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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 3, 2016 | 讻状讙 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 81

If a husband writes a get to his wife and changes his mind, there is a disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel about whether she is allowed to marry a Kohen in the event that the first husband dies. 聽A second disagreement between them in a case where a husband and wife go into a secluded place after they get divorced – does he need to give her another get. There are 2 varying opinions among the emoraim about the situation in which they disagree – were there witnesses who saw them having sexual relations or did they just witness them going into a room alone. 聽What is a “bald get”? 聽If a woman is divorced with this kind of get, the same laws apply as in all the other cases where she needs a get from the first husband and if she got remarried, then also from the second and can’t remarry either one of them.
Study Guide Gittin 81

讝讻讜转 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇砖谞讬

The Gemara answers: It is not referring to the right of a second man that she already married, but rather to the right that is due to a suitor who wishes to become her second husband, meaning that the first husband cannot eliminate the right of a second man who wishes to marry her.

诪转谞讬壮 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 注诇 转谞讗讬 讜诇讗 谞注砖讛 讛转谞讗讬 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

MISHNA: If one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife, and reconsidered and did not give it to her, Beit Shammai say: Although merely writing the bill of divorce does not dissolve the marriage, by doing so he disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. And Beit Hillel say: Even if he gave the bill of divorce to her conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, and therefore the bill of divorce did not take effect, he did not disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. A woman is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood only if the divorce takes effect.

讙诪壮 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪谞砖讛 诪讚讜讬诇 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 讻转讘 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜讬讜砖讘转 转讞转讬讜 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 诪讛讜

GEMARA: Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashe from Devil, sent a query to Shmuel: Our teacher, instruct us. In the case of a priest about whom the following rumor circulated: So-and-so the priest wrote a bill of divorce to his wife, but she is still residing under his roof and attending to him; what is the halakha? Need one lend credence to this rumor?

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 转爪讗 讜讛讚讘专 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 诪讘讟诇讬谞谉 拽诇讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 谞讛专讚注讗 讗转专讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛专讚注讗 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 拽诇讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬 拽专讜 诇谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讛

Shmuel sent the following response to him: She must leave her husband; but the matter requires investigation before he is forced to divorce her. The Gemara asks: What is the investigation that is required? If we say that the investigation is whether we can abolish the rumor that circulated, or we cannot abolish it; that cannot be the question: But isn鈥檛 Neharde鈥檃 the place where Shmuel is the halakhic authority and the rulings there are in accordance with his opinion, and in Neharde鈥檃 they do not abolish a rumor? Rather, the required investigation is to determine whether people in that place refer to giving a bill of divorce as writing. If that is the case, the rumor would be that he gave her a bill of divorce.

讜讻讬 拽专讜 诇谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讛 诇讻转讬讘讛 讙讜驻讛 诪讬 诇讗 拽专讜 诇讛 讻转讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: And if they refer to giving as writing, it proves nothing, as don鈥檛 they refer to writing itself as writing? Therefore, the fact that they refer to giving as writing does not mean that he gave the woman the bill of divorce. The same term would be employed even if he only wrote the bill of divorce.

讗讬谉 讚讗讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚拽专讜 诇谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讛 讚诇诪讗 谞转谉 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara answers: Yes, as if it is discovered that they refer to giving as writing, then there is reason to suspect that perhaps they are saying in the rumor that he gave her the bill of divorce, and there is concern that she is actually divorced.

转爪讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 拽诇讗 讚讘转专 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Apropos Shmuel鈥檚 statement that she must leave his home, the Gemara asks: She must leave? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: We are not concerned for any rumor that circulates after marriage. According to Rav Ashi, if a rumor circulates that a woman was betrothed to a man, there is concern about the rumor, and she is not allowed to marry someone else until she receives a bill of divorce from her rumored betrothed. But if such a rumor circulates after she has married someone else, there is no concern about such a rumor, and she is not obligated to leave her husband. Here too, in the case of this woman who is suspected of being divorced, she is currently living with her husband. Therefore, perhaps we should not be concerned about such a rumor.

