or to two sisters, one of whom was halakhically competent and one of whom was a deaf-mute; and similarly, if there were two deaf-mute sisters, whose marriage is valid by rabbinic law, married to two halakhically competent brothers, or to two deaf-mute brothers, or to two brothers, one of whom was halakhically competent and one of whom was a deaf-mute; and in each case one brother dies without children, then all these women are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage. Each sister is exempt, as she is the sister of the wife of the yavam.
וְאִם הָיוּ נׇכְרִיּוֹת, יִכָּנְסוּ; וְאִם רָצוּ לְהוֹצִיאָן – יוֹצִיאוּ.
And if they were unrelated women the men may marry them in levirate marriage, and if they wanted to divorce them later via a bill of divorce they may divorce them. Since this is stated as a general halakha it indicates that the deaf-mute brother can also give a bill of divorce to his yevama who was previously married to his deaf-mute brother, and the Sages did not institute a decree in order not to create confusion with the similar case of a deceased halakhically competent brother.
אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.
Rather, it is clear as we initially answered, that it is referring to a yevama, previously married to a halakhically competent brother, who fell before a yavam who was a deaf-mute from birth. The alternative answer given on the previous amud is rejected.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The colleagues of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree with him, and hold that written instructions from a deaf-mute have no halakhic validity.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: נִישַּׁטֵּת, לֹא יוֹצִיא. נִתְחָרֵשׁ הוּא אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה – לֹא יוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית. מַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? לָאו – אַף עַל גַּב דְּיָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב?
Abaye said that we, too, learn in the mishna (Yevamot 112b) that non-verbal instructions are insufficient to initiate a divorce even for one who was born with the ability to hear and subsequently became a deaf-mute: If a woman became an imbecile after her wedding the Sages instituted that the husband must not divorce her. If the husband became a deaf-mute or an imbecile he can never divorce her, as he does not have the legal competence to grant a bill of divorce. Abaye explains: What is the reason that the mishna emphasizes that he can never divorce her? Isn’t this teaching that even though he can communicate through writing, he is unable to divorce her?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְפָרוֹשֵׁי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא הוּא דַּאֲתָא; וּמַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? אַף עַל גַּב דַּחֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ דְּחָרִיף.
Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that there is a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, then I would say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes only to explain the reason of the first tanna, not to disagree with him. If that were so, all agree that one who was born with the ability to hear and subsequently became a deaf-mute can issue written instructions to write and give a bill of divorce for his wife. And according to this explanation, what is the meaning of the word never? It is not referring to issuing written instructions. It means that even though I see that he is sharp by means of examining his gestures, these indications are not sufficient to warrant the giving of a bill of divorce. Despite this, if he were to issue written instructions to divorce his wife, they would be followed.
אִי נָמֵי, לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, שׁוֹטָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפִּיקַּחַת בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.
Alternatively, the mishna emphasized that the only situation where the husband can never divorce his wife is where her husband became a deaf-mute or an imbecile, but not if the husband remained healthy and the wife became a deaf-mute or imbecile, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: By Torah law a woman who is an imbecile may be divorced even though she is unable to give her consent, just as it is permitted to divorce a halakhically competent woman against her will.
וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת – שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ בָּהּ מִנְהַג הֶפְקֵר.
And what is the reason that the Rabbis said she may not be divorced? So that she will not be treated as ownerless property. If she has no husband to protect her, and she is unable to protect herself, she may be treated as ownerless property by anyone who wishes to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, if the husband is a deaf-mute or an imbecile then he cannot divorce her by Torah law. This is why the mishna stresses only that the husband may never divorce his wife in the case where he becomes halakhically incompetent, but not when it is the wife who becomes a deaf-mute or an imbecile, in order to demonstrate the difference between the two cases in terms of Torah law.
מַתְנִי׳ אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתֶּךָ?״ וְאָמַר לָהֶן: ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; אָמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב, וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ וַחֲתָמוּהוּ וּנְתָנוּהוּ לוֹ, וְחָזַר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – הֲרֵי הַגֵּט בָּטֵל, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַסּוֹפֵר ״כְּתוֹב״ וְלָעֵדִים ״חֲתוֹמוּ״.
MISHNA: If people said to the husband: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he said to them: Write the document, and those people told the scribe to write it, and he wrote it and instructed the witnesses to sign it, and they signed it; even if they wrote it, and signed it, and gave it to him, and he then gave it to his wife, the bill of divorce is void unless he himself says to the scribe: Write the document, and he himself says to the witnesses: Sign the document.
גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דְּלֹא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״, הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason that the bill of divorce is void is because he told the people only to write the document, but he did not say: Give a bill of divorce to my wife. But if he said to them: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they told the scribe to write the document and the witnesses to sign it, those people give the document to his wife and it is valid. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Verbal directives can be delegated to an agent. Everyone agrees that an agent can be appointed to perform an action on behalf of another, but Rabbi Meir holds that an agent can be appointed to give instructions to others on behalf of another.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתוֹב וְלָעֵדִים חֲתוֹמוּ״ – אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי לָא מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.
The Gemara comments: Say the latter clause of the mishna: The bill of divorce is void unless he himself says to the scribe: Write the document, and he himself says to the witnesses: Sign the document. In the latter clause of the mishna, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent.
רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי?! אִין, רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara answers: Yes, the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Although unusual, it is possible for a single mishna to represent two contrary opinions.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר ״תְּנוּ״. אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר תְּנוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
Abaye said: Actually, the mishna in its entirety is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And with what are we dealing here? With a situation whereby the husband did not say: Give the bill of divorce to my wife, but said only to write it. In that case he must instruct the scribe and the witnesses directly. If he issued instructions to give the bill of divorce, it would also have been effective. The Gemara asks: If so, the mishna should have said: The bill of divorce is void unless he says: Give the bill of divorce to my wife.
אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר לְבֵי תְלָתָא. אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לִשְׁלֹשָׁה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a situation whereby the husband did not say his instructions to three people, who constitute a court with the authority to appoint others to write a bill of divorce. Rather, he instructed two people, who do not constitute a court, and therefore do not have the authority to appoint others to write a bill of divorce, even if the husband told them to give the bill of divorce to his wife. Witnesses may only write and give the document themselves. The Gemara challenges: If so, the mishna should have said: Unless he says his instructions to three people.
אֶלָּא כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר ״אִמְרוּ״.
Rather, the mishna in its entirety is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and with what are we dealing here? With a situation whereby the husband did not explicitly say to his agents: Say my instructions to the scribe to write the document.
אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר אִמְרוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara challenges: If so, the expression: Until he says to the scribe, is imprecise. Rather, the mishna should have said: Until the husband instructs the agents to tell.
וְעוֹד, מִי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר: ״אִמְרוּ״?! וְהָתְנַן: ״כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – כָּשֵׁר״; וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״חָתַם סוֹפֵר״ שָׁנִינוּ. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי –
And does Rabbi Yosei concede in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it? But didn’t 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’s signature and not the scribe’s writing. And Rav Ḥisda said: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna?
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
Gittin 71
אֶלָּא בְּפֵירֵי.
Rather, it means that the court asks him questions with regard to produce that is not found during that season.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַב: חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב, כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: נִשְׁתַּתֵּק, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ?״ וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים, אִם אָמַר עַל לָאו – ״לָאו״, וְעַל הֵן – ״הֵן״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ.
Rav Kahana says that Rav says: With regard to a deaf-mute who can express himself through writing, the judges of the court may write and give a bill of divorce to his wife based on his written instructions. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We already learned in the mishna: In a case where the husband became mute, and the members of the court 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִלֵּם קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי אִלֵּם – דְּתַנְיָא: מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ – זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר – זֶהוּ אִלֵּם, וְזֶה וָזֶה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפִקְחִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם.
Rabbi Zeira said to him: A mute, you say? Is your challenge based on the mishna which discusses one who is mute? A mute is different because it is clear that his mind is intact. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:2): With regard to one who speaks but cannot hear, this individual is categorized as a deaf person. With regard to one who hears but cannot speak, this individual is categorized as a mute person, and both this one and that one are considered to be like halakhically competent people with regard to all their matters. Rav Kahana stated his ruling with regard to one who can neither hear nor speak. This goes beyond the halakha of the mishna, as Rav Kahana says that the written statement of a deaf-mute is an indication of his mental competence.
וּמִמַּאי דִּמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר זֶהוּ אִלֵּם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי כְחֵרֵשׁ לֹא אֶשְׁמָע וּכְאִלֵּם לֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אִישְׁתְּקִיל מִילּוּלֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we learn that one who speaks but cannot hear, this individual is categorized as a deaf person, and that with regard to one who hears but cannot speak, this individual is categorized as a mute person? As it is written: “And I am like a deaf man, I do not hear, and like the mute man who will not open his mouth” (Psalms 38:14). And if you wish, say as people say: The word for a mute [ilem] is a contraction of the expression his speech has been taken [ishtakil millulei].
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי – הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד״ – פְּרָט לְאִלֵּם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיד. אַמַּאי? הָא יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיד מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב!
