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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 10, 2016 | 诇壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • 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 88

Can a witness sign on the side of a document? 聽Can you sign using a family name that people no longer use? Jewish courts can force a husband to give a get as long as in the end he agrees to it but a get forced by a non Jewish court is not valid, unless there are also Jews involved and they tell him to do what the Jews are telling you to do. Whether or not this get (by non Jews) is invalid by the rabbis or by Torah law is a debate in the gemara.聽Do the courts outside of Israel where there is no emicha have jurisdiction to force husbands to give a get? In what ways are they limited in their power and in what ways are they not limited? 聽And why? 聽Under the surface of today’s daf there are a number of issues relating to authority of leaders聽and the responsibility placed in their hands.


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

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬砖 专讬讜讞 诪诇诪注诇讛

so too, it is a case where there is space above the latter one, so it is clearly not a separate bill of divorce that was cut.

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讗讬诪诇讬讱 讜讻转讘

The Gemara asks: But although it is clearly one bill of divorce, perhaps the scribe wrote the first part of the bill of divorce and then the husband changed his mind about divorcing his wife, thereby canceling the bill of divorce, and afterward he changed his mind again and the scribe then wrote the rest of the bill of divorce in the second column, after the first part was already canceled.

讚讻转讘 讛专讬 讗转 诪诇诪讟讛 讜诪讜转专转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: It is a case where he wrote: You are hereby, on the bottom of the first column, and continued: Permitted to marry any man, at the top of the second column. In this case there is obvious continuity between the columns, and he certainly did not change his mind in the meantime. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it happened that he stopped in the middle of the sentence? The Gemara answers: We are not concerned to such a degree; it is highly unlikely that he changed his mind in the middle of a sentence.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬注讛 讘讬讛 诪转讞转讗 讚诪讙讬诇转讗

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is referring to a case where the stretch of the scroll is clear, so it is obvious that it is a complete piece of parchment and that nothing was cut out of it.

讞转诪讜 注讚讬诐 讘专讗砖 讛讚祝 讜讻讜壮 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讞转讬诐 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛转诐 讘砖讙讙讜 讻诇驻讬 讻转讘

搂 It is stated in the mishna: If the witnesses signed at the top of the column or on the side, the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? Wouldn鈥檛 Rav sign on the side? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of Rav, he would sign with the roof, i.e., the top, of his signature facing the text of the document, so it was clear that he was signing the document.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽讬祝 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜诇讬讞讝讬 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇驻讬 讻转讘 讜诇讬转讻砖专

The Gemara asks: But this contradicts that which is taught in the mishna: If the scribe placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the top of that bill of divorce, writing both bills of divorce in the same column in opposite directions, and the witnesses signed in the middle between them, both bills of divorce are invalid. According to the above answer, let us see with regard to which one of them the top of the witnesses鈥 signatures faces the text, and let it be rendered valid.

讛转诐 讚专诪讬 诇讬讛 讻注讬讘专讗

The Gemara answers: There, in the mishna, it is a case where the signatures are not parallel to the text. Rather, they are placed like a door bolt, perpendicular to the text, so they are not written in the same direction as either of the bills of divorce.

讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞讬拽专讬谉 讘住讜驻讜 讻砖专 讜讗讬 讚专诪讬 讻注讬讘专讗 诇讗讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讬拽专讬 讜诇讗讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讬拽专讬

The Gemara challenges: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that if the scribe placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle, the bill of divorce at the end of which the witnesses are read is valid. And if the mishna is referring to a case where the signatures are placed like a bolt, perpendicular to the text, they are neither read with this bill of divorce, nor are they read with that one.

讗诇讗 专讘 讘讚讬住拽讬 讛讜讛 讞转讬诐

Rather, a different answer must be offered: Rav would sign only letters and rulings on the side, where the location of his signature is inconsequential. By contrast, bills of divorce and monetary documents must be signed beneath the text.

讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜讻讜壮 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讜注讚 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞转诐 住讜驻专 砖谞讬谞讜

搂 It is stated in the mishna: With regard to a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, or in which one witness signed in Hebrew and one witness signed in Greek, or if a bill of divorce has the writing of a scribe, and the scribe identifies his handwriting, and one witness verifies his signature, it is valid as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. Rabbi Yirmeya says: We learned that the mishna means that the scribe signed the bill of divorce as a witness; his handwriting in the text is not sufficient.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗

Rav 岣sda says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that there is no concern that the scribe signed unlawfully.

