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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 8, 2016 | ื›ืดื— ื‘ืื“ืจ ืืณ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Gittin 86

The gemara distinguishes between various cases where the get is validย from the Torah but invalid on a rabbinic level – is the get valid – if so, can she get remarried based on it? If not, and she does anyway, is the new child from a second marriage a mamzer, and does the woman need to get divorced from her new husband? ย  Many rabbis opinions are brought who show that we hold like rabbi Elazar that the witnesses who view the giving of the get are the critical ones. ย However there is disagreement about whether we hold like Rabbi Elazar in monetary documents. Study Guide Gittin 86


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื™ื•ื ืื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ื•ืœืžื—ืจ ืืช ืืฉืชื™

was instituted to the exclusion of that which Rava asked Rav Naแธฅman, with regard to a case where the husband said to his wife while handing her the bill of divorce: Today you are not my wife and tomorrow you are my wife. Does this limitation take effect? Although the conclusion of that inquiry was that once the wife is divorced she is divorced forever, Rava instituted the addition of this expression in the text of the bill of divorce to remove any uncertainty with regard to such a case.

ื’ื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืœืขืฆืžืš ืืชืงื™ืŸ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื ื“ื ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื“ืง ืœืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืคื˜ื™ืจ ื•ืขื˜ื™ืจ ืžืŸ ื—ืจื•ืจื™ ื•ืžืŸ ืขืœื•ืœื™ ื•ืžืŸ ืขืจื•ืจื™ ืžืœื›ื ื•ืžืœื›ืชื ื•ืจืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื ืื™ืช ืขืœื•ื”ื™ ื•ืžื ื•ืงื” ืžื›ืœ ืžื•ื ื•ืžืŸ ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ื“ื ืคื™ืง ืขื“ ื˜ืฆื”ืจ ื—ื“ืช ื•ืขืชื™ืง

ยง It is stated in the mishna: The basic element of a bill of manumission for a maidservant is: You are hereby a free woman, or: You are hereby your own. Rav Yehuda instituted the following formulation in a document of sale for slaves: This slave is justified, i.e., fit for slavery, and he is dismissed and removed from manumission and from accusations and from contests of the king and queen, meaning that he was not sentenced to death by the governmental court. And there is not a sign [reshum] of ownership of another person on him. And he is clean of any blemish and of boils that emerge on him for four [tatzhar] years, whether new or old.

ืžืื™ ืืกื•ืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื’ื™ื ื‘ืจื ื•ืžืจืชื›ื ื•ื›ื‘ืจื™ืชื ื•ื—ืœื ื“ื—ืžืจื ื•ืžืฉื—ื ื“ื–ื™ืชื ื•ื ื˜ืคื™ืง ื—ื™ื•ืจื ื•ืฉื™ื™ืคื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื“ืคื ื“ืื•ื•ื–ื

The Gemara asks tangentially: What is the cure for boils? Abaye said: One takes ginger [ginebara], and slag from silver, and sulfur [kavrita], and wine vinegar, and olive oil, and white naphtha [natpik], and spreads it with a goose feather.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ื ืฉืืช ื”ื•ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

MISHNA: Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman marries another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of the offspring from this marriage is unflawed. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child.

ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ื ืฉืืช ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

These three bills are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it, but it contains only one witness. These are the three invalid bills of divorce with regard to which the Sages said: And if she marries, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืœื ืฉื ืชื ื• ืœื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื“ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื—ื•ืชืžื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื˜ ืืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written for her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband can contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. Nevertheless, the witnessesโ€™ signatures are not an essential part of a bill of divorce.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืชื• ืœื™ื›ื ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื’ื˜ ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ืชื ืœื ืชืฆื ื”ื›ื ืชืฆื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But are there no other invalid bills of divorce? But isnโ€™t there an outdated bill of divorce, where the husband and wife were secluded after it was written and before it was handed to her? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the cases: There, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, if the woman remarries on the basis of that bill of divorce she need not leave her husband; here, she must leave him.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืชืฆื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, even though the lineage of their children is unflawed. But according to the one who says that here she need not leave, what is there to say? Why is an outdated bill of divorce not mentioned in the mishna?

ื”ืชื ืชื™ื ืฉื ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“

The Gemara answers: There is still a difference between the cases, as there, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, she may remarry ab initio; while here, it is only after the fact, if she remarried, that she need not leave her second husband.

ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื’ื˜ ืงืจื— ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there a bare bill of divorce, i.e., one that is missing a signature, which is also invalid? The Gemara answers: There, if the woman remarries based on this bill of divorce the offspring of her second marriage is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉื ื” ืžืžื˜ื‘ืข ืฉื˜ื‘ืขื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that anyone who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce renders the offspring a mamzer. Therefore, a bare bill of divorce is completely invalid, and if the woman remarries the offspring is a mamzer. But according to the Rabbis, who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? Why is a bare bill of divorce not listed in the mishna?