Rabbi Zeira said: If Rav Kahana’s statement is difficult for me, this is difficult for me, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of one who was called to testify and failed to do so: “If he does not utter his testimony then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1). The Sages derive from this that the verse serves to exclude a mute who is unable to utter his testimony, and he is exempt from bringing the offering of one who refuses to testify. And it is possible to raise the following question: Why is he exempt from bringing the offering; but he is able to utter his testimony through writing? Apparently, written testimony is not valid testimony.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֵדוּת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי עֵדוּת, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״מִפִּיהֶם״ – וְלֹא מִפִּי כְתָבָם.
Abaye said to him: You say testimony? Testimony is different, as the Merciful One states: “From their mouths” (Deuteronomy 17:6), which emphasizes that testimony must come from the witnesses’ mouths and not from their writing.
מֵיתִיבִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ לְגִיטִּין, כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ לְמַשָּׂאוֹת, וּלְמַתָּנוֹת, וּלְעֵדִיּוֹת, וְלִירוּשּׁוֹת. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת – ״עֵדִיּוֹת״!
The Gemara raises an objection to this based on that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:1): Just as the judges of the court investigate him, one who lost his ability to speak, with regard to bills of divorce, so too, the judges investigate him with regard to business transactions, testimonies, and inheritances. In any event it teaches: Testimonies, which proves that even one unable to speak can give testimony.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה, דַּאֲקִילּוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.
Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Sheshet said: This is not referring to testimony in general. Rather, it is referring to testimony with regard to a woman whose husband died, as the Sages were lenient with her and allowed testimony that would normally not be accepted, in order to permit her to remarry.
וְהָא קָתָנֵי: ״יְרוּשּׁוֹת״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: יְרוּשַּׁת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר.
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it also taught: Inheritances. This seems to be referring to monetary matters, where proper testimony is required. Rabbi Abbahu said: The baraita is referring to the inheritance of his own firstborn son, meaning that he is not testifying about other people’s property but testifying which one of his sons is the firstborn. Since this testimony is merely considered to be a division of the property that belongs to him, the testimony of one who is unable to speak is valid.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת – ״לְמַשָּׂאוֹת וּלְמַתָּנוֹת״, מַאי, לָאו לְעָלְמָא? לָא, לְדִידֵיהּ.
The Gemara continues to challenge: In any event it teaches in the baraita: With regard to business transactions, what, does it not mean that a mute may testify with regard to business transactions for everyone else? The Gemara answers: No, he may testify for himself only. The baraita is saying that when a mute conducts business the court must first check if he is mentally capable.
מֵיתִיבִי: חֵרֵשׁ, לֹא הָלְכוּ בּוֹ אַחַר רְמִיזוֹתָיו וְאַחַר קְפִיצוֹתָיו וְאַחַר כְּתַב יָדוֹ, אֶלָּא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין; אֲבָל לֹא לְגִיטִּין.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a deaf-mute, the judges of the court follow his signals, and follow the movement of his lips, and follow his handwriting only for matters of buying and selling movable property but not for bills of divorce. This appears to contradict Rav Kahana’s statement that it is permitted for a deaf-mute husband to give written instructions to divorce his wife.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּחֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, אֲבָל פִּיקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ – הוּא כּוֹתֵב וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין.
The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:1) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement that the court may not rely on the written testimony of a deaf-mute with regard to a bill of divorce said? Only in the case of a deaf-mute who was deaf from the outset, i.e., from birth. But if he had been halakhically competent, i.e., he could previously hear, but became a deaf-mute later, then he may write instructions to give his wife a bill of divorce and they, the witnesses, should sign, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana.
וְחֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – לֹא?! כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹנְסָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ מוֹצִיאָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה!
The Gemara asks: And one who is a deaf-mute from the outset cannot give written instructions with regard to a bill of divorce? Isn’t it true that just as he marries her with intimation, i.e., without speaking, so too, he divorces her with intimation.
אִי בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּיבִמְתּוֹ.
The Gemara answers: If the baraita is referring to his wife, indeed this would be the case and he could divorce her through intimations, because such a marriage is not a fully valid marriage by Torah law. But with what are we dealing here? With his yevama, his sister-in-law whose husband, his brother, died childless to whom he performed levirate marriage, and whom he subsequently wishes to divorce. This marriage is a fully valid marriage.
יְבִמְתּוֹ מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ – כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכְּנִיסָתָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ יְצִיאָתָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה! אֶלָּא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו פִּיקֵּחַ.