讛讛讬讗 讻转讜讘转 讞转谞讬诐 讚讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讛讜讜 讬讚注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟讜驻住讗 讜诇讞转讬诪转 讬讚讗 讚讞讚 住讛讚讗 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞转诐 住讜驻专 砖谞讬谞讜

The Gemara relates: There was a certain marriage contract that was brought before Rabbi Abbahu, which people recognized and verified its formula, i.e., the scribe鈥檚 handwriting, and the signature of one witness. Rabbi Abbahu thought to deem it valid based on the scribe鈥檚 handwriting and the witness. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: We learned that the mishna means that the scribe signed the bill of divorce; his handwriting alone is not sufficient.

讻转讘 讞谞讬讻转讜 讜讞谞讬讻转讛 讻砖专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞谞讬讻转 讗讘讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讚讜专讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 讻砖专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 驻住讜诇

搂 It is stated in the mishna: With regard to the names of the husband and wife, if the scribe wrote his surname or nickname and her surname or nickname, it is valid. The Sages taught (Tosefta 8:6): A surname from one鈥檚 forefathers is valid with regard to bills of divorce until ten generations after the forefather. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is valid for only three generations; from this point forward it is invalid.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讘 讞谞讬讻转 讗讘讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 注讚 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi 岣nina said, that the writing of a surname from one鈥檚 forefathers is valid with regard to bills of divorce until three generations after the forefather? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讻讬 转讜诇讬讚 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐 讜谞讜砖谞转诐

Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this opinion is derived? It is the verse: 鈥淲hen you will beget children, and children鈥檚 children, and you will have been long [venoshantem] in the land鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:25). Since the word venoshantem stems from the word yashan, meaning old, it is derived that after one鈥檚 grandchildren, or three generations, a matter is considered old and forgotten.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 讞专讘讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖注讘讚讜 讘讛 砖讘注讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讬专讘注诐 讘谉 谞讘讟 讜讘注砖讗 讘谉 讗讞讬讛 讜讗讞讗讘 讘谉 注诪专讬 讜讬讛讜讗 讘谉 谞诪砖讬 讜驻拽讞 讘谉 专诪诇讬讛讜 讜诪谞讞诐 讘谉 讙讚讬 讜讛讜砖注 讘谉 讗诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜诪诇诇讛 讬讜诇讚转 讛砖讘注讛 谞驻讞讛 谞驻砖讛 讘讗讛 砖诪砖讛 讘注讜讚 讬讜诪诐 讘讜砖讛 讜讞驻专讛

搂 The Gemara cites another derivation from this verse. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The first destruction of Eretz Yisrael did not occur until seven dynasties and their courts committed idol worship in it, and they are these: Jeroboam, son of Nevat; and Baasa, son of Ahijah; and Ahab, son of Omri; and Jehu, son of Nimshi; and Pekah, son of Remaliah; and Menahem, son of Gadi; and Hoshea, son of Elah, as it is stated: 鈥淪he who has given birth to seven languishes; her spirit droops; her sun is gone down while it was yet day, she is ashamed and confounded鈥 (Jeremiah 15:9).

讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讻讬 转讜诇讬讚 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐

Rabbi Ammi said: What is the verse from which it is derived that it was seven dynasties? 鈥淲hen you will beget children, and children鈥檚 children, and you will have been long in the land, and will deal corruptly, and make a graven image, even the form of anything鈥ou will soon utterly perish from off the land鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:25鈥26). The phrase 鈥渨hen you will beget children and children鈥檚 children鈥 is interpreted homiletically as indicating seven generations. This is because the term 鈥測ou will beget [tolid],鈥 written in the singular form, indicates one generation, and the word 鈥渃hildren,鈥 written in the plural form, indicates two generations. Since the word 鈥渃hildren鈥 is mentioned three times, seven generations are indicated in total.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讛讜砖注 讘谉 讗诇讛 讜讬注砖 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 专拽 诇讗 讻诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻转讬讘 注诇讬讜 注诇讛 砖诇诪谞讗住专 讜讙讜壮

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: It is written with regard to Hoshea ben Elah: 鈥淎nd he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, yet not as the kings of Israel that were before him鈥 (II聽Kings 17:2). But it is written subsequently: 鈥淎gainst him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria鈥 (II聽Kings 17:3) and exiled the people of Israel. If Hoshea performed less evil than the previous kings of Israel, why was his generation the one that was punished?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜转谉 驻专讚住讬讗讜转 砖讛讜砖讬讘 讬专讘注诐 注诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讙诇 讘讗 讛讜砖注 讜讘讬讟诇谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 诇讗 注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讙诇 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讜转谉 砖谞讬诐 砖诇讗 注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讙诇 讬诇讻讜 讘砖讘讬

