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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 10, 2016 | ืœืณ ื‘ืื“ืจ ืืณ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Gittin 88

Can a witness sign on the side of a document? ย 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.ย 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? ย And why? ย Under the surface of today’s daf there are a number of issues relating to authority of leadersย and the responsibility placed in their hands.


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

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื™ืฉ ืจื™ื•ื— ืžืœืžืขืœื”

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.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืžืœื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืžืœื™ืš ื•ื›ืชื‘

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.

ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืžืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจืช ืžืœืžืขืœื” ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืชืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ื™ื” ืžืชื—ืชื ื“ืžื’ื™ืœืชื

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.

ื—ืชืžื• ืขื“ื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ื“ืฃ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื—ืชื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืชื ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื• ื›ืœืคื™ ื›ืชื‘

ยง 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? Wouldnโ€™t 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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืงื™ืฃ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื‘ืฆื“ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื—ื–ื™ ื”ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืœืคื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ืœื™ืชื›ืฉืจ

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 witnessesโ€™ signatures faces the text, and let it be rendered valid.

ื”ืชื ื“ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืขื™ื‘ืจื

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื‘ืฆื“ ืกื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ืืช ืฉื”ืขื“ื™ื ื ื™ืงืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืคื• ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืื™ ื“ืจืžื™ ื›ืขื™ื‘ืจื ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ืื™ ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ืื™ ืžื™ืงืจื™

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.

ืืœื ืจื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ืกืงื™ ื”ื•ื” ื—ืชื™ื

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.

ื’ื˜ ืฉื›ืชื‘ื• ืขื‘ืจื™ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ื›ืฉืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื—ืชื ืกื•ืคืจ ืฉื ื™ื ื•

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื™ื

Rav แธคisda 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.

ื”ื”ื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื—ืชื ื™ื ื“ืืชื™ื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื“ื”ื•ื• ื™ื“ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื˜ื•ืคืกื ื•ืœื—ืชื™ืžืช ื™ื“ื ื“ื—ื“ ืกื”ื“ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื›ืฉื•ืจื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื—ืชื ืกื•ืคืจ ืฉื ื™ื ื•

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 scribeโ€™s handwriting, and the signature of one witness. Rabbi Abbahu thought to deem it valid based on the scribeโ€™s 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.

ื›ืชื‘ ื—ื ื™ื›ืชื• ื•ื—ื ื™ื›ืชื” ื›ืฉืจ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื ื™ื›ืช ืื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื›ืฉืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืคืกื•ืœ

ยง 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 oneโ€™s 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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืชื‘ ื—ื ื™ื›ืช ืื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi แธคanina said, that the writing of a surname from oneโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื›ื™ ืชื•ืœื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืชื

Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this opinion is derived? It is the verse: โ€œWhen you will beget children, and childrenโ€™s children, and you will have been long [venoshantem] in the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 4:25). Since the word venoshantem stems from the word yashan, meaning old, it is derived that after oneโ€™s grandchildren, or three generations, a matter is considered old and forgotten.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืจื‘ื” ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืขื” ื‘ืชื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื™ืจื‘ืขื ื‘ืŸ ื ื‘ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืื—ื™ื” ื•ืื—ืื‘ ื‘ืŸ ืขืžืจื™ ื•ื™ื”ื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื ืžืฉื™ ื•ืคืงื— ื‘ืŸ ืจืžืœื™ื”ื• ื•ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ื“ื™ ื•ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื•ืžืœืœื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื”ืฉื‘ืขื” ื ืคื—ื” ื ืคืฉื” ื‘ืื” ืฉืžืฉื” ื‘ืขื•ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืคืจื”

ยง 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: โ€œShe who has given birth to seven languishes; her spirit droops; her sun is gone down while it was yet day, she is ashamed and confoundedโ€ (Jeremiah 15:9).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืžื™ ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื›ื™ ืชื•ืœื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ื