ื”ืชื ืชืฆื ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื

The Gemara answers that there is still a distinction between the cases: There, if the woman remarries she must leave her husband, even according to the Rabbis who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer; here, she need not leave her husband.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืชืฆื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ืฉืจ ืœื ืงื ืžื™ื™ืจื™

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband; but according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Apparently the mishna is not speaking about a folded and tied bill of divorce, which requires a signature on every fold, but rather, an open bill of divorce. There are only three cases in which this type of a bill of divorce is invalid in a manner that obligates the woman, if she remarries, to leave her second husband, although the lineage of their children would be unflawed.

ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืฉืœื•ื ืžืœื›ื•ืช ื”ืชื ืชืฆื ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there a bill of divorce that is invalid due to the need to maintain peaceful relations with the kingdom, as it mentions the year of the divorce according to the age of another kingdom? Why is this not mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara answers: There, she must leave her husband; here, she need not leave her husband.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืชืฆื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ (ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ)

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband. But according to the one who says that she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, the offspring is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

(ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ) ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir; but according to the Rabbis, who hold that in the case of a bill of divorce in which the date is written according to the age of another kingdom, the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The one who holds that in the cases in the mishna the woman must leave her husband establishes it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, according to whom there, the offspring is a mamzer. Here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ื•ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

The mishna emphasizes twice that there are three bills of divorce that are invalid. The Gemara asks: What does the quantity in the first clause serve to exclude? And what does the quantity in the latter clause serve to exclude?

ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื ื™ ื“ืืžืจืŸ

The Gemara answers: The quantity mentioned in the first clause serves to exclude those invalid bills of divorce that we previously mentioned, which are treated either more or less stringently than the cases in the mishna.

ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื‘ื™ื ื’ื˜ ืžืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื ืชื ื• ืœื” ื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื—ืชื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The quantity mentioned in the latter clause serves to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce for a certain woman from a country overseas, and gives it to her but does not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and she remarries, her second husband must divorce her, and the offspring of their marriage is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืขืฉื” ื™ื˜ืœื ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื•ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืชื ื ื• ืœื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื—ืชื

And the Rabbis say: The offspring of the second marriage is not a mamzer; rather, how should the agent act to rectify the situation? He should take the bill of divorce from her, and give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Since this problem can be corrected, it is not listed in the mishna as one of the invalid bills of divorce.

ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•

ยง It is stated in the mishna: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting, but has no signatures of witnesses on it at all, is invalid; nevertheless, if the woman remarries, the lineage of the child born from her second husband is unflawed. Rav says: We learned that this is referring to his handwriting.

ืื”ื™ื™ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืืจื™ืฉื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara asks: With regard to which clause of the mishna is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the first clause, what Rav said is obvious, as the case of his handwriting is explicitly taught in that clause.

ื•ืืœื ืืžืฆืขื™ืชื ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืœื ืืกื™ืคื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืขื“ ืื—ื“

And if it is rather referring to the middle clause, i.e., an undated bill of divorce, why does it matter whether it was written in the husbandโ€™s handwriting? Arenโ€™t there signatures of witnesses on it? Rather, it must be referring to the latter clause in the mishna, i.e., a bill of divorce that has a date written on it but has only the signature of one witness.

ื•ื“ื•ืงื ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ืœื

And Rav is saying that specifically when the bill of divorce is written in his handwriting and has the signature of one witness, the womanโ€™s child from her second husband is of unflawed lineage. But if it is written in a scribeโ€™s handwriting, even if it includes the signature of one witness, the childโ€™s lineage is not unflawed, but rather he is a mamzer, as the bill of divorce is completely invalid.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื• ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ื›ืฉืจ

And Shmuel says: Even where it is written in a scribeโ€™s handwriting and it has the signature of a witness, the lineage of the child is unflawed, as we learned in a mishna (87b): In the case of a bill of divorce in which the scribeโ€™s handwriting is recognizable and there is one witness signed, it is valid.

ื•ืจื‘ ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืชื™ื ืฉื ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“

And Rav would respond: Is that case comparable? There, in that case, the mishna indicates that the woman may marry ab initio. Therefore, it must be a case where the scribe also signed as a second witness. But here, in the case of this mishna, the bill of divorce is invalid and the woman may not remarry; it is only if she remarried and had a child that his lineage is rendered unflawed after the fact. Therefore, it must be referring to a case where the husband wrote it.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืกืคืจื ื“ืžื•ื‘ื”ืง ื•ื”ื ื‘ืกืคืจื ื“ืœื ืžื•ื‘ื”ืง