Rav said to them: Hoshea came and canceled those guards [pardesei鈥檕t] that Jeroboam placed on the roads in order to prevent the subjects of the kingdom of Israel from ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, and even so the subjects of the kingdom of Israel did not ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival. The Holy One, Blessed be He, therefore said that for those years that the subjects of the kingdom of Israel did not ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival they will go into captivity.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖拽讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专注讛 讜讬讘讬讗讛 注诇讬谞讜 讻讬 爪讚讬拽 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 诪砖讜诐 讚爪讚讬拽 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讜讬砖拽讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专注讛 讜讬讘讬讗讛 注诇讬谞讜

Rav 岣sda said that Mar Ukva said, and some say that it was Rav 岣sda who said that Rabbi Yirmeya said, that Mareimar interpreted a verse homiletically as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd so the Lord has watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous [tzaddik]鈥 (Daniel 9:14)? How can it be that because the Lord, our God, is righteous, the Lord watched over the evil and brought it upon us?

讗诇讗 爪讚拽讛 注砖讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诐 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讙诇讛 讙诇讜转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讜注讚讬讬谉 讙诇讜转 讬讻谞讬讛 拽讬讬诪转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讬讻谞讬讛 讛讞专砖 讜讛诪住讙专 讗诇祝

Rather, it must be interpreted as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed charity [tzedaka] with the people of Israel by exiling them in the exile of Zedekiah while the exile of Jeconiah still existed in Babylonia, as it is written with regard to the exile of Jeconiah: 鈥淎nd the craftsmen [岣rash] and the smiths [masger] a thousand鈥 (II聽Kings 24:16). The great scholars, referred to in this verse as craftsmen and smiths, of the generation were exiled with Jeconiah, and they were therefore able to give guidance to those who were exiled in the time of Zedekiah when they came to Babylonia.

讞专砖 砖讘砖注讛 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 谞注砖讜 讛讻诇 讻讞专砖讬谉 诪住讙专 讻讬讜谉 砖住讜讙专讬谉 砖讜讘 讗讬谞谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讜讻诪讛 讗诇祝

Why are the great scholars referred to as craftsmen [岣rash] and smiths [masger]? 岣rash, containing the same letters as 岣resh, meaning deaf, is an allusion to the fact that when they would introduce a statement of Torah everyone would become like deaf persons, as they would not understand. Masger, which stems from the root samekh, gimmel, reish, meaning to close, alludes to the fact that once they would close a certain matter that they did not comprehend, no one would introduce it again, as no one was capable of solving such a problem. And how many scholars were there? There were one thousand.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 砖讛拽讚讬诐 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讜谞讜砖谞转诐

Ulla says that God performed charity with the people of Israel by advancing their exile by two years relative to the numerical value of the word venoshantem that appears in the verse. Although the numerical value of the word is 852, God exiled the Jewish people from the land after only 850 years, so that the punishment mentioned subsequently, i.e., utter annihilation, would not be fulfilled either.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讛专讛 讚诪专讬 注诇诪讗 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讜转专转讬 讛讜讗

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Learn from this numerical value that soon [mehera] for the Master of the World is eight hundred and fifty-two years, as it is stated in the verse in Deuteronomy: 鈥淵ou will soon [maher] utterly perish.鈥 Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon.

诪转谞讬壮 讙讟 诪注讜砖讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻砖专 讜讘讙讜讬诐 驻住讜诇 讜讘讙讜讬诐 讞讜讘讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注砖讛 诪讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讱 (讜讻砖专)

MISHNA: With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled by a Jewish court it is valid, but if he was compelled by gentiles it is invalid. But with regard to gentiles they may beat him at the request of the Jewish court and say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you, and it is a valid divorce.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讟 讛诪注讜砖讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻讚讬谉 讻砖专 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by a Jewish court to give his wife, if they did so lawfully, as the halakha obligated the husband to divorce his wife, it is valid. This is referring to cases where sexual intercourse is forbidden or specific cases where the Sages instituted that the husband is obligated to divorce his wife. If they did so unlawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it is not considered entirely invalid, as it disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest after her husband鈥檚 death.

讜讘讙讜讬诐 讻讚讬谉 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞 讛讙讟 讗讬谉 讘讜

And in a case where the husband was compelled by gentiles, if he was compelled lawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest. But if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, and the wife is not even disqualified from marrying a priest.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讙讜讬诐 讘谞讬 注砖讜讬讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬转讻砖讜专讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转讻砖专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 注砖讜讬讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬驻住诇 诇讗 诇讬驻住诇

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to the statement that if the husband was compelled by gentiles the divorce is invalid but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest, whichever way you look at it, the statement is difficult. If gentiles are legally capable of compulsion, it should be rendered valid with regard to the woman鈥檚 permission to remarry as well. If they are not legally capable of compulsion, it should not disqualify her either.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讙讟 诪注讜砖讛 讘讙讜讬诐 讻砖专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 驻住讜诇 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讜诇讻转 讜转讜诇讛 注爪诪讛 讘讙讜讬 讜诪驻拽注转 注爪诪讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛

Rav Mesharshiyya says: By Torah law a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by gentiles to write and give his wife is valid, and what is the reason the Sages said that it is invalid? It is so that each and every woman will not go and depend on a gentile to compel her husband to divorce her through temptation or bribery, and thereby she will release herself from her husband unlawfully.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞 讛讙讟 讗讬谉 讘讜 讜谞讛讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讻讬砖专讗诇 讜诪驻住讬诇 谞诪讬 诇驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that where the husband was compelled by gentiles the bill of divorce is valid by Torah law, why did Shmuel rule that if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce? Let a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles to give his wife be compared to a case where he was compelled unlawfully by Jews, and disqualify the wife from marrying a priest as well.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

Rather, that statement of Rav Mesharshiyya, that by Torah law a bill of divorce is valid even if the husband was compelled by gentiles to write it and give it to his wife, is a mistake. In principle it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, even if the husband is required by law to divorce his wife.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讚讬谉 讘讻讚讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讞诇祝 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讘讻讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

And what is the reason that the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest in this case? It is because the case where the husband was compelled lawfully by gentiles can be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews. If a bill of divorce that gentiles compelled the husband to write and give to his wife carries no weight, people might think that this is likewise the halakha with regard to a case where Jews compelled the husband to do so. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree that even if the husband was compelled by gentiles the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest. By contrast, the case where the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles cannot be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews, as they are too dissimilar. Therefore, a bill of divorce that gentiles unlawfully compelled the husband to write and give his wife is entirely invalid.

讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪注砖讛 讗讙讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讗谞谉 讜转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讗讙讜专讬讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讚讬谞讬讛诐 讻讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讛讬讝拽拽 诇讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇讛 讛诪砖驻讟讬诐 讗砖专 转砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

Abaye found Rav Yosef sitting in court as the judge and compelling husbands to give their wives bills of divorce. He said to him: But aren鈥檛 we ordinary people, not ordained judges? And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Tarfon would say: With regard to any place where you find gentile courts [agoriot], even if their laws are like Jewish laws, you may not attend them, as it is stated: 鈥淣ow these are the ordinances which you shall set before them鈥 (Exodus 21:1). It is derived from here that one may go to court only before them, i.e., Jewish judges, and not before gentiles. Alternatively, it is derived that one may go to court before them, i.e., ordained judges, and not before ordinary people. Since we are not ordained judges, how can you perform a distinctly judicial act?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讬讛讜 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛讜讚讗讜转 讜讛诇讜讗讜转

Rav Yosef said to him: We see ourselves as agents of the ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael, and we are performing our task as judges on the basis of their agency, just as is the case with regard to cases of admissions and loans, which we attend to on the same basis.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讝讬诇讜转 讜讞讘诇讜转 谞诪讬 讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讬讛讜 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If so, why is the halakha that judges living outside Eretz Yisrael do not judge in cases of robbery and personal injury? They should judge in these cases as well. The Gemara answers: When we perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency, it is with regard to common matters, e.g., cases that pertain to the halakhot of admissions and loans, which arise frequently between people. But with regard to uncommon matters, e.g., cases of robbery or personal injury, we do not perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency.

诪转谞讬壮 讬爪讗 砖诪讛 讘注讬专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讙讜专砖转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 砖诐 讗诪转诇讗

MISHNA: If a rumor circulated in the city that an unmarried woman is betrothed, she is considered to be betrothed. Similarly, if a rumor circulated that a married woman is divorced, she is divorced, provided there is no valid alternative explanation [amatla] for the rumor.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗诪转诇讗 讙讬专砖 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 转谞讗讬 讝专拽 诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讛 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讗诪转诇讗

What is considered a valid explanation? For example, it is a case where there is a rumor that so-and-so divorced his wife but that the bill of divorce was given to her conditionally. It is therefore possible that the condition was not fulfilled and she is not actually divorced. Similarly, if there is a rumor that a woman was betrothed but that the man threw her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, to her, and it is uncertain whether it was closer to her and uncertain whether it was closer to him, and therefore the status of their betrothal is likewise uncertain, this is considered a valid explanation.