诪讗讬 转爪讗 谞诪讬 转爪讗 诪砖谞讬

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of Shmuel鈥檚 directive: She must leave? This also means that she must leave the second husband. If her first husband dies, and she marries another priest, she must leave him due to the rumor that circulated that her first husband gave her a bill of divorce.

讗诐 讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讜诪专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 住诪讜讱 诇诪讬转讛 讙专砖讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, you cast aspersions on the children of the first husband. If the reason that she must leave the second husband is because she is assumed to be a divorc茅e, this means that she remained with her first husband while she was already divorced, and the children they had after the rumor circulated would be disqualified from the priesthood. The Gemara answers: Since we remove her only from the second husband, and we do not remove her from the first husband, they will come to explain the incident by saying as follows: The first husband divorced her proximate to his death, and the children from him are of unflawed lineage. Since he divorced her, she may not marry another priest. Because the assumption here is that the divorce took place proximate to the first husband鈥檚 death, there is no concern of aspersions being cast on the children from the first husband.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations, as the earlier generations were more conscientious about maintaining an unflawed lineage.

讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘讜讬讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗

The Gemara explains: The earlier generations is referring to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai were so careful about the sanctity of the priesthood that they said, as stated in the mishna, that the writing of a bill of divorce alone renders a priest鈥檚 wife forbidden to him. The later generations is referring to Rabbi Dosa, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 3:6): A priest鈥檚 wife who was taken captive may partake of teruma, and there is no concern that perhaps she was raped while in captivity and thereby became forbidden to her husband and disqualified from partaking of teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Dosa.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 注砖讛 诇讛 注专讘讬 讝讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬注讱 诇讛 讘讬谉 讚讚讬讛 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

In explanation of this statement, Rabbi Dosa says: And what did this Arab do to her when he took her captive? Because he fondled her breasts he disqualified her from the priesthood? As long as it is not determined that her captors actually raped her, she is not prohibited from partaking of teruma. It is apparent from here that the later generations are more lenient than the early generations with regard to the sanctity of the priesthood.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讟专拽住诪讜谉 讻讚讬 诇讞讬讬讘谉 讘诪注砖专 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讻讚讬 诇驻讜讟专谉 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations. The earlier generations would bring in their produce from the field by way of the main entranceway [teraksemon], in order to obligate the produce in tithes. By contrast, the later generations would bring in their produce by way of roofs and by way of enclosures, in order to exempt the produce from tithes.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬谉 讛讟讘诇 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讘注专转讬 讛拽讚砖 诪谉 讛讘讬转

The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Yannai says: Untithed produce does not become obligated in tithes until it sees the entrance of the house, through which people enter and exit, as it is stated in the declaration of the tithes: 鈥淚 have put away the hallowed things out of my house鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:13). As long as untithed produce is not taken into the house through the primary entrance of the house, it is permitted to eat it casually without tithing it. Consequently, they would take the produce in through another entrance in order to exempt it from tithes.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 拽讜讘注转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says with regard to this issue: Even entry into the courtyard establishes an obligation to tithe, as it is stated: 鈥淭hat they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). This indicates that once the produce is brought into the courtyard, it is obligated in tithes.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诇谞讛 注诪讜 讘驻讜谞讚拽讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces his wife, and afterward she spent the night with him at an inn [befundaki], Beit Shammai say: She does not require a second bill of divorce from him, and Beit Hillel say: She requires a second bill of divorce from him, since they may have engaged in sexual intercourse at the inn and thereby betrothed her once again.

讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

When did they say this halakha? When she was divorced following the state of marriage. Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, due to the fact that he is not accustomed to her. Therefore, there is no concern that they engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at the inn.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛

GEMARA: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically in a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse,

讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

as Beit Shammai hold: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Although they were seen engaging in sexual intercourse, one cannot assume that he intended to betroth her, since they were recently divorced. The assumption is that they were simply engaging in licentious sexual intercourse. Consequently, he is not required to give her a second bill of divorce.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬

And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Therefore, he had the intention to betroth her, and he must give her another bill of divorce. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at an inn, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, as there is no concern that perhaps they engaged in sexual intercourse.