And Shmuel, who holds that both cases are referring to a bill of divorce that was written by a scribe but not signed by the scribe as one of the witnesses, would respond that the contradiction is not difficult. That mishna, where the bill of divorce is rendered valid ab initio, is referring to the handwriting of an expert scribe, who can presumably be relied upon to have written the bill of divorce properly and only according to the husbandโ€™s instructions, and this mishna is referring to the handwriting of a scribe who is not expert. Since the bill of divorce was not signed by two witnesses, there is concern that the scribe did not write it properly.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ืคื

And similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in accordance with the opinion of Rav: We learned that the mishna is referring to his handwriting. Rabbi Elazar, assuming that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan was explaining the middle clause, said to him: Arenโ€™t there signatures of witnesses in the bill of divorce? Why is the husbandโ€™s handwriting necessary? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: I was referring to the latter clause, in which there is only one witness.

ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชืฆื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืชืฆื

ยง With regard to the three invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna, sometimes Rav said that if the woman remarries based on one of these bills of divorce she must leave her second husband, and sometimes Rav said that she need not leave.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืชืฆื

How so? How can the contradiction between Ravโ€™s statements be explained? If she already has children from her second husband then she need not leave him, as, if she is required to leave him there will be slander that their children are mamzerim. But if she does not have children from him, she must leave him.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืกืคืง ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื• ืกืคืง ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื‘ืžื•ืช

Mar Zutra bar Toviya raises an objection to Ravโ€™s opinion from a mishna (Yevamot 30b). With regard to a woman whose husband died childless [yevama] but who is prohibited from marrying her late husbandโ€™s brother [yavam] because he is a forbidden relative to her, not only is she herself exempt from levirate marriage, but she causes any rival wives of hers to be exempt as well, even if they are not forbidden relatives to the brother. The mishna lists fifteen examples of such forbidden relatives (Yevamot 2a). And if any of these fifteen women had undergone a betrothal or divorce whose status is uncertain with the deceased brother, those rival wives must perform the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza] and may not enter into levirate marriage, since they are possibly the rival wives of a forbidden relative.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืกืคืง ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื–ืจืง ืœื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื• ื–ื”ื• ืกืคืง ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

How could there be a betrothal whose status is uncertain? If he threw her money or a document as betrothal in the public domain, and the item was possibly closer to her, whereby she could acquire the object and become betrothed, and possibly closer to him, preventing her from acquiring it, this is a case of a betrothal whose status is uncertain.

ืกืคืง ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืกืคืง ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ

How can there be a divorce whose status is uncertain? It is in the cases of invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna here: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it but it contains only one witness. In each of the three cases, this is considered a divorce whose status is uncertain.

ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืชืฆื ืฆืจืชื” ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื‘ื•ืžื™

And if you say that despite this womanโ€™s problematic divorce she need not leave her second husband, her rival wife from her first marriage might come to enter into levirate marriage after the first husbandโ€™s death, assuming that she was already divorced. This would violate the ruling of the mishna in tractate Yevamot that she may not do so, as the status of the divorce is uncertain and therefore it is uncertain whether she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

ืชืชื™ื‘ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืš ื›ืœื•ื ื—ืฉืฉื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara answers: She may enter into levirate marriage, and there is no problem with that, as the difficulty with the bill of divorce is merely a concern by rabbinic law. By Torah law it is a complete bill of divorce, and the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage.

ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชืฆื ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชืฆื

Contrary to Ravโ€™s opinion that a woman who remarries based on one of these bills of divorce must leave her second husband unless they have children, Levi says that she is never required to leave him, whether or not they have children. And similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that she is never required to leave him.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืœืคืชื ื“ืžืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื›ื•ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชืฆื ื•ืงืจืฆื™ืช ืฉื‘ืขืžื™ืจ ืื™ื ื” ืคื•ืกืœืช ื‘ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

And similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to the sons of Rabbi แธคalafta of Huna: Your father said the following two statements that I heard from him: That she is never required to leave him, and that a kartzit in the sheaf does not disqualify water of purification (see Numbers 19:17โ€“19). Even if a kartzit drinks from this water, it may still be sprinkled on a person in order to purify him from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.

ืžืื™ ืงืจืฆื™ืช ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื‘ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื›ื™ืคื™

The Gemara asks: What is a kartzit? Abaye said that it is a species of fly [didveta] that is found between the sheaves.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื“ื ื™ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืคื•ืช ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืฆืฆืช ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื™ื•ื ื” ื•ืงืจืฆื™ืช

Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina raises an objection to this ruling from the Mishna (Para 9:3): All birds disqualify water of purification by drinking from it, because some of the water spills from the birdโ€™s beak back into the basin after being disqualified by having been in the birdโ€™s mouth. This is the halakha with regard to all birds except for the pigeon, because it sucks the water, which prevents it from spilling back. And if it is so that a kartzit does not disqualify water of purification, let the mishna teach that all birds disqualify except for the pigeon and the kartzit.

ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ื“ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืœื ืคืกืœื” ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืคืกืœื” ื•ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืขื“ ื›ื–ื™ืช

The Gemara answers: The matter is not clear-cut, as, while a large kartzit does not disqualify the water, a small one does disqualify it. This ruling is not mentioned in the mishna, as it is not common to all species of kartzit. The Gemara asks: And how small must a kartzit be to disqualify water of purification? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ami who said: The size is up to an olive-bulk.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช

ยง It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Even if there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but rather he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. But when I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to monetary documents as well.

ื•ืจื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืœื ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื

The Gemara asks: But does Rav hold that with regard to monetary documents the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar? Doesnโ€™t Rabbi Elazar teach in the mishna that on the basis of this bill of divorce a woman can collect the amount written in her marriage contract even from liened property? Apparently, Rabbi Elazarโ€™s ruling has monetary ramifications as well.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืชืจืชื™ ืืžืจ ื•ืจื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar made two statements, i.e., his ruling was both with regard to divorce and with regard to monetary documents. And Rav holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to one issue, i.e., divorce, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one issue, monetary documents.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

And similarly, Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yannai says: This does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yannai not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar at all, as opposed to the other amoraโ€™im? The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yannai is saying: According to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this bill of divorce does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

And similarly, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says that Reish Lakish says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar at all. The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yoแธฅanan is saying: According to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื“ื ืœืžืจื™ ื‘ืจ ืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent the following request to Marei bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce or whether the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

ืื“ื”ื›ื™ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืžืจื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

Meanwhile, before this request reached him, Rav Huna died. Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to Marei bar Mar: My father said in the name of Rava like this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And our teachers who are well-versed in matters of halakha also said in the name of our teacher that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav แธคama bar Gurya, referred to as our teachers, says that our teacher Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื• ื”ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืžืจื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

There are those who say a different version of this statement: And our colleagues who are well versed in matters of halakha and the disciples of our teacher said in the name of our teacher that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav แธคisda, Rabba bar Rav Hunaโ€™s colleague, said that Rav แธคama bar Gurya, his teacher, said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Elazar, the amora, says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืฉืœื—ื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื–ื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื–ื• ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื‘ื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื˜ืœ

MISHNA: With regard to a case of two men who sent their wives two identical bills of divorce with an agent, as both their names and their wivesโ€™ names are identical, and the two bills of divorce were mixed up, the agent should hand both bills of divorce to this wife and both of them to that wife, so that each wife definitely receives her bill of divorce, although it is unclear which one is hers. Therefore, if one of the bills of divorce was lost before it was given to both women, the other is void, because it is unknown which bill of divorce was meant for which woman.

ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉื›ืชื‘ื• ื›ืœืœ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื ืชืŸ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

With regard to five husbands who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce, i.e., who wrote one common bill of divorce for their wives with a single formula, writing that so-and-so divorces his wife so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of these bills of divorce that were combined into one bill are valid; and the bill must be handed to each and every wife individually, so they will all be divorced by it.

ื”ื™ื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื˜ื•ืคืก ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืืช ืฉื”ืขื“ื™ื ื ื™ืงืจื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื›ืฉืจ

If the scribe was writing a separate formula in the bill of divorce for each and every couple, and the witnesses signed below, the formula with which the witnessesโ€™ signatures are read is valid. In other words, the formula directly underneath which they signed is valid, and the others are not valid.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืขื“ื™ ืžืกื™ืจื” ื›ืจืชื™ ื”ื ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžื’ืจืฉื”

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that the two bills of divorce that were mixed up should be handed to both wives? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as had it been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, since he says that witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, handing both bills of divorce to both wives would not enable the divorce of each woman to take effect. This is because the witnesses do not know at the time of the transmission with which one of the bills of divorce she is being divorced.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืžื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื” ืœืฉืžื” ื ืชื™ื ื” ืœืฉืžื” ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™

Abaye said: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Say that although Rabbi Elazar requires the writing of the bill of divorce to be for her sake, i.e., with the specific woman and man for whom it is designated in mind, does he require giving it to her for her sake? Although the transmission of the bill of divorce is what causes it to take effect, it need not be done with the designated woman in mind. Therefore, the divorce here is valid, as the bill of divorce was definitely given to the wife for whom it was intended.

ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉื›ืชื‘ื• ื›ืœืœ ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ืœืœ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื˜ื•ืคืก

ยง It is stated in the mishna: With regard to five husbands who wrote a general wording in a bill of divorce, all of them can divorce their wives with it. But if a separate formula was written for each, only the last one is valid. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case of the general wording, and what are the circumstances of the case of the separate formula that was written for each couple?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœื›ื•ืœืŸ ื–ื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื”ื• ื˜ื•ืคืก

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If there is one date and one formula written for all of them, such as: On such-and-such a date so-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so, that is a general wording. If a separate date and formula was written for each and every one of them, that is considered a separate formula.

ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ

And Reish Lakish says:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 86

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 86

ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื™ื•ื ืื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ื•ืœืžื—ืจ ืืช ืืฉืชื™

was instituted to the exclusion of that which Rava asked Rav Naแธฅman, with regard to a case where the husband said to his wife while handing her the bill of divorce: Today you are not my wife and tomorrow you are my wife. Does this limitation take effect? Although the conclusion of that inquiry was that once the wife is divorced she is divorced forever, Rava instituted the addition of this expression in the text of the bill of divorce to remove any uncertainty with regard to such a case.

ื’ื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืœืขืฆืžืš ืืชืงื™ืŸ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื ื“ื ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื“ืง ืœืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืคื˜ื™ืจ ื•ืขื˜ื™ืจ ืžืŸ ื—ืจื•ืจื™ ื•ืžืŸ ืขืœื•ืœื™ ื•ืžืŸ ืขืจื•ืจื™ ืžืœื›ื ื•ืžืœื›ืชื ื•ืจืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื ืื™ืช ืขืœื•ื”ื™ ื•ืžื ื•ืงื” ืžื›ืœ ืžื•ื ื•ืžืŸ ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ื“ื ืคื™ืง ืขื“ ื˜ืฆื”ืจ ื—ื“ืช ื•ืขืชื™ืง

ยง It is stated in the mishna: The basic element of a bill of manumission for a maidservant is: You are hereby a free woman, or: You are hereby your own. Rav Yehuda instituted the following formulation in a document of sale for slaves: This slave is justified, i.e., fit for slavery, and he is dismissed and removed from manumission and from accusations and from contests of the king and queen, meaning that he was not sentenced to death by the governmental court. And there is not a sign [reshum] of ownership of another person on him. And he is clean of any blemish and of boils that emerge on him for four [tatzhar] years, whether new or old.

ืžืื™ ืืกื•ืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื’ื™ื ื‘ืจื ื•ืžืจืชื›ื ื•ื›ื‘ืจื™ืชื ื•ื—ืœื ื“ื—ืžืจื ื•ืžืฉื—ื ื“ื–ื™ืชื ื•ื ื˜ืคื™ืง ื—ื™ื•ืจื ื•ืฉื™ื™ืคื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื“ืคื ื“ืื•ื•ื–ื

The Gemara asks tangentially: What is the cure for boils? Abaye said: One takes ginger [ginebara], and slag from silver, and sulfur [kavrita], and wine vinegar, and olive oil, and white naphtha [natpik], and spreads it with a goose feather.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ื ืฉืืช ื”ื•ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

MISHNA: Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman marries another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of the offspring from this marriage is unflawed. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child.

ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื ื ืฉืืช ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

These three bills are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it, but it contains only one witness. These are the three invalid bills of divorce with regard to which the Sages said: And if she marries, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืœื ืฉื ืชื ื• ืœื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื“ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื—ื•ืชืžื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื˜ ืืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written for her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband can contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. Nevertheless, the witnessesโ€™ signatures are not an essential part of a bill of divorce.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืชื• ืœื™ื›ื ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื’ื˜ ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ืชื ืœื ืชืฆื ื”ื›ื ืชืฆื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But are there no other invalid bills of divorce? But isnโ€™t there an outdated bill of divorce, where the husband and wife were secluded after it was written and before it was handed to her? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the cases: There, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, if the woman remarries on the basis of that bill of divorce she need not leave her husband; here, she must leave him.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืชืฆื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, even though the lineage of their children is unflawed. But according to the one who says that here she need not leave, what is there to say? Why is an outdated bill of divorce not mentioned in the mishna?

ื”ืชื ืชื™ื ืฉื ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“

The Gemara answers: There is still a difference between the cases, as there, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, she may remarry ab initio; while here, it is only after the fact, if she remarried, that she need not leave her second husband.

ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื’ื˜ ืงืจื— ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there a bare bill of divorce, i.e., one that is missing a signature, which is also invalid? The Gemara answers: There, if the woman remarries based on this bill of divorce the offspring of her second marriage is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉื ื” ืžืžื˜ื‘ืข ืฉื˜ื‘ืขื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that anyone who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce renders the offspring a mamzer. Therefore, a bare bill of divorce is completely invalid, and if the woman remarries the offspring is a mamzer. But according to the Rabbis, who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? Why is a bare bill of divorce not listed in the mishna?