The Gemara asks: His yevama from whom? If we say that she fell to him from his brother who was also a deaf-mute, then just as her marriage to the brother was through intimation, so too, her divorce from the yavam can be through intimation. Rather, it must be that she fell to him from his halakhically competent brother. Consequently, the bond of the levirate marriage is by Torah law, whereas the deaf-mute man’s intimations that he desires to divorce her are valid only by rabbinic law.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ, וּגְזֵירָה אָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ אַטּוּ אָחִיו פִּיקֵּחַ.
And if you wish, say instead: Actually, explain that she fell to him from his deaf-mute brother, and the Sages instituted a rabbinic decree with regard to a woman bound in a levirate marriage from his deaf-mute brother due to the death of his halakhically competent brother.
אִי הָכִי, אִשְׁתּוֹ נָמֵי! יְבִמְתּוֹ בִּיבִמְתּוֹ מִיחַלְּפָא, אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּיבִמְתּוֹ לָא מִיחַלְּפָא.
The Gemara challenges: If so, and the Sages made such a decree with regard to a case where a deaf-mute brother died due to the case where a brother who is halakhically competent died, then with regard to his own wife as well, they should have made a decree that a deaf-mute husband cannot divorce her with a bill of divorce if he married her as a deaf-mute. The Gemara answers: His yevama who was married to his halakhically competent brother might be confused with his yevama who was married to his deaf-mute brother. But people would not confuse his own wife with his yevama. Therefore, there was no need to institute such a decree.
וּמִי גָּזְרִינַן חֵרֵשׁ אַטּוּ פִּיקֵּחַ?!
The Gemara asks: And do we, the Sages, decree with regard to his deaf-mute brother due to confusion between him and his halakhically competent brother?
וְהָתְנַן: שְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין – נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת פִּיקְּחוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת אַחַת פִּיקַּחַת וְאַחַת חֵרֶשֶׁת; וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת – נְשׂוּאוֹת לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין פִּיקְּחִין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין אֶחָד פִּיקֵּחַ וְאֶחָד חֵרֵשׁ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 112b): In a case where there were two deaf-mute brothers, whose marriage is valid by rabbinic law, married to two halakhically competent sisters, or to two deaf-mute sisters, or to two sisters, one of whom was halakhically competent and one of whom was a deaf-mute; and similarly, if there were two deaf-mute sisters, whose marriage is valid by rabbinic law, married to two halakhically competent brothers, or to two deaf-mute brothers, or to two brothers, one of whom was halakhically competent and one of whom was a deaf-mute; and in each case one brother dies without children, then all these women are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage. Each sister is exempt, as she is the sister of the wife of the yavam.
וְאִם הָיוּ נׇכְרִיּוֹת, יִכָּנְסוּ; וְאִם רָצוּ לְהוֹצִיאָן – יוֹצִיאוּ.
And if they were unrelated women the men may marry them in levirate marriage, and if they wanted to divorce them later via a bill of divorce they may divorce them. Since this is stated as a general halakha it indicates that the deaf-mute brother can also give a bill of divorce to his yevama who was previously married to his deaf-mute brother, and the Sages did not institute a decree in order not to create confusion with the similar case of a deceased halakhically competent brother.
אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.
Rather, it is clear as we initially answered, that it is referring to a yevama, previously married to a halakhically competent brother, who fell before a yavam who was a deaf-mute from birth. The alternative answer given on the previous amud is rejected.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The colleagues of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree with him, and hold that written instructions from a deaf-mute have no halakhic validity.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: נִישַּׁטֵּת, לֹא יוֹצִיא. נִתְחָרֵשׁ הוּא אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה – לֹא יוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית. מַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? לָאו – אַף עַל גַּב דְּיָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב?
Abaye said that we, too, learn in the mishna (Yevamot 112b) that non-verbal instructions are insufficient to initiate a divorce even for one who was born with the ability to hear and subsequently became a deaf-mute: If a woman became an imbecile after her wedding the Sages instituted that the husband must not divorce her. If the husband became a deaf-mute or an imbecile he can never divorce her, as he does not have the legal competence to grant a bill of divorce. Abaye explains: What is the reason that the mishna emphasizes that he can never divorce her? Isn’t this teaching that even though he can communicate through writing, he is unable to divorce her?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְפָרוֹשֵׁי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא הוּא דַּאֲתָא; וּמַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? אַף עַל גַּב דַּחֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ דְּחָרִיף.
Rav Pappa said: If not for the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that there is a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, then I would say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes only to explain the reason of the first tanna, not to disagree with him. If that were so, all agree that one who was born with the ability to hear and subsequently became a deaf-mute can issue written instructions to write and give a bill of divorce for his wife. And according to this explanation, what is the meaning of the word never? It is not referring to issuing written instructions. It means that even though I see that he is sharp by means of examining his gestures, these indications are not sufficient to warrant the giving of a bill of divorce. Despite this, if he were to issue written instructions to divorce his wife, they would be followed.