转谞谉 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 讜讗讬 讘砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara challenges this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him because he is not accustomed to her. And if the mishna is referring to a case in which they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, what is the difference to me if it was following the state of betrothal and what is the difference to me if it was following the state of marriage? In either case, they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬

Rather it can be explained that the mishna is actually speaking about a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai did not disagree about a case where they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Everyone agrees that in such a scenario, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

With regard to what case did they disagree? They disagreed about a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse. As Beit Shammai say: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel say: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with the mishna.

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜诇讬讻讗 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the mishna, which we established as discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree about a case in which there are witnesses to their seclusion, but there are no witnesses to an act of sexual intercourse.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛

With regard to such a case, Beit Shammai hold: We do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in sexual intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛

And Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, even if they were alone together. For since he is not accustomed to her, we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion; these are the witnesses of intercourse.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that Beit Hillel require a second bill of divorce only when witnesses saw that they engaged in sexual intercourse? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha in all cases is like an unattributed mishna. And we established the mishna to be discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. How then does Rabbi Yo岣nan rule contrary to the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are amora鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Some of them hold that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not always rule in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讻谞住讛 讘讙讟 拽专讞 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

MISHNA: If a woman was married by her second husband on the basis of receiving a bare bill of divorce, i.e., a folded and tied bill of divorce that is missing signatures, she must leave both this, the first husband, and that, the second husband. And all of those previously mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier mishna (79b) apply to her in this case as well.

讙讟 拽专讞 讛讻诇 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讘谉 谞谞住 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

With regard to a bare bill of divorce; anyone, even those who are disqualified from bearing witness, can complete it, i.e., sign it in addition to the primary witnesses, so that it will not remain bare. This is the statement of ben Nannas. Rabbi Akiva says: Not all who are disqualified from bearing witness can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. Rabbi Akiva permits only the inclusion of witnesses who would ordinarily be valid witnesses, but who are invalid here because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 讙讟 拽专讞 讻诇 砖拽砖专讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 诪注讚讬讜

And what is a bare bill of divorce? It is any bill of divorce where the number of its folds is more than the number of its witnesses. In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is folded and the folds are then tied. Instead of having two witnesses sign at the bottom of the document, witnesses would sign on each tied fold. A bare bill of divorce has more folds than signatures, i.e., some folds lack signatures.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讙讟 拽专讞 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讜诇讻诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a bare bill of divorce is not valid, considering that there are more than two witnesses signed on it? The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree that was issued due to one who says: All of you should sign. Since it can be assumed that one who writes a folded and tied bill of divorce wants to have each tied fold signed, there is concern that he may have instructed that all of them sign. If they do not sign, the condition is not fulfilled, and the bill of divorce is not valid.

讙讟 拽专讞 讛讻诇 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜

搂 It was stated in the mishna that ben Nannas holds, with regard to a bare bill of divorce, that anyone can complete it. Rabbi Akiva, however, permits disqualified witnesses to sign only if they are invalid because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转 拽专讜讘 谞诪讬 讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the reason that a slave cannot sign? The Gemara answers: The Sages were concerned that people will mistakenly come to say that since the slave served as a witness in this case, the slave is fit to bear witness in all cases. They will use a slave as a witness in situations that demand testimony accepted only from qualified witnesses. The Gemara challenges this: If so, with regard to a relative, too, they will come to say that a relative is fit to bear witness in all cases.

讗诇讗 注讘讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇讗住讜拽讬讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉

Rather, one could explain that with regard to a slave, this is the reason why he is disqualified: There is concern that perhaps they will come to elevate his status with regard to lineage. If a slave signs the bill of divorce, they might say that if he signed a bill of divorce, he must be an Israelite.