ื”ืชื ืชืฆื ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื

The Gemara answers that there is still a distinction between the cases: There, if the woman remarries she must leave her husband, even according to the Rabbis who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer; here, she need not leave her husband.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืชืฆื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ืฉืจ ืœื ืงื ืžื™ื™ืจื™

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband; but according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Apparently the mishna is not speaking about a folded and tied bill of divorce, which requires a signature on every fold, but rather, an open bill of divorce. There are only three cases in which this type of a bill of divorce is invalid in a manner that obligates the woman, if she remarries, to leave her second husband, although the lineage of their children would be unflawed.

ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืฉืœื•ื ืžืœื›ื•ืช ื”ืชื ืชืฆื ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there a bill of divorce that is invalid due to the need to maintain peaceful relations with the kingdom, as it mentions the year of the divorce according to the age of another kingdom? Why is this not mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara answers: There, she must leave her husband; here, she need not leave her husband.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืชืฆื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ (ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ)

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband. But according to the one who says that she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, the offspring is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

(ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ) ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ืœื“ ื›ืฉืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir; but according to the Rabbis, who hold that in the case of a bill of divorce in which the date is written according to the age of another kingdom, the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The one who holds that in the cases in the mishna the woman must leave her husband establishes it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, according to whom there, the offspring is a mamzer. Here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ื•ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

The mishna emphasizes twice that there are three bills of divorce that are invalid. The Gemara asks: What does the quantity in the first clause serve to exclude? And what does the quantity in the latter clause serve to exclude?

ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื ื™ ื“ืืžืจืŸ

The Gemara answers: The quantity mentioned in the first clause serves to exclude those invalid bills of divorce that we previously mentioned, which are treated either more or less stringently than the cases in the mishna.

ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื‘ื™ื ื’ื˜ ืžืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื ืชื ื• ืœื” ื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื—ืชื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The quantity mentioned in the latter clause serves to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce for a certain woman from a country overseas, and gives it to her but does not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and she remarries, her second husband must divorce her, and the offspring of their marriage is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื“ ืžืžื–ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืขืฉื” ื™ื˜ืœื ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื•ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืชื ื ื• ืœื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื—ืชื

And the Rabbis say: The offspring of the second marriage is not a mamzer; rather, how should the agent act to rectify the situation? He should take the bill of divorce from her, and give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Since this problem can be corrected, it is not listed in the mishna as one of the invalid bills of divorce.

ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•

ยง It is stated in the mishna: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting, but has no signatures of witnesses on it at all, is invalid; nevertheless, if the woman remarries, the lineage of the child born from her second husband is unflawed. Rav says: We learned that this is referring to his handwriting.

ืื”ื™ื™ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืืจื™ืฉื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara asks: With regard to which clause of the mishna is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the first clause, what Rav said is obvious, as the case of his handwriting is explicitly taught in that clause.

ื•ืืœื ืืžืฆืขื™ืชื ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืœื ืืกื™ืคื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืขื“ ืื—ื“

And if it is rather referring to the middle clause, i.e., an undated bill of divorce, why does it matter whether it was written in the husbandโ€™s handwriting? Arenโ€™t there signatures of witnesses on it? Rather, it must be referring to the latter clause in the mishna, i.e., a bill of divorce that has a date written on it but has only the signature of one witness.

ื•ื“ื•ืงื ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ืœื

And Rav is saying that specifically when the bill of divorce is written in his handwriting and has the signature of one witness, the womanโ€™s child from her second husband is of unflawed lineage. But if it is written in a scribeโ€™s handwriting, even if it includes the signature of one witness, the childโ€™s lineage is not unflawed, but rather he is a mamzer, as the bill of divorce is completely invalid.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื• ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ื›ืฉืจ

And Shmuel says: Even where it is written in a scribeโ€™s handwriting and it has the signature of a witness, the lineage of the child is unflawed, as we learned in a mishna (87b): In the case of a bill of divorce in which the scribeโ€™s handwriting is recognizable and there is one witness signed, it is valid.

ื•ืจื‘ ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืชื™ื ืฉื ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“

And Rav would respond: Is that case comparable? There, in that case, the mishna indicates that the woman may marry ab initio. Therefore, it must be a case where the scribe also signed as a second witness. But here, in the case of this mishna, the bill of divorce is invalid and the woman may not remarry; it is only if she remarried and had a child that his lineage is rendered unflawed after the fact. Therefore, it must be referring to a case where the husband wrote it.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืกืคืจื ื“ืžื•ื‘ื”ืง ื•ื”ื ื‘ืกืคืจื ื“ืœื ืžื•ื‘ื”ืง

And Shmuel, who holds that both cases are referring to a bill of divorce that was written by a scribe but not signed by the scribe as one of the witnesses, would respond that the contradiction is not difficult. That mishna, where the bill of divorce is rendered valid ab initio, is referring to the handwriting of an expert scribe, who can presumably be relied upon to have written the bill of divorce properly and only according to the husbandโ€™s instructions, and this mishna is referring to the handwriting of a scribe who is not expert. Since the bill of divorce was not signed by two witnesses, there is concern that the scribe did not write it properly.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ืคื

And similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in accordance with the opinion of Rav: We learned that the mishna is referring to his handwriting. Rabbi Elazar, assuming that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan was explaining the middle clause, said to him: Arenโ€™t there signatures of witnesses in the bill of divorce? Why is the husbandโ€™s handwriting necessary? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: I was referring to the latter clause, in which there is only one witness.

ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชืฆื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืชืฆื

ยง With regard to the three invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna, sometimes Rav said that if the woman remarries based on one of these bills of divorce she must leave her second husband, and sometimes Rav said that she need not leave.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืœื ืชืฆื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืชืฆื

How so? How can the contradiction between Ravโ€™s statements be explained? If she already has children from her second husband then she need not leave him, as, if she is required to leave him there will be slander that their children are mamzerim. But if she does not have children from him, she must leave him.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืกืคืง ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื• ืกืคืง ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื‘ืžื•ืช

Mar Zutra bar Toviya raises an objection to Ravโ€™s opinion from a mishna (Yevamot 30b). With regard to a woman whose husband died childless [yevama] but who is prohibited from marrying her late husbandโ€™s brother [yavam] because he is a forbidden relative to her, not only is she herself exempt from levirate marriage, but she causes any rival wives of hers to be exempt as well, even if they are not forbidden relatives to the brother. The mishna lists fifteen examples of such forbidden relatives (Yevamot 2a). And if any of these fifteen women had undergone a betrothal or divorce whose status is uncertain with the deceased brother, those rival wives must perform the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza] and may not enter into levirate marriage, since they are possibly the rival wives of a forbidden relative.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืกืคืง ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื–ืจืง ืœื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื• ื–ื”ื• ืกืคืง ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

How could there be a betrothal whose status is uncertain? If he threw her money or a document as betrothal in the public domain, and the item was possibly closer to her, whereby she could acquire the object and become betrothed, and possibly closer to him, preventing her from acquiring it, this is a case of a betrothal whose status is uncertain.

ืกืคืง ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืกืคืง ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ

How can there be a divorce whose status is uncertain? It is in the cases of invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna here: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it but it contains only one witness. In each of the three cases, this is considered a divorce whose status is uncertain.

ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืชืฆื ืฆืจืชื” ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื‘ื•ืžื™

And if you say that despite this womanโ€™s problematic divorce she need not leave her second husband, her rival wife from her first marriage might come to enter into levirate marriage after the first husbandโ€™s death, assuming that she was already divorced. This would violate the ruling of the mishna in tractate Yevamot that she may not do so, as the status of the divorce is uncertain and therefore it is uncertain whether she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

ืชืชื™ื‘ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืš ื›ืœื•ื ื—ืฉืฉื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara answers: She may enter into levirate marriage, and there is no problem with that, as the difficulty with the bill of divorce is merely a concern by rabbinic law. By Torah law it is a complete bill of divorce, and the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage.

ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชืฆื ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชืฆื

Contrary to Ravโ€™s opinion that a woman who remarries based on one of these bills of divorce must leave her second husband unless they have children, Levi says that she is never required to leave him, whether or not they have children. And similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that she is never required to leave him.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืœืคืชื ื“ืžืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื›ื•ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืชืฆื ื•ืงืจืฆื™ืช ืฉื‘ืขืžื™ืจ ืื™ื ื” ืคื•ืกืœืช ื‘ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

And similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to the sons of Rabbi แธคalafta of Huna: Your father said the following two statements that I heard from him: That she is never required to leave him, and that a kartzit in the sheaf does not disqualify water of purification (see Numbers 19:17โ€“19). Even if a kartzit drinks from this water, it may still be sprinkled on a person in order to purify him from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.

ืžืื™ ืงืจืฆื™ืช ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื‘ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื›ื™ืคื™

The Gemara asks: What is a kartzit? Abaye said that it is a species of fly [didveta] that is found between the sheaves.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื“ื ื™ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืคื•ืช ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืฆืฆืช ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื™ื•ื ื” ื•ืงืจืฆื™ืช

Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina raises an objection to this ruling from the Mishna (Para 9:3): All birds disqualify water of purification by drinking from it, because some of the water spills from the birdโ€™s beak back into the basin after being disqualified by having been in the birdโ€™s mouth. This is the halakha with regard to all birds except for the pigeon, because it sucks the water, which prevents it from spilling back. And if it is so that a kartzit does not disqualify water of purification, let the mishna teach that all birds disqualify except for the pigeon and the kartzit.

ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ื“ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืœื ืคืกืœื” ื•ืงื˜ื ื” ืคืกืœื” ื•ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืขื“ ื›ื–ื™ืช

The Gemara answers: The matter is not clear-cut, as, while a large kartzit does not disqualify the water, a small one does disqualify it. This ruling is not mentioned in the mishna, as it is not common to all species of kartzit. The Gemara asks: And how small must a kartzit be to disqualify water of purification? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ami who said: The size is up to an olive-bulk.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช

ยง It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Even if there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but rather he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. But when I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to monetary documents as well.

ื•ืจื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืœื ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื•ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื

The Gemara asks: But does Rav hold that with regard to monetary documents the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar? Doesnโ€™t Rabbi Elazar teach in the mishna that on the basis of this bill of divorce a woman can collect the amount written in her marriage contract even from liened property? Apparently, Rabbi Elazarโ€™s ruling has monetary ramifications as well.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืชืจืชื™ ืืžืจ ื•ืจื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ื

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar made two statements, i.e., his ruling was both with regard to divorce and with regard to monetary documents. And Rav holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to one issue, i.e., divorce, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one issue, monetary documents.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

And similarly, Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yannai says: This does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yannai not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar at all, as opposed to the other amoraโ€™im? The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yannai is saying: According to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this bill of divorce does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

And similarly, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says that Reish Lakish says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar at all. The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yoแธฅanan is saying: According to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื“ื ืœืžืจื™ ื‘ืจ ืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent the following request to Marei bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce or whether the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

ืื“ื”ื›ื™ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืžืจื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

Meanwhile, before this request reached him, Rav Huna died. Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to Marei bar Mar: My father said in the name of Rava like this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And our teachers who are well-versed in matters of halakha also said in the name of our teacher that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav แธคama bar Gurya, referred to as our teachers, says that our teacher Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื• ื”ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืžืจื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

There are those who say a different version of this statement: And our colleagues who are well versed in matters of halakha and the disciples of our teacher said in the name of our teacher that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav แธคisda, Rabba bar Rav Hunaโ€™s colleague, said that Rav แธคama bar Gurya, his teacher, said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Elazar, the amora, says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืฉืœื—ื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื–ื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื–ื• ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื‘ื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื˜ืœ

MISHNA: With regard to a case of two men who sent their wives two identical bills of divorce with an agent, as both their names and their wivesโ€™ names are identical, and the two bills of divorce were mixed up, the agent should hand both bills of divorce to this wife and both of them to that wife, so that each wife definitely receives her bill of divorce, although it is unclear which one is hers. Therefore, if one of the bills of divorce was lost before it was given to both women, the other is void, because it is unknown which bill of divorce was meant for which woman.

ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉื›ืชื‘ื• ื›ืœืœ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื ืชืŸ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

With regard to five husbands who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce, i.e., who wrote one common bill of divorce for their wives with a single formula, writing that so-and-so divorces his wife so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of these bills of divorce that were combined into one bill are valid; and the bill must be handed to each and every wife individually, so they will all be divorced by it.

ื”ื™ื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื˜ื•ืคืก ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืืช ืฉื”ืขื“ื™ื ื ื™ืงืจื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื›ืฉืจ

If the scribe was writing a separate formula in the bill of divorce for each and every couple, and the witnesses signed below, the formula with which the witnessesโ€™ signatures are read is valid. In other words, the formula directly underneath which they signed is valid, and the others are not valid.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืขื“ื™ ืžืกื™ืจื” ื›ืจืชื™ ื”ื ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžื’ืจืฉื”

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that the two bills of divorce that were mixed up should be handed to both wives? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as had it been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, since he says that witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, handing both bills of divorce to both wives would not enable the divorce of each woman to take effect. This is because the witnesses do not know at the time of the transmission with which one of the bills of divorce she is being divorced.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืžื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื” ืœืฉืžื” ื ืชื™ื ื” ืœืฉืžื” ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™

Abaye said: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Say that although Rabbi Elazar requires the writing of the bill of divorce to be for her sake, i.e., with the specific woman and man for whom it is designated in mind, does he require giving it to her for her sake? Although the transmission of the bill of divorce is what causes it to take effect, it need not be done with the designated woman in mind. Therefore, the divorce here is valid, as the bill of divorce was definitely given to the wife for whom it was intended.

ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉื›ืชื‘ื• ื›ืœืœ ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ืœืœ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื˜ื•ืคืก

ยง It is stated in the mishna: With regard to five husbands who wrote a general wording in a bill of divorce, all of them can divorce their wives with it. But if a separate formula was written for each, only the last one is valid. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case of the general wording, and what are the circumstances of the case of the separate formula that was written for each couple?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœื›ื•ืœืŸ ื–ื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื”ื• ื˜ื•ืคืก

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If there is one date and one formula written for all of them, such as: On such-and-such a date so-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so, that is a general wording. If a separate date and formula was written for each and every one of them, that is considered a separate formula.

ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ

And Reish Lakish says:

Scroll To Top