Rabbi Ammi said: What is the verse from which it is derived that it was seven dynasties? โ€œWhen you will beget children, and childrenโ€™s children, and you will have been long in the land, and will deal corruptly, and make a graven image, even the form of anythingโ€ฆyou will soon utterly perish from off the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 4:25โ€“26). The phrase โ€œwhen you will beget children and childrenโ€™s childrenโ€ is interpreted homiletically as indicating seven generations. This is because the term โ€œyou will beget [tolid],โ€ written in the singular form, indicates one generation, and the word โ€œchildren,โ€ written in the plural form, indicates two generations. Since the word โ€œchildrenโ€ is mentioned three times, seven generations are indicated in total.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืืœื” ื•ื™ืขืฉ ื”ืจืข ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ื”ืณ ืจืง ืœื ื›ืžืœื›ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืœื” ืฉืœืžื ืืกืจ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: It is written with regard to Hoshea ben Elah: โ€œAnd he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, yet not as the kings of Israel that were before himโ€ (IIย Kings 17:2). But it is written subsequently: โ€œAgainst him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyriaโ€ (IIย 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?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื•ืชืŸ ืคืจื“ืกื™ืื•ืช ืฉื”ื•ืฉื™ื‘ ื™ืจื‘ืขื ืขืœ ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืขืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืจื’ืœ ื‘ื ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื‘ื™ื˜ืœืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื›ืŸ ืœื ืขืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืจื’ืœ ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืœื ืขืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืจื’ืœ ื™ืœื›ื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื™

Rav said to them: Hoshea came and canceled those guards [pardeseiโ€™ot] 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ืจืฉ ืžืจื™ืžืจ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฉืงื•ื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ืจืขื” ื•ื™ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœื™ื ื• ื›ื™ ืฆื“ื™ืง ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืฆื“ื™ืง ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ื• ื•ื™ืฉืงื•ื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ืจืขื” ื•ื™ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœื™ื ื•

Rav แธคisda said that Mar Ukva said, and some say that it was Rav แธคisda who said that Rabbi Yirmeya said, that Mareimar interpreted a verse homiletically as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œAnd so the Lord has watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous [tzaddik]โ€ (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?

ืืœื ืฆื“ืงื” ืขืฉื” ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื’ืœื” ื’ืœื•ืช ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื’ืœื•ืช ื™ื›ื ื™ื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื’ืœื•ืช ื™ื›ื ื™ื” ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื•ื”ืžืกื’ืจ ืืœืฃ

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: โ€œAnd the craftsmen [แธฅarash] and the smiths [masger] a thousandโ€ (IIย 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.

ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ื ืขืฉื• ื”ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืกื’ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืกื•ื’ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ืŸ ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืžื” ืืœืฃ

Why are the great scholars referred to as craftsmen [แธฅarash] and smiths [masger]? แธคarash, containing the same letters as แธฅeresh, 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.

ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืœื•ื ื•ืฉื ืชื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื”ืจื” ื“ืžืจื™ ืขืœืžื ืชืžื ื™ ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื•ื

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov 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: โ€œYou will soon [maher] utterly perish.โ€ Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื’ื˜ ืžืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืขืฉื” ืžื” ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœืš (ื•ื›ืฉืจ)

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื’ื˜ ื”ืžืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืคื•ืกืœ

GEMARA: Rav Naแธฅman 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 husbandโ€™s death.

ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืคื•ืกืœ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

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.

ืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ืชื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืชื›ืฉืจ ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ืคืกืœ ืœื ืœื™ืคืกืœ

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 womanโ€™s permission to remarry as well. If they are not legally capable of compulsion, it should not disqualify her either.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื’ื˜ ืžืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืืžืจื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ื•ืชื•ืœื” ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžืคืงืขืช ืขืฆืžื” ืžื™ื“ ื‘ืขืœื”

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžืคืกื™ืœ ื ืžื™ ืœืคืกื•ืœ

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื‘ื“ื•ืชื ื”ื™ื

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.

ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื™ื—ืœืฃ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ืžื™ื—ืœืฃ

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.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงื ืžืขืฉื” ืื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ืื ืŸ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืืชื” ืžื•ืฆื ืื’ื•ืจื™ืื•ืช ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื›ื“ื™ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ืจืฉืื™ ืœื”ื™ื–ืงืง ืœื”ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืœื” ื”ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ื ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช

ยง 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 arenโ€™t 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: โ€œNow these are the ordinances which you shall set before themโ€ (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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื”ื•ื“ืื•ืช ื•ื”ืœื•ืื•ืช

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื—ื‘ืœื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื—ื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื•

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ืฆื ืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ืืžืชืœื

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.

ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืืžืชืœื ื’ื™ืจืฉ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืขืœ ืชื ืื™ ื–ืจืง ืœื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื• ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืืžืชืœื

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืืกืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืื’ื‘ืจื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”

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 didnโ€™t 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.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ืฆื ืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื•ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช

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 monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื™ืฉ ืจื™ื•ื— ืžืœืžืขืœื”

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.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืžืœื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืžืœื™ืš ื•ื›ืชื‘

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.

ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืžืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจืช ืžืœืžืขืœื” ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืชืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ื™ื” ืžืชื—ืชื ื“ืžื’ื™ืœืชื

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.

ื—ืชืžื• ืขื“ื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ื“ืฃ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื—ืชื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืชื ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื• ื›ืœืคื™ ื›ืชื‘

ยง 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? Wouldnโ€™t 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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืงื™ืฃ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื‘ืฆื“ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื—ื–ื™ ื”ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืœืคื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ืœื™ืชื›ืฉืจ

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 witnessesโ€™ signatures faces the text, and let it be rendered valid.

ื”ืชื ื“ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืขื™ื‘ืจื

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื‘ืฆื“ ืกื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ืืช ืฉื”ืขื“ื™ื ื ื™ืงืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืคื• ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืื™ ื“ืจืžื™ ื›ืขื™ื‘ืจื ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ืื™ ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ืื™ ืžื™ืงืจื™

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.

ืืœื ืจื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ืกืงื™ ื”ื•ื” ื—ืชื™ื

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.

ื’ื˜ ืฉื›ืชื‘ื• ืขื‘ืจื™ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื›ืชื‘ ืกื•ืคืจ ื•ืขื“ ื›ืฉืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื—ืชื ืกื•ืคืจ ืฉื ื™ื ื•

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื™ื

Rav แธคisda 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.

ื”ื”ื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ื—ืชื ื™ื ื“ืืชื™ื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื“ื”ื•ื• ื™ื“ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื˜ื•ืคืกื ื•ืœื—ืชื™ืžืช ื™ื“ื ื“ื—ื“ ืกื”ื“ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื›ืฉื•ืจื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื—ืชื ืกื•ืคืจ ืฉื ื™ื ื•

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 scribeโ€™s handwriting, and the signature of one witness. Rabbi Abbahu thought to deem it valid based on the scribeโ€™s 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.

ื›ืชื‘ ื—ื ื™ื›ืชื• ื•ื—ื ื™ื›ืชื” ื›ืฉืจ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื ื™ื›ืช ืื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื›ืฉืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืคืกื•ืœ

ยง 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 oneโ€™s 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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืชื‘ ื—ื ื™ื›ืช ืื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi แธคanina said, that the writing of a surname from oneโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื›ื™ ืชื•ืœื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืชื

Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this opinion is derived? It is the verse: โ€œWhen you will beget children, and childrenโ€™s children, and you will have been long [venoshantem] in the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 4:25). Since the word venoshantem stems from the word yashan, meaning old, it is derived that after oneโ€™s grandchildren, or three generations, a matter is considered old and forgotten.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืจื‘ื” ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืขื” ื‘ืชื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื™ืจื‘ืขื ื‘ืŸ ื ื‘ื˜ ื•ื‘ืขืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืื—ื™ื” ื•ืื—ืื‘ ื‘ืŸ ืขืžืจื™ ื•ื™ื”ื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื ืžืฉื™ ื•ืคืงื— ื‘ืŸ ืจืžืœื™ื”ื• ื•ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ื“ื™ ื•ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื•ืžืœืœื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื”ืฉื‘ืขื” ื ืคื—ื” ื ืคืฉื” ื‘ืื” ืฉืžืฉื” ื‘ืขื•ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืคืจื”

ยง 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: โ€œShe who has given birth to seven languishes; her spirit droops; her sun is gone down while it was yet day, she is ashamed and confoundedโ€ (Jeremiah 15:9).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืžื™ ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื›ื™ ืชื•ืœื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ื