讙讝诇谉 讚讘专 讬讜讞住讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讬转讻砖专 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 拽专讜讘 讗讬谉 讙讝诇谉 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If this is the reason why a slave cannot sign, then a robber, who is of unflawed lineage, should be fit to complete the signatures of a folded and tied bill of divorce, according to Rabbi Akiva. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: Not all can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. The Gemara deduces from this: A relative, yes; but a robber, no.

讗诇讗 注讘讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 砖讞专讜专讬 砖讞专专讬讛 讙讝诇谉 谞诪讬 讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 转砖讜讘讛 注讘讚 拽专讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽专讜讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讚拽专讜讘 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is the reason why a slave is disqualified: They will come to say that his master emancipated him and he signed because he is now like any other Israelite. Similarly, with regard to a robber, they will also come to say that he repented and will allow him to testify in other cases, as well. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva declared him to be unfit as well. With regard to a relative, what can be said to disallow him to sign this bill of divorce? With regard to a relative, everyone knows that he is a relative, and there is no concern that they will allow him to testify in other cases involving his relatives.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讗讬诇转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讙讟 拽专讞 拽砖专讬讜 砖讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖砖讛 砖砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讞诪砖讛 讞诪砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖诇砖讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘谉 谞谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 拽砖专讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabba bar She鈥檈ilta says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three. But if its ties total three and its witnesses total two, everyone, even ben Nannas, agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, only a relative can complete it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 砖讗讬诇转讗 诪讻讚讬 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讘诪拽讜砖专 讻砖谞讬诐 讘驻砖讜讟 讚诪讬 诪讛 讛转诐 拽专讜讘 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 拽专讜讘 诇讗

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba bar She鈥檈ilta: After all, all three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce are like the two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce, since the Sages said that a folded and tied bill of divorce requires at least three witnesses. Therefore, just as there, in the case of an ordinary bill of divorce, a relative cannot serve as one of the two witnesses, so too here, a relative should not serve as one of the primary witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗讬诇转讬讛 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇砖诇砖讛 讘诪拽讜砖专 讚诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rabba bar She鈥檈ilta said to him: To me as well this was difficult, and I asked that question to Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Hamnuna asked it to Rav Adda bar Ahava, who had transmitted this statement, and he said to him: Leave the case of three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce, as the requirement is not by Torah law. While the requirement to have a minimum of two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce is by Torah law, the requirement to have a minimum of three witnesses for a folded and tied bill of divorce is not by rabbinic law. Consequently, it is of no concern if the third witness is not fit to bear witness.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讟 拽专讞 拽砖专讬讜 砖讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖砖讛 砖砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讞诪砖讛 讞诪砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖诇砖讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘谉 谞谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:9): The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three.

讛砖诇讬诐 注诇讬讜 注讘讚 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讗讘诇 拽砖专讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘

The baraita continues: If a slave completed it with his signature, and the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, ben Nannas says: The offspring of a subsequent marriage is unflawed. And Rabbi Akiva says: The offspring is a mamzer. But if its ties total three, and its witnesses total two, everyone agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, it can be completed only by a relative of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

专讘 讬讜住祝 诪转谞讬 讻砖专 讜讛转谞讬讗 拽专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讬 讻砖专

Rav Yosef taught: Only a valid witness can complete it. The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: A relative? Rav Pappa said: Correct the language of the baraita, and teach: Valid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 拽专讜讘 讘诇讘讚 讗讘诇 转专讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇拽讬讜诪讬 讘转专讬 拽专讜讘讬诐 讜讞讚 讻砖专

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the Sages validated only the use of one witness who is a relative, to complete the number of signatures as per the number of knotted folds. But two such witnesses, no, they did not validate them. The reason for this is that perhaps they will come to ratify a bill of divorce with two witnesses who are relatives and one witness who is valid. If the bill of divorce will be challenged, it will be necessary to ratify the document. While this bill of divorce has more than three witnesses signed to it, the court needs to authenticate the signature of only three of the witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, provided that two of them are not relatives. If there are more than two relatives signed on the bill of divorce, a court may unintentionally authenticate the signatures of two relatives and only one valid witness.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讗 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗

Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, in accordance with this opinion,

  • 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 81

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 81

讝讻讜转 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇砖谞讬

The Gemara answers: It is not referring to the right of a second man that she already married, but rather to the right that is due to a suitor who wishes to become her second husband, meaning that the first husband cannot eliminate the right of a second man who wishes to marry her.