讙诪壮 讜讗住专讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讙讘专讗 讜讛讗 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

GEMARA: With regard to the statement that a woman who is rumored to be divorced is divorced, do we render her forbidden to her husband if she is married to a priest? But didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say that we are not concerned about any rumor that circulates after marriage? Accordingly, a woman should not be compelled to leave her husband merely on the basis of a rumor.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 砖诪讛 讘注讬专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜诪讙讜专砖转

The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If a rumor circulated in the city that a woman is betrothed, she is betrothed, and she may not marry another man until she receives a bill of divorce from the man to whom she is rumored to be betrothed. If she is rumored to have been betrothed to a certain man and subsequently divorced from him,

  • 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 88

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 88

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬砖 专讬讜讞 诪诇诪注诇讛

so too, it is a case where there is space above the latter one, so it is clearly not a separate bill of divorce that was cut.

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讗讬诪诇讬讱 讜讻转讘

The Gemara asks: But although it is clearly one bill of divorce, perhaps the scribe wrote the first part of the bill of divorce and then the husband changed his mind about divorcing his wife, thereby canceling the bill of divorce, and afterward he changed his mind again and the scribe then wrote the rest of the bill of divorce in the second column, after the first part was already canceled.

讚讻转讘 讛专讬 讗转 诪诇诪讟讛 讜诪讜转专转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: It is a case where he wrote: You are hereby, on the bottom of the first column, and continued: Permitted to marry any man, at the top of the second column. In this case there is obvious continuity between the columns, and he certainly did not change his mind in the meantime. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it happened that he stopped in the middle of the sentence? The Gemara answers: We are not concerned to such a degree; it is highly unlikely that he changed his mind in the middle of a sentence.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬注讛 讘讬讛 诪转讞转讗 讚诪讙讬诇转讗

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is referring to a case where the stretch of the scroll is clear, so it is obvious that it is a complete piece of parchment and that nothing was cut out of it.

讞转诪讜 注讚讬诐 讘专讗砖 讛讚祝 讜讻讜壮 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讞转讬诐 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛转诐 讘砖讙讙讜 讻诇驻讬 讻转讘

搂 It is stated in the mishna: If the witnesses signed at the top of the column or on the side, the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? Wouldn鈥檛 Rav sign on the side? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of Rav, he would sign with the roof, i.e., the top, of his signature facing the text of the document, so it was clear that he was signing the document.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽讬祝 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜诇讬讞讝讬 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇驻讬 讻转讘 讜诇讬转讻砖专

The Gemara asks: But this contradicts that which is taught in the mishna: If the scribe placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the top of that bill of divorce, writing both bills of divorce in the same column in opposite directions, and the witnesses signed in the middle between them, both bills of divorce are invalid. According to the above answer, let us see with regard to which one of them the top of the witnesses鈥 signatures faces the text, and let it be rendered valid.

讛转诐 讚专诪讬 诇讬讛 讻注讬讘专讗

The Gemara answers: There, in the mishna, it is a case where the signatures are not parallel to the text. Rather, they are placed like a door bolt, perpendicular to the text, so they are not written in the same direction as either of the bills of divorce.

讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞讬拽专讬谉 讘住讜驻讜 讻砖专 讜讗讬 讚专诪讬 讻注讬讘专讗 诇讗讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讬拽专讬 讜诇讗讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讬拽专讬

The Gemara challenges: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that if the scribe placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle, the bill of divorce at the end of which the witnesses are read is valid. And if the mishna is referring to a case where the signatures are placed like a bolt, perpendicular to the text, they are neither read with this bill of divorce, nor are they read with that one.

讗诇讗 专讘 讘讚讬住拽讬 讛讜讛 讞转讬诐

Rather, a different answer must be offered: Rav would sign only letters and rulings on the side, where the location of his signature is inconsequential. By contrast, bills of divorce and monetary documents must be signed beneath the text.

讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜讻讜壮 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讜注讚 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞转诐 住讜驻专 砖谞讬谞讜

搂 It is stated in the mishna: With regard to a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, or in which one witness signed in Hebrew and one witness signed in Greek, or if a bill of divorce has the writing of a scribe, and the scribe identifies his handwriting, and one witness verifies his signature, it is valid as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. Rabbi Yirmeya says: We learned that the mishna means that the scribe signed the bill of divorce as a witness; his handwriting in the text is not sufficient.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗

Rav 岣sda says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that there is no concern that the scribe signed unlawfully.

讛讛讬讗 讻转讜讘转 讞转谞讬诐 讚讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讛讜讜 讬讚注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟讜驻住讗 讜诇讞转讬诪转 讬讚讗 讚讞讚 住讛讚讗 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞转诐 住讜驻专 砖谞讬谞讜

The Gemara relates: There was a certain marriage contract that was brought before Rabbi Abbahu, which people recognized and verified its formula, i.e., the scribe鈥檚 handwriting, and the signature of one witness. Rabbi Abbahu thought to deem it valid based on the scribe鈥檚 handwriting and the witness. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: We learned that the mishna means that the scribe signed the bill of divorce; his handwriting alone is not sufficient.