אִי נָמֵי, לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, שׁוֹטָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפִּיקַּחַת בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.
Alternatively, the mishna emphasized that the only situation where the husband can never divorce his wife is where her husband became a deaf-mute or an imbecile, but not if the husband remained healthy and the wife became a deaf-mute or imbecile, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: By Torah law a woman who is an imbecile may be divorced even though she is unable to give her consent, just as it is permitted to divorce a halakhically competent woman against her will.
וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת – שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ בָּהּ מִנְהַג הֶפְקֵר.
And what is the reason that the Rabbis said she may not be divorced? So that she will not be treated as ownerless property. If she has no husband to protect her, and she is unable to protect herself, she may be treated as ownerless property by anyone who wishes to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, if the husband is a deaf-mute or an imbecile then he cannot divorce her by Torah law. This is why the mishna stresses only that the husband may never divorce his wife in the case where he becomes halakhically incompetent, but not when it is the wife who becomes a deaf-mute or an imbecile, in order to demonstrate the difference between the two cases in terms of Torah law.
מַתְנִי׳ אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתֶּךָ?״ וְאָמַר לָהֶן: ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; אָמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב, וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ וַחֲתָמוּהוּ וּנְתָנוּהוּ לוֹ, וְחָזַר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – הֲרֵי הַגֵּט בָּטֵל, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַסּוֹפֵר ״כְּתוֹב״ וְלָעֵדִים ״חֲתוֹמוּ״.
MISHNA: If people said to the husband: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he said to them: Write the document, and those people told the scribe to write it, and he wrote it and instructed the witnesses to sign it, and they signed it; even if they wrote it, and signed it, and gave it to him, and he then gave it to his wife, the bill of divorce is void unless he himself says to the scribe: Write the document, and he himself says to the witnesses: Sign the document.
גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דְּלֹא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״, הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason that the bill of divorce is void is because he told the people only to write the document, but he did not say: Give a bill of divorce to my wife. But if he said to them: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they told the scribe to write the document and the witnesses to sign it, those people give the document to his wife and it is valid. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Verbal directives can be delegated to an agent. Everyone agrees that an agent can be appointed to perform an action on behalf of another, but Rabbi Meir holds that an agent can be appointed to give instructions to others on behalf of another.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתוֹב וְלָעֵדִים חֲתוֹמוּ״ – אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי לָא מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.
The Gemara comments: Say the latter clause of the mishna: The bill of divorce is void unless he himself says to the scribe: Write the document, and he himself says to the witnesses: Sign the document. In the latter clause of the mishna, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent.
רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי?! אִין, רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara answers: Yes, the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Although unusual, it is possible for a single mishna to represent two contrary opinions.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר ״תְּנוּ״. אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר תְּנוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
Abaye said: Actually, the mishna in its entirety is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And with what are we dealing here? With a situation whereby the husband did not say: Give the bill of divorce to my wife, but said only to write it. In that case he must instruct the scribe and the witnesses directly. If he issued instructions to give the bill of divorce, it would also have been effective. The Gemara asks: If so, the mishna should have said: The bill of divorce is void unless he says: Give the bill of divorce to my wife.
אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר לְבֵי תְלָתָא. אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לִשְׁלֹשָׁה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a situation whereby the husband did not say his instructions to three people, who constitute a court with the authority to appoint others to write a bill of divorce. Rather, he instructed two people, who do not constitute a court, and therefore do not have the authority to appoint others to write a bill of divorce, even if the husband told them to give the bill of divorce to his wife. Witnesses may only write and give the document themselves. The Gemara challenges: If so, the mishna should have said: Unless he says his instructions to three people.
אֶלָּא כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר ״אִמְרוּ״.
Rather, the mishna in its entirety is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and with what are we dealing here? With a situation whereby the husband did not explicitly say to his agents: Say my instructions to the scribe to write the document.
אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר אִמְרוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara challenges: If so, the expression: Until he says to the scribe, is imprecise. Rather, the mishna should have said: Until the husband instructs the agents to tell.
וְעוֹד, מִי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר: ״אִמְרוּ״?! וְהָתְנַן: ״כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – כָּשֵׁר״; וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״חָתַם סוֹפֵר״ שָׁנִינוּ. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי –
And does Rabbi Yosei concede in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it? But didn’t 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’s signature and not the scribe’s writing. And Rav Ḥisda said: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna?
Follow