诪转谞讬壮 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 注诇 转谞讗讬 讜诇讗 谞注砖讛 讛转谞讗讬 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

MISHNA: If one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife, and reconsidered and did not give it to her, Beit Shammai say: Although merely writing the bill of divorce does not dissolve the marriage, by doing so he disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. And Beit Hillel say: Even if he gave the bill of divorce to her conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, and therefore the bill of divorce did not take effect, he did not disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. A woman is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood only if the divorce takes effect.

讙诪壮 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪谞砖讛 诪讚讜讬诇 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 讻转讘 讙讟 诇讗砖转讜 讜讬讜砖讘转 转讞转讬讜 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 诪讛讜

GEMARA: Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashe from Devil, sent a query to Shmuel: Our teacher, instruct us. In the case of a priest about whom the following rumor circulated: So-and-so the priest wrote a bill of divorce to his wife, but she is still residing under his roof and attending to him; what is the halakha? Need one lend credence to this rumor?

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 转爪讗 讜讛讚讘专 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 诪讘讟诇讬谞谉 拽诇讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 谞讛专讚注讗 讗转专讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛专讚注讗 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 拽诇讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬 拽专讜 诇谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讛

Shmuel sent the following response to him: She must leave her husband; but the matter requires investigation before he is forced to divorce her. The Gemara asks: What is the investigation that is required? If we say that the investigation is whether we can abolish the rumor that circulated, or we cannot abolish it; that cannot be the question: But isn鈥檛 Neharde鈥檃 the place where Shmuel is the halakhic authority and the rulings there are in accordance with his opinion, and in Neharde鈥檃 they do not abolish a rumor? Rather, the required investigation is to determine whether people in that place refer to giving a bill of divorce as writing. If that is the case, the rumor would be that he gave her a bill of divorce.

讜讻讬 拽专讜 诇谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讛 诇讻转讬讘讛 讙讜驻讛 诪讬 诇讗 拽专讜 诇讛 讻转讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: And if they refer to giving as writing, it proves nothing, as don鈥檛 they refer to writing itself as writing? Therefore, the fact that they refer to giving as writing does not mean that he gave the woman the bill of divorce. The same term would be employed even if he only wrote the bill of divorce.

讗讬谉 讚讗讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚拽专讜 诇谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讛 讚诇诪讗 谞转谉 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara answers: Yes, as if it is discovered that they refer to giving as writing, then there is reason to suspect that perhaps they are saying in the rumor that he gave her the bill of divorce, and there is concern that she is actually divorced.

转爪讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 拽诇讗 讚讘转专 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Apropos Shmuel鈥檚 statement that she must leave his home, the Gemara asks: She must leave? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: We are not concerned for any rumor that circulates after marriage. According to Rav Ashi, if a rumor circulates that a woman was betrothed to a man, there is concern about the rumor, and she is not allowed to marry someone else until she receives a bill of divorce from her rumored betrothed. But if such a rumor circulates after she has married someone else, there is no concern about such a rumor, and she is not obligated to leave her husband. Here too, in the case of this woman who is suspected of being divorced, she is currently living with her husband. Therefore, perhaps we should not be concerned about such a rumor.

诪讗讬 转爪讗 谞诪讬 转爪讗 诪砖谞讬

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of Shmuel鈥檚 directive: She must leave? This also means that she must leave the second husband. If her first husband dies, and she marries another priest, she must leave him due to the rumor that circulated that her first husband gave her a bill of divorce.