讻转讘 讞谞讬讻转讜 讜讞谞讬讻转讛 讻砖专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞谞讬讻转 讗讘讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讚讜专讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 讻砖专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 驻住讜诇

搂 It is stated in the mishna: With regard to the names of the husband and wife, if the scribe wrote his surname or nickname and her surname or nickname, it is valid. The Sages taught (Tosefta 8:6): A surname from one鈥檚 forefathers is valid with regard to bills of divorce until ten generations after the forefather. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is valid for only three generations; from this point forward it is invalid.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讘 讞谞讬讻转 讗讘讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 注讚 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi 岣nina said, that the writing of a surname from one鈥檚 forefathers is valid with regard to bills of divorce until three generations after the forefather? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讻讬 转讜诇讬讚 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐 讜谞讜砖谞转诐

Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this opinion is derived? It is the verse: 鈥淲hen you will beget children, and children鈥檚 children, and you will have been long [venoshantem] in the land鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:25). Since the word venoshantem stems from the word yashan, meaning old, it is derived that after one鈥檚 grandchildren, or three generations, a matter is considered old and forgotten.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 讞专讘讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖注讘讚讜 讘讛 砖讘注讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讬专讘注诐 讘谉 谞讘讟 讜讘注砖讗 讘谉 讗讞讬讛 讜讗讞讗讘 讘谉 注诪专讬 讜讬讛讜讗 讘谉 谞诪砖讬 讜驻拽讞 讘谉 专诪诇讬讛讜 讜诪谞讞诐 讘谉 讙讚讬 讜讛讜砖注 讘谉 讗诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜诪诇诇讛 讬讜诇讚转 讛砖讘注讛 谞驻讞讛 谞驻砖讛 讘讗讛 砖诪砖讛 讘注讜讚 讬讜诪诐 讘讜砖讛 讜讞驻专讛

搂 The Gemara cites another derivation from this verse. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The first destruction of Eretz Yisrael did not occur until seven dynasties and their courts committed idol worship in it, and they are these: Jeroboam, son of Nevat; and Baasa, son of Ahijah; and Ahab, son of Omri; and Jehu, son of Nimshi; and Pekah, son of Remaliah; and Menahem, son of Gadi; and Hoshea, son of Elah, as it is stated: 鈥淪he who has given birth to seven languishes; her spirit droops; her sun is gone down while it was yet day, she is ashamed and confounded鈥 (Jeremiah 15:9).

讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讻讬 转讜诇讬讚 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐

Rabbi Ammi said: What is the verse from which it is derived that it was seven dynasties? 鈥淲hen you will beget children, and children鈥檚 children, and you will have been long in the land, and will deal corruptly, and make a graven image, even the form of anything鈥ou will soon utterly perish from off the land鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:25鈥26). The phrase 鈥渨hen you will beget children and children鈥檚 children鈥 is interpreted homiletically as indicating seven generations. This is because the term 鈥測ou will beget [tolid],鈥 written in the singular form, indicates one generation, and the word 鈥渃hildren,鈥 written in the plural form, indicates two generations. Since the word 鈥渃hildren鈥 is mentioned three times, seven generations are indicated in total.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讛讜砖注 讘谉 讗诇讛 讜讬注砖 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 专拽 诇讗 讻诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻转讬讘 注诇讬讜 注诇讛 砖诇诪谞讗住专 讜讙讜壮

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: It is written with regard to Hoshea ben Elah: 鈥淎nd he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, yet not as the kings of Israel that were before him鈥 (II聽Kings 17:2). But it is written subsequently: 鈥淎gainst him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria鈥 (II聽Kings 17:3) and exiled the people of Israel. If Hoshea performed less evil than the previous kings of Israel, why was his generation the one that was punished?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜转谉 驻专讚住讬讗讜转 砖讛讜砖讬讘 讬专讘注诐 注诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讙诇 讘讗 讛讜砖注 讜讘讬讟诇谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 诇讗 注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讙诇 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讜转谉 砖谞讬诐 砖诇讗 注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讙诇 讬诇讻讜 讘砖讘讬

Rav said to them: Hoshea came and canceled those guards [pardesei鈥檕t] that Jeroboam placed on the roads in order to prevent the subjects of the kingdom of Israel from ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, and even so the subjects of the kingdom of Israel did not ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival. The Holy One, Blessed be He, therefore said that for those years that the subjects of the kingdom of Israel did not ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival they will go into captivity.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖拽讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专注讛 讜讬讘讬讗讛 注诇讬谞讜 讻讬 爪讚讬拽 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 诪砖讜诐 讚爪讚讬拽 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讜讬砖拽讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专注讛 讜讬讘讬讗讛 注诇讬谞讜

Rav 岣sda said that Mar Ukva said, and some say that it was Rav 岣sda who said that Rabbi Yirmeya said, that Mareimar interpreted a verse homiletically as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd so the Lord has watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous [tzaddik]鈥 (Daniel 9:14)? How can it be that because the Lord, our God, is righteous, the Lord watched over the evil and brought it upon us?