Rabbi Ammi said: What is the verse from which it is derived that it was seven dynasties? โ€œWhen you will beget children, and childrenโ€™s children, and you will have been long in the land, and will deal corruptly, and make a graven image, even the form of anythingโ€ฆyou will soon utterly perish from off the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 4:25โ€“26). The phrase โ€œwhen you will beget children and childrenโ€™s childrenโ€ is interpreted homiletically as indicating seven generations. This is because the term โ€œyou will beget [tolid],โ€ written in the singular form, indicates one generation, and the word โ€œchildren,โ€ written in the plural form, indicates two generations. Since the word โ€œchildrenโ€ is mentioned three times, seven generations are indicated in total.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืืœื” ื•ื™ืขืฉ ื”ืจืข ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ื”ืณ ืจืง ืœื ื›ืžืœื›ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืœื” ืฉืœืžื ืืกืจ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: It is written with regard to Hoshea ben Elah: โ€œAnd he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, yet not as the kings of Israel that were before himโ€ (IIย Kings 17:2). But it is written subsequently: โ€œAgainst him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyriaโ€ (IIย 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?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื•ืชืŸ ืคืจื“ืกื™ืื•ืช ืฉื”ื•ืฉื™ื‘ ื™ืจื‘ืขื ืขืœ ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืขืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืจื’ืœ ื‘ื ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื‘ื™ื˜ืœืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื›ืŸ ืœื ืขืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืจื’ืœ ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืื•ืชืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืœื ืขืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืจื’ืœ ื™ืœื›ื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื™

Rav said to them: Hoshea came and canceled those guards [pardeseiโ€™ot] 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ืจืฉ ืžืจื™ืžืจ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฉืงื•ื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ืจืขื” ื•ื™ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœื™ื ื• ื›ื™ ืฆื“ื™ืง ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืฆื“ื™ืง ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ื• ื•ื™ืฉืงื•ื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ืจืขื” ื•ื™ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœื™ื ื•

Rav แธคisda said that Mar Ukva said, and some say that it was Rav แธคisda who said that Rabbi Yirmeya said, that Mareimar interpreted a verse homiletically as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œAnd so the Lord has watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous [tzaddik]โ€ (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?

ืืœื ืฆื“ืงื” ืขืฉื” ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื’ืœื” ื’ืœื•ืช ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื’ืœื•ืช ื™ื›ื ื™ื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื’ืœื•ืช ื™ื›ื ื™ื” ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื•ื”ืžืกื’ืจ ืืœืฃ

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: โ€œAnd the craftsmen [แธฅarash] and the smiths [masger] a thousandโ€ (IIย 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.

ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ื ืขืฉื• ื”ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืกื’ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืกื•ื’ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ืŸ ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืžื” ืืœืฃ

Why are the great scholars referred to as craftsmen [แธฅarash] and smiths [masger]? แธคarash, containing the same letters as แธฅeresh, 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.

ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืœื•ื ื•ืฉื ืชื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื”ืจื” ื“ืžืจื™ ืขืœืžื ืชืžื ื™ ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื•ื

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov 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: โ€œYou will soon [maher] utterly perish.โ€ Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื’ื˜ ืžืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืขืฉื” ืžื” ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœืš (ื•ื›ืฉืจ)

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื’ื˜ ื”ืžืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืคื•ืกืœ

GEMARA: Rav Naแธฅman 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 husbandโ€™s death.

ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืคื•ืกืœ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•

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.

ืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ืชื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืชื›ืฉืจ ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ืคืกืœ ืœื ืœื™ืคืกืœ

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 womanโ€™s permission to remarry as well. If they are not legally capable of compulsion, it should not disqualify her either.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื’ื˜ ืžืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืืžืจื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ื•ืชื•ืœื” ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžืคืงืขืช ืขืฆืžื” ืžื™ื“ ื‘ืขืœื”

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ื— ื”ื’ื˜ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ื ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืžืคืกื™ืœ ื ืžื™ ืœืคืกื•ืœ

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.

ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื‘ื“ื•ืชื ื”ื™ื

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.

ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื™ื—ืœืฃ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ืžื™ื—ืœืฃ

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.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงื ืžืขืฉื” ืื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ืื ืŸ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืืชื” ืžื•ืฆื ืื’ื•ืจื™ืื•ืช ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื“ื™ื ื™ื”ื ื›ื“ื™ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ืจืฉืื™ ืœื”ื™ื–ืงืง ืœื”ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืœื” ื”ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ื ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช

ยง 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 arenโ€™t 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: โ€œNow these are the ordinances which you shall set before themโ€ (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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื”ื•ื“ืื•ืช ื•ื”ืœื•ืื•ืช

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื—ื‘ืœื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื—ื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื™ื”ื•

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ืฆื ืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ืืžืชืœื

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.

ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืืžืชืœื ื’ื™ืจืฉ ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืขืœ ืชื ืื™ ื–ืจืง ืœื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื” ืกืคืง ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœื• ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืืžืชืœื

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืืกืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืื’ื‘ืจื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”

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 didnโ€™t 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.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ืฆื ืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื•ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช

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