讗诐 讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讜诪专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 住诪讜讱 诇诪讬转讛 讙专砖讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, you cast aspersions on the children of the first husband. If the reason that she must leave the second husband is because she is assumed to be a divorc茅e, this means that she remained with her first husband while she was already divorced, and the children they had after the rumor circulated would be disqualified from the priesthood. The Gemara answers: Since we remove her only from the second husband, and we do not remove her from the first husband, they will come to explain the incident by saying as follows: The first husband divorced her proximate to his death, and the children from him are of unflawed lineage. Since he divorced her, she may not marry another priest. Because the assumption here is that the divorce took place proximate to the first husband鈥檚 death, there is no concern of aspersions being cast on the children from the first husband.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations, as the earlier generations were more conscientious about maintaining an unflawed lineage.

讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘讜讬讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗

The Gemara explains: The earlier generations is referring to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai were so careful about the sanctity of the priesthood that they said, as stated in the mishna, that the writing of a bill of divorce alone renders a priest鈥檚 wife forbidden to him. The later generations is referring to Rabbi Dosa, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 3:6): A priest鈥檚 wife who was taken captive may partake of teruma, and there is no concern that perhaps she was raped while in captivity and thereby became forbidden to her husband and disqualified from partaking of teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Dosa.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 注砖讛 诇讛 注专讘讬 讝讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬注讱 诇讛 讘讬谉 讚讚讬讛 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

In explanation of this statement, Rabbi Dosa says: And what did this Arab do to her when he took her captive? Because he fondled her breasts he disqualified her from the priesthood? As long as it is not determined that her captors actually raped her, she is not prohibited from partaking of teruma. It is apparent from here that the later generations are more lenient than the early generations with regard to the sanctity of the priesthood.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讬 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讟专拽住诪讜谉 讻讚讬 诇讞讬讬讘谉 讘诪注砖专 讚讜专讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讛谉 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讻讚讬 诇驻讜讟专谉 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations. The earlier generations would bring in their produce from the field by way of the main entranceway [teraksemon], in order to obligate the produce in tithes. By contrast, the later generations would bring in their produce by way of roofs and by way of enclosures, in order to exempt the produce from tithes.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬谉 讛讟讘诇 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讘注专转讬 讛拽讚砖 诪谉 讛讘讬转

The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Yannai says: Untithed produce does not become obligated in tithes until it sees the entrance of the house, through which people enter and exit, as it is stated in the declaration of the tithes: 鈥淚 have put away the hallowed things out of my house鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:13). As long as untithed produce is not taken into the house through the primary entrance of the house, it is permitted to eat it casually without tithing it. Consequently, they would take the produce in through another entrance in order to exempt it from tithes.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 拽讜讘注转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says with regard to this issue: Even entry into the courtyard establishes an obligation to tithe, as it is stated: 鈥淭hat they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). This indicates that once the produce is brought into the courtyard, it is obligated in tithes.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诇谞讛 注诪讜 讘驻讜谞讚拽讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces his wife, and afterward she spent the night with him at an inn [befundaki], Beit Shammai say: She does not require a second bill of divorce from him, and Beit Hillel say: She requires a second bill of divorce from him, since they may have engaged in sexual intercourse at the inn and thereby betrothed her once again.

讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

When did they say this halakha? When she was divorced following the state of marriage. Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, due to the fact that he is not accustomed to her. Therefore, there is no concern that they engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at the inn.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛

GEMARA: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically in a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse,

讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

as Beit Shammai hold: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Although they were seen engaging in sexual intercourse, one cannot assume that he intended to betroth her, since they were recently divorced. The assumption is that they were simply engaging in licentious sexual intercourse. Consequently, he is not required to give her a second bill of divorce.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬

And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Therefore, he had the intention to betroth her, and he must give her another bill of divorce. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at an inn, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, as there is no concern that perhaps they engaged in sexual intercourse.

