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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 22, 2015 | 讬壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 9

Similarities and differences between divorce documents of women and emancipation documents of Canaanite slaves.


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

诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讬讬 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪专讬讘讜讗 砖讘讛谉

He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it, as in that case it is possible that the master meant to include the slave in the portion that he is not giving. Consequently, the slave is not emancipated. In any case, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, when the document states: All my property, a distinction is drawn between the emancipated slave and the property, as claimed by Rava.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽讬诇住 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖谞讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 砖驻转讬诐 讬砖拽 诪砖讬讘 讚讘专讬诐 谞讻讜讞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an said: Even though Rabbi Yosei praised the ruling of Rabbi Shimon with regard to this issue, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the first tanna in that mishna. The Gemara elaborates how Rabbi Yosei bestowed praise. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Pe鈥檃 1:13): When these matters were said by the Sages before Rabbi Yosei, he recited this verse about him: 鈥淗e kisses the lips that give the right answer鈥 (Proverbs 24:26). Despite this praise, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讜注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讘谞讻住讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘注讘讚

With regard to Rav Adda bar Mattana鈥檚 proof, the Gemara asks: And did Rav Na岣an actually say this, that we do not divide the statement? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an said: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote all of his property to his slave, and afterward he recuperated and arose from his illness, he can retract his transfer of property with regard to the gift of the property to the slave, but he cannot retract his transfer with regard to the emancipation of the slave.

讞讜讝专 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘注讘讚 砖讛专讬 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara clarifies: He can retract the transfer of the property, as it is the gift of a person on his deathbed. By rabbinic decree, no formal act of acquisition is required for a gift of this kind, as it was given based on the assumption that the owner is about to die. If he does survive, the gift is canceled. But he cannot retract the transfer with regard to the emancipation of the slave, as it has been publicized about the slave that he has the status of a freeman. This shows that Rav Na岣an accepts the principle that we divide the statement, as one portion of this document is accepted while the other part is rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讻专讜转 讙讬讟讗 讛讜讗

Rather, Rav Ashi said: There, where Rav Na岣an ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he did not do so because he holds that we do not divide the statement, as this is not the issue in dispute. Instead, this is the reason: Because it is not a document that fully severs the ownership of the slave. A bill of manumission must fully sever the bond between slave and master. Since the master left over some property, which may include the slave, for himself, the bill of manumission does not fully sever their relationship. However, with regard to the basic issue of whether or not we divide a single statement, Rav Na岣an agrees with Rava that we do divide a statement.

讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讜专专讬谉 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 注专注专 讻诪讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注专注专 讞讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if there are those who contest a bill of divorce that was brought within Eretz Yisrael, where it is not necessary to state the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, it should be ratified through its signatories. The Gemara asks: How many people raise this contestation? If we say that this contestation is by one person, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Everyone agrees that a contestation to a document may be brought by no fewer than two people?

讜讗诇讗 注专注专 转专讬 转专讬 讜转专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚住诪讻转 讗讛谞讬 住诪讜讱 讗讛谞讬 讗诇讗 注专注专 讚讘注诇

But rather, you will say that the contestation involves two people claiming that the bill of divorce is a forgery, who are subsequently countered by two others who ratify it. If so, they are two and two. What did you see that you relied on these witnesses? Rely instead on these. Why does the court accept the testimony of the witnesses who ratify the bill of divorce rather than those who contest its validity? The Gemara therefore concludes that this is referring to a case in which one person contests, however, the contestation is raised by the husband himself, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and is unable to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce has witnesses signed on it, it should be ratified through its signatories. The witnesses themselves or someone who recognizes their signatures should ratify it, in the manner of typical documents.

讗讞讚 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 砖讜讜 诇诪讜诇讬讱 讜诇诪讘讬讗 讜讝讜 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讚专讻讬诐 砖砖讜讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 诇砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐

Both bills of divorce and bills of manumission are the same with regard to the halakhot of delivering the document from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas and with regard to bringing it from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the agents for both types of documents must declare that it was written and signed in their presence, and their statement is accepted. And this is one of the ways in which the halakhot of bills of divorce are equal to the halakhot of bills of manumission.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞专砖 讞专砖 讘专 讗转讜讬讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: He is unable to say? If we say that this is referring to a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to halakha?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讬拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent gave the bill of divorce to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute. In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything.