讗诇讗 爪讚拽讛 注砖讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诐 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讙诇讛 讙诇讜转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讜注讚讬讬谉 讙诇讜转 讬讻谞讬讛 拽讬讬诪转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讬讻谞讬讛 讛讞专砖 讜讛诪住讙专 讗诇祝

Rather, it must be interpreted as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed charity [tzedaka] with the people of Israel by exiling them in the exile of Zedekiah while the exile of Jeconiah still existed in Babylonia, as it is written with regard to the exile of Jeconiah: 鈥淎nd the craftsmen [岣rash] and the smiths [masger] a thousand鈥 (II聽Kings 24:16). The great scholars, referred to in this verse as craftsmen and smiths, of the generation were exiled with Jeconiah, and they were therefore able to give guidance to those who were exiled in the time of Zedekiah when they came to Babylonia.

讞专砖 砖讘砖注讛 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 谞注砖讜 讛讻诇 讻讞专砖讬谉 诪住讙专 讻讬讜谉 砖住讜讙专讬谉 砖讜讘 讗讬谞谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讜讻诪讛 讗诇祝

Why are the great scholars referred to as craftsmen [岣rash] and smiths [masger]? 岣rash, containing the same letters as 岣resh, meaning deaf, is an allusion to the fact that when they would introduce a statement of Torah everyone would become like deaf persons, as they would not understand. Masger, which stems from the root samekh, gimmel, reish, meaning to close, alludes to the fact that once they would close a certain matter that they did not comprehend, no one would introduce it again, as no one was capable of solving such a problem. And how many scholars were there? There were one thousand.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 砖讛拽讚讬诐 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讜谞讜砖谞转诐

Ulla says that God performed charity with the people of Israel by advancing their exile by two years relative to the numerical value of the word venoshantem that appears in the verse. Although the numerical value of the word is 852, God exiled the Jewish people from the land after only 850 years, so that the punishment mentioned subsequently, i.e., utter annihilation, would not be fulfilled either.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讛专讛 讚诪专讬 注诇诪讗 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讜转专转讬 讛讜讗

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Learn from this numerical value that soon [mehera] for the Master of the World is eight hundred and fifty-two years, as it is stated in the verse in Deuteronomy: 鈥淵ou will soon [maher] utterly perish.鈥 Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon.

诪转谞讬壮 讙讟 诪注讜砖讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻砖专 讜讘讙讜讬诐 驻住讜诇 讜讘讙讜讬诐 讞讜讘讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注砖讛 诪讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讱 (讜讻砖专)

MISHNA: With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled by a Jewish court it is valid, but if he was compelled by gentiles it is invalid. But with regard to gentiles they may beat him at the request of the Jewish court and say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you, and it is a valid divorce.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讟 讛诪注讜砖讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻讚讬谉 讻砖专 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by a Jewish court to give his wife, if they did so lawfully, as the halakha obligated the husband to divorce his wife, it is valid. This is referring to cases where sexual intercourse is forbidden or specific cases where the Sages instituted that the husband is obligated to divorce his wife. If they did so unlawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it is not considered entirely invalid, as it disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest after her husband鈥檚 death.

讜讘讙讜讬诐 讻讚讬谉 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞 讛讙讟 讗讬谉 讘讜

And in a case where the husband was compelled by gentiles, if he was compelled lawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest. But if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, and the wife is not even disqualified from marrying a priest.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讙讜讬诐 讘谞讬 注砖讜讬讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬转讻砖讜专讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转讻砖专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 注砖讜讬讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬驻住诇 诇讗 诇讬驻住诇

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to the statement that if the husband was compelled by gentiles the divorce is invalid but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest, whichever way you look at it, the statement is difficult. If gentiles are legally capable of compulsion, it should be rendered valid with regard to the woman鈥檚 permission to remarry as well. If they are not legally capable of compulsion, it should not disqualify her either.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讙讟 诪注讜砖讛 讘讙讜讬诐 讻砖专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 驻住讜诇 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讜诇讻转 讜转讜诇讛 注爪诪讛 讘讙讜讬 讜诪驻拽注转 注爪诪讛 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛

Rav Mesharshiyya says: By Torah law a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by gentiles to write and give his wife is valid, and what is the reason the Sages said that it is invalid? It is so that each and every woman will not go and depend on a gentile to compel her husband to divorce her through temptation or bribery, and thereby she will release herself from her husband unlawfully.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞 讛讙讟 讗讬谉 讘讜 讜谞讛讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讻讬砖专讗诇 讜诪驻住讬诇 谞诪讬 诇驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that where the husband was compelled by gentiles the bill of divorce is valid by Torah law, why did Shmuel rule that if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce? Let a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles to give his wife be compared to a case where he was compelled unlawfully by Jews, and disqualify the wife from marrying a priest as well.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

Rather, that statement of Rav Mesharshiyya, that by Torah law a bill of divorce is valid even if the husband was compelled by gentiles to write it and give it to his wife, is a mistake. In principle it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, even if the husband is required by law to divorce his wife.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讚讬谉 讘讻讚讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讞诇祝 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讘讻讚讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

And what is the reason that the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest in this case? It is because the case where the husband was compelled lawfully by gentiles can be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews. If a bill of divorce that gentiles compelled the husband to write and give to his wife carries no weight, people might think that this is likewise the halakha with regard to a case where Jews compelled the husband to do so. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree that even if the husband was compelled by gentiles the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest. By contrast, the case where the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles cannot be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews, as they are too dissimilar. Therefore, a bill of divorce that gentiles unlawfully compelled the husband to write and give his wife is entirely invalid.

讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪注砖讛 讗讙讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讗谞谉 讜转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讗讙讜专讬讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讚讬谞讬讛诐 讻讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讛讬讝拽拽 诇讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇讛 讛诪砖驻讟讬诐 讗砖专 转砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

Abaye found Rav Yosef sitting in court as the judge and compelling husbands to give their wives bills of divorce. He said to him: But aren鈥檛 we ordinary people, not ordained judges? And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Tarfon would say: With regard to any place where you find gentile courts [agoriot], even if their laws are like Jewish laws, you may not attend them, as it is stated: 鈥淣ow these are the ordinances which you shall set before them鈥 (Exodus 21:1). It is derived from here that one may go to court only before them, i.e., Jewish judges, and not before gentiles. Alternatively, it is derived that one may go to court before them, i.e., ordained judges, and not before ordinary people. Since we are not ordained judges, how can you perform a distinctly judicial act?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讬讛讜 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛讜讚讗讜转 讜讛诇讜讗讜转

Rav Yosef said to him: We see ourselves as agents of the ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael, and we are performing our task as judges on the basis of their agency, just as is the case with regard to cases of admissions and loans, which we attend to on the same basis.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讝讬诇讜转 讜讞讘诇讜转 谞诪讬 讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讬讛讜 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞讜转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If so, why is the halakha that judges living outside Eretz Yisrael do not judge in cases of robbery and personal injury? They should judge in these cases as well. The Gemara answers: When we perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency, it is with regard to common matters, e.g., cases that pertain to the halakhot of admissions and loans, which arise frequently between people. But with regard to uncommon matters, e.g., cases of robbery or personal injury, we do not perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency.

诪转谞讬壮 讬爪讗 砖诪讛 讘注讬专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讙讜专砖转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 砖诐 讗诪转诇讗

MISHNA: If a rumor circulated in the city that an unmarried woman is betrothed, she is considered to be betrothed. Similarly, if a rumor circulated that a married woman is divorced, she is divorced, provided there is no valid alternative explanation [amatla] for the rumor.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗诪转诇讗 讙讬专砖 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 转谞讗讬 讝专拽 诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讛 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讗诪转诇讗

What is considered a valid explanation? For example, it is a case where there is a rumor that so-and-so divorced his wife but that the bill of divorce was given to her conditionally. It is therefore possible that the condition was not fulfilled and she is not actually divorced. Similarly, if there is a rumor that a woman was betrothed but that the man threw her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, to her, and it is uncertain whether it was closer to her and uncertain whether it was closer to him, and therefore the status of their betrothal is likewise uncertain, this is considered a valid explanation.

讙诪壮 讜讗住专讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讙讘专讗 讜讛讗 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

GEMARA: With regard to the statement that a woman who is rumored to be divorced is divorced, do we render her forbidden to her husband if she is married to a priest? But didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say that we are not concerned about any rumor that circulates after marriage? Accordingly, a woman should not be compelled to leave her husband merely on the basis of a rumor.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 砖诪讛 讘注讬专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜诪讙讜专砖转

The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If a rumor circulated in the city that a woman is betrothed, she is betrothed, and she may not marry another man until she receives a bill of divorce from the man to whom she is rumored to be betrothed. If she is rumored to have been betrothed to a certain man and subsequently divorced from him,

Scroll To Top