转谞谉 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 讜讗讬 讘砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara challenges this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him because he is not accustomed to her. And if the mishna is referring to a case in which they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, what is the difference to me if it was following the state of betrothal and what is the difference to me if it was following the state of marriage? In either case, they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬

Rather it can be explained that the mishna is actually speaking about a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Rabbi Yo岣nan stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai did not disagree about a case where they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Everyone agrees that in such a scenario, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

With regard to what case did they disagree? They disagreed about a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse. As Beit Shammai say: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel say: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with the mishna.

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜诇讬讻讗 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the mishna, which we established as discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree about a case in which there are witnesses to their seclusion, but there are no witnesses to an act of sexual intercourse.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讬讞讜讚 讜讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛

With regard to such a case, Beit Shammai hold: We do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in sexual intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞转讙专砖讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬 讘讬讗讛

And Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, even if they were alone together. For since he is not accustomed to her, we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion; these are the witnesses of intercourse.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that Beit Hillel require a second bill of divorce only when witnesses saw that they engaged in sexual intercourse? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha in all cases is like an unattributed mishna. And we established the mishna to be discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. How then does Rabbi Yo岣nan rule contrary to the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are amora鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Some of them hold that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not always rule in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讻谞住讛 讘讙讟 拽专讞 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

MISHNA: If a woman was married by her second husband on the basis of receiving a bare bill of divorce, i.e., a folded and tied bill of divorce that is missing signatures, she must leave both this, the first husband, and that, the second husband. And all of those previously mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier mishna (79b) apply to her in this case as well.

讙讟 拽专讞 讛讻诇 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讘谉 谞谞住 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

With regard to a bare bill of divorce; anyone, even those who are disqualified from bearing witness, can complete it, i.e., sign it in addition to the primary witnesses, so that it will not remain bare. This is the statement of ben Nannas. Rabbi Akiva says: Not all who are disqualified from bearing witness can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. Rabbi Akiva permits only the inclusion of witnesses who would ordinarily be valid witnesses, but who are invalid here because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 讙讟 拽专讞 讻诇 砖拽砖专讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 诪注讚讬讜

And what is a bare bill of divorce? It is any bill of divorce where the number of its folds is more than the number of its witnesses. In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is folded and the folds are then tied. Instead of having two witnesses sign at the bottom of the document, witnesses would sign on each tied fold. A bare bill of divorce has more folds than signatures, i.e., some folds lack signatures.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讙讟 拽专讞 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讜诇讻诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a bare bill of divorce is not valid, considering that there are more than two witnesses signed on it? The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree that was issued due to one who says: All of you should sign. Since it can be assumed that one who writes a folded and tied bill of divorce wants to have each tied fold signed, there is concern that he may have instructed that all of them sign. If they do not sign, the condition is not fulfilled, and the bill of divorce is not valid.

讙讟 拽专讞 讛讻诇 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜

搂 It was stated in the mishna that ben Nannas holds, with regard to a bare bill of divorce, that anyone can complete it. Rabbi Akiva, however, permits disqualified witnesses to sign only if they are invalid because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转 拽专讜讘 谞诪讬 讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the reason that a slave cannot sign? The Gemara answers: The Sages were concerned that people will mistakenly come to say that since the slave served as a witness in this case, the slave is fit to bear witness in all cases. They will use a slave as a witness in situations that demand testimony accepted only from qualified witnesses. The Gemara challenges this: If so, with regard to a relative, too, they will come to say that a relative is fit to bear witness in all cases.

讗诇讗 注讘讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇讗住讜拽讬讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉

Rather, one could explain that with regard to a slave, this is the reason why he is disqualified: There is concern that perhaps they will come to elevate his status with regard to lineage. If a slave signs the bill of divorce, they might say that if he signed a bill of divorce, he must be an Israelite.

讙讝诇谉 讚讘专 讬讜讞住讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讬转讻砖专 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 拽专讜讘 讗讬谉 讙讝诇谉 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If this is the reason why a slave cannot sign, then a robber, who is of unflawed lineage, should be fit to complete the signatures of a folded and tied bill of divorce, according to Rabbi Akiva. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: Not all can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. The Gemara deduces from this: A relative, yes; but a robber, no.