讗讞讚 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讬讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 诇砖讬讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 砖讜讜 诇诪讜诇讬讱 讜诇诪讘讬讗 讜讻诇 讙讟 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚 讻讜转讬 驻住讜诇 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转

搂 The mishna teaches that both bills of divorce and bills of manumission are the same in that the agent who brings them is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Sages taught: In three ways the halakhot of bills of divorce are equal to the halakhot of bills of manumission: They are equal with regard to one who delivers and one who brings, i.e., if one takes a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission to a country overseas from Eretz Yisrael, or if he brings it from there, he is required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And any document that has a Samaritan witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission, as Samaritan witnesses are permitted to serve as witnesses for these documents. And with regard to all documents

讛注讜诇讬诐 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜转诪讬讛谉 讙讜讬诐 讻砖讬专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讗讜诪专 转谉 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

that are produced in gentile courts [arkaot], even though their signatories are gentiles, they are valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. These documents are not valid when prepared by gentiles. And according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, bills of divorce and manumission are equal in four ways, the three aforementioned halakhot and also with regard to a man who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave. They are equal in that if he desires to retract his instruction with regard to both of these documents, before they have reached the woman or slave, he can retract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, they state the number three to exclude this opinion of Rabbi Meir, by emphasizing that there are only three ways, not four. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, what does the number four serve to exclude? Wouldn鈥檛 it have been enough to say that Rabbi Meir adds another case?

诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇讞转讜诐 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜诪诪诇讗讬诐 讗转 讛拽专注讬诐 讚讬讜

The Gemara answers: The Sages mention this number to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who do not know how to sign, i.e., they do not know how to write their names, one tears blank paper for them, meaning that a stencil of their names is fashioned from blank paper and placed on the bill of divorce. And the witnesses fill in the gaps with ink so that their names appear on the document.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讞转讜诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to bills of divorce. However, with regard to bills of manumission and all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and sign, they sign, and if not, they do not sign. Rabbi Meir agrees with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that bills of divorce and bills of manumission are different with regard to this issue, and he mentioned the number to exclude the possibility that the halakha stated by the first tanna of this baraita applies to both types of documents.

拽专讬讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 拽讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讞讜转诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讞转讜诐 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛诐

With regard to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 statement, the Gemara asks: Reading, who mentioned anything about it? Why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mention a need for the witnesses to be able to read when the discussion is about a witness who does not know how to sign? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If witnesses do not know how to read, then one reads in their presence and they sign. And if they do not know how to sign, then one tears paper for them and they sign. Once the baraita is emended, it is clear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was responding to the statement of the previous tanna.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else that can be added to the list of ways in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission are equal? But isn鈥檛 there a case taught in the mishna (13a): If a person on his deathbed says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or this bill of manumission to my slave, and he dies, they should not give the bill after his death. However, if he said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and he dies, they should give it after his death. Apparently, this is another halakha in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission share equal status.

讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘砖讟专讜转 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘砖讟专讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: When the baraita teaches the ways in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission are equal, it is referring only to a matter that does not apply to typical documents and it does not teach any matter that is equally applicable to typical documents.

讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛讜讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讙讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉

The Gemara explains: As Ravin sent from Eretz Yisrael in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: You should know that Rabbi Elazar sent this teaching to the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, in the name of our teacher, Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to the case of a person on his deathbed who says: Write a deed of transfer and give with it one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then dies before they had the opportunity to write the document, one does not write and give the document. Why not?

砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara explains: Perhaps he resolved to transfer these one hundred dinars to him only with a deed of transfer, and a deed of transfer of property is not written after the death of the owner. This shows that other documents are also not written after one鈥檚 death, which means that this halakha is not specific to bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Therefore, it is not listed among the ways in which these two documents are similar.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 诇砖诪讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But isn鈥檛 there the halakha that both bills of divorce and bills of manumission must be written for her sake, i.e., for the sake of the particular woman or slave to whom they are given? Why isn鈥檛 this halakha included in the list?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, this is included in the statement: The two documents are similar with regard to the halakhot of delivering and bringing, as he maintains that this requirement to write the document for the sake of the recipient is the primary reason why the agents must state that it was written and signed in their presence. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who holds that the reason for this statement is to ratify the bill of divorce, this is difficult.