讗诇讗 注讘讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 砖讞专讜专讬 砖讞专专讬讛 讙讝诇谉 谞诪讬 讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 转砖讜讘讛 注讘讚 拽专讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽专讜讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讚拽专讜讘 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is the reason why a slave is disqualified: They will come to say that his master emancipated him and he signed because he is now like any other Israelite. Similarly, with regard to a robber, they will also come to say that he repented and will allow him to testify in other cases, as well. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva declared him to be unfit as well. With regard to a relative, what can be said to disallow him to sign this bill of divorce? With regard to a relative, everyone knows that he is a relative, and there is no concern that they will allow him to testify in other cases involving his relatives.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讗讬诇转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讙讟 拽专讞 拽砖专讬讜 砖讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖砖讛 砖砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讞诪砖讛 讞诪砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖诇砖讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘谉 谞谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 拽砖专讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabba bar She鈥檈ilta says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three. But if its ties total three and its witnesses total two, everyone, even ben Nannas, agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, only a relative can complete it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 砖讗讬诇转讗 诪讻讚讬 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讘诪拽讜砖专 讻砖谞讬诐 讘驻砖讜讟 讚诪讬 诪讛 讛转诐 拽专讜讘 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 拽专讜讘 诇讗

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba bar She鈥檈ilta: After all, all three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce are like the two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce, since the Sages said that a folded and tied bill of divorce requires at least three witnesses. Therefore, just as there, in the case of an ordinary bill of divorce, a relative cannot serve as one of the two witnesses, so too here, a relative should not serve as one of the primary witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗讬诇转讬讛 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇砖诇砖讛 讘诪拽讜砖专 讚诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rabba bar She鈥檈ilta said to him: To me as well this was difficult, and I asked that question to Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Hamnuna asked it to Rav Adda bar Ahava, who had transmitted this statement, and he said to him: Leave the case of three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce, as the requirement is not by Torah law. While the requirement to have a minimum of two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce is by Torah law, the requirement to have a minimum of three witnesses for a folded and tied bill of divorce is not by rabbinic law. Consequently, it is of no concern if the third witness is not fit to bear witness.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讟 拽专讞 拽砖专讬讜 砖讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖砖讛 砖砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讞诪砖讛 讞诪砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖诇砖讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘谉 谞谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:9): The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three.

讛砖诇讬诐 注诇讬讜 注讘讚 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讗讘诇 拽砖专讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讜注讚讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 拽专讜讘

The baraita continues: If a slave completed it with his signature, and the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, ben Nannas says: The offspring of a subsequent marriage is unflawed. And Rabbi Akiva says: The offspring is a mamzer. But if its ties total three, and its witnesses total two, everyone agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, it can be completed only by a relative of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

专讘 讬讜住祝 诪转谞讬 讻砖专 讜讛转谞讬讗 拽专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讬 讻砖专

Rav Yosef taught: Only a valid witness can complete it. The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: A relative? Rav Pappa said: Correct the language of the baraita, and teach: Valid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 拽专讜讘 讘诇讘讚 讗讘诇 转专讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇拽讬讜诪讬 讘转专讬 拽专讜讘讬诐 讜讞讚 讻砖专

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the Sages validated only the use of one witness who is a relative, to complete the number of signatures as per the number of knotted folds. But two such witnesses, no, they did not validate them. The reason for this is that perhaps they will come to ratify a bill of divorce with two witnesses who are relatives and one witness who is valid. If the bill of divorce will be challenged, it will be necessary to ratify the document. While this bill of divorce has more than three witnesses signed to it, the court needs to authenticate the signature of only three of the witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, provided that two of them are not relatives. If there are more than two relatives signed on the bill of divorce, a court may unintentionally authenticate the signatures of two relatives and only one valid witness.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讗 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗

Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, in accordance with this opinion,

Scroll To Top