讜转讜 讘讬谉 诇专讘讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬讻讗 诪讞讜讘专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And furthermore, both according to the opinion of Rabba and according to the opinion of Rava, there is the case of bills which were written and signed while they were attached to the ground, e.g., on a leaf attached to a tree, which invalidates both bills of divorce and bills of manumission. The Gemara explains: When the baraita teaches its list it is referring solely to issues that cause the documents to be rendered invalid by rabbinic law. It does not teach cases involving invalidation by Torah law. Since these two cases, i.e., documents not written for the recipient鈥檚 sake or when they are attached to the ground, are not valid by Torah law, the baraita did not mention these cases.

讜讛讗 注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讚驻住讜诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara challenges this response: But there is the example of documents written in gentile courts, which is an invalidation of documents that applies by Torah law, and yet the baraita teaches this halakha. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a bill of divorce that was given with valid witnesses who observe the transmission of a legal document, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says in a mishna (10b): Witnesses of the transmission of a bill of divorce effect the divorce. In his opinion, the effectiveness of the document depends on the witnesses who observe its transmission, not those who sign the bill of divorce. Consequently, a bill of divorce that was signed in a gentile court is rendered invalid by rabbinic law.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬专讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇砖讬讟转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of that mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Even these, bills of divorce and bills of manumission, are valid, and Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Shimon accepted the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, one can learn by inference that the first tanna does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Instead, he holds that the witnesses who sign effect a divorce. Yet even so, this tanna listed the cases where bills of divorce from gentile courts are invalidated, despite the fact that they are invalid by Torah law.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 9

诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讬讬 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪专讬讘讜讗 砖讘讛谉

He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it, as in that case it is possible that the master meant to include the slave in the portion that he is not giving. Consequently, the slave is not emancipated. In any case, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, when the document states: All my property, a distinction is drawn between the emancipated slave and the property, as claimed by Rava.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽讬诇住 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖谞讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 砖驻转讬诐 讬砖拽 诪砖讬讘 讚讘专讬诐 谞讻讜讞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an said: Even though Rabbi Yosei praised the ruling of Rabbi Shimon with regard to this issue, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the first tanna in that mishna. The Gemara elaborates how Rabbi Yosei bestowed praise. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Pe鈥檃 1:13): When these matters were said by the Sages before Rabbi Yosei, he recited this verse about him: 鈥淗e kisses the lips that give the right answer鈥 (Proverbs 24:26). Despite this praise, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讜注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讘谞讻住讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘注讘讚

With regard to Rav Adda bar Mattana鈥檚 proof, the Gemara asks: And did Rav Na岣an actually say this, that we do not divide the statement? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an said: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote all of his property to his slave, and afterward he recuperated and arose from his illness, he can retract his transfer of property with regard to the gift of the property to the slave, but he cannot retract his transfer with regard to the emancipation of the slave.

讞讜讝专 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘注讘讚 砖讛专讬 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara clarifies: He can retract the transfer of the property, as it is the gift of a person on his deathbed. By rabbinic decree, no formal act of acquisition is required for a gift of this kind, as it was given based on the assumption that the owner is about to die. If he does survive, the gift is canceled. But he cannot retract the transfer with regard to the emancipation of the slave, as it has been publicized about the slave that he has the status of a freeman. This shows that Rav Na岣an accepts the principle that we divide the statement, as one portion of this document is accepted while the other part is rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讻专讜转 讙讬讟讗 讛讜讗

Rather, Rav Ashi said: There, where Rav Na岣an ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he did not do so because he holds that we do not divide the statement, as this is not the issue in dispute. Instead, this is the reason: Because it is not a document that fully severs the ownership of the slave. A bill of manumission must fully sever the bond between slave and master. Since the master left over some property, which may include the slave, for himself, the bill of manumission does not fully sever their relationship. However, with regard to the basic issue of whether or not we divide a single statement, Rav Na岣an agrees with Rava that we do divide a statement.

讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讜专专讬谉 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 注专注专 讻诪讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注专注专 讞讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if there are those who contest a bill of divorce that was brought within Eretz Yisrael, where it is not necessary to state the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, it should be ratified through its signatories. The Gemara asks: How many people raise this contestation? If we say that this contestation is by one person, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Everyone agrees that a contestation to a document may be brought by no fewer than two people?

讜讗诇讗 注专注专 转专讬 转专讬 讜转专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚住诪讻转 讗讛谞讬 住诪讜讱 讗讛谞讬 讗诇讗 注专注专 讚讘注诇

But rather, you will say that the contestation involves two people claiming that the bill of divorce is a forgery, who are subsequently countered by two others who ratify it. If so, they are two and two. What did you see that you relied on these witnesses? Rely instead on these. Why does the court accept the testimony of the witnesses who ratify the bill of divorce rather than those who contest its validity? The Gemara therefore concludes that this is referring to a case in which one person contests, however, the contestation is raised by the husband himself, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and is unable to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce has witnesses signed on it, it should be ratified through its signatories. The witnesses themselves or someone who recognizes their signatures should ratify it, in the manner of typical documents.

讗讞讚 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 砖讜讜 诇诪讜诇讬讱 讜诇诪讘讬讗 讜讝讜 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讚专讻讬诐 砖砖讜讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 诇砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐

Both bills of divorce and bills of manumission are the same with regard to the halakhot of delivering the document from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas and with regard to bringing it from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the agents for both types of documents must declare that it was written and signed in their presence, and their statement is accepted. And this is one of the ways in which the halakhot of bills of divorce are equal to the halakhot of bills of manumission.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞专砖 讞专砖 讘专 讗转讜讬讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛讙讟 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: He is unable to say? If we say that this is referring to a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to halakha?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讬拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent gave the bill of divorce to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute. In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything.

讗讞讚 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讬讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 诇砖讬讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 砖讜讜 诇诪讜诇讬讱 讜诇诪讘讬讗 讜讻诇 讙讟 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚 讻讜转讬 驻住讜诇 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转

搂 The mishna teaches that both bills of divorce and bills of manumission are the same in that the agent who brings them is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Sages taught: In three ways the halakhot of bills of divorce are equal to the halakhot of bills of manumission: They are equal with regard to one who delivers and one who brings, i.e., if one takes a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission to a country overseas from Eretz Yisrael, or if he brings it from there, he is required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And any document that has a Samaritan witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission, as Samaritan witnesses are permitted to serve as witnesses for these documents. And with regard to all documents

讛注讜诇讬诐 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜转诪讬讛谉 讙讜讬诐 讻砖讬专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讗讜诪专 转谉 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

that are produced in gentile courts [arkaot], even though their signatories are gentiles, they are valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. These documents are not valid when prepared by gentiles. And according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, bills of divorce and manumission are equal in four ways, the three aforementioned halakhot and also with regard to a man who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave. They are equal in that if he desires to retract his instruction with regard to both of these documents, before they have reached the woman or slave, he can retract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, they state the number three to exclude this opinion of Rabbi Meir, by emphasizing that there are only three ways, not four. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, what does the number four serve to exclude? Wouldn鈥檛 it have been enough to say that Rabbi Meir adds another case?

诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇讞转讜诐 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讬讬专 讞诇拽 讜诪诪诇讗讬诐 讗转 讛拽专注讬诐 讚讬讜

The Gemara answers: The Sages mention this number to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who do not know how to sign, i.e., they do not know how to write their names, one tears blank paper for them, meaning that a stencil of their names is fashioned from blank paper and placed on the bill of divorce. And the witnesses fill in the gaps with ink so that their names appear on the document.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讟专讜转 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讞转讜诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜转诪讬谉

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to bills of divorce. However, with regard to bills of manumission and all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and sign, they sign, and if not, they do not sign. Rabbi Meir agrees with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that bills of divorce and bills of manumission are different with regard to this issue, and he mentioned the number to exclude the possibility that the halakha stated by the first tanna of this baraita applies to both types of documents.

拽专讬讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 注讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇拽专讜转 拽讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讞讜转诪讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讞转讜诐 诪拽专注讬谉 诇讛诐

With regard to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 statement, the Gemara asks: Reading, who mentioned anything about it? Why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mention a need for the witnesses to be able to read when the discussion is about a witness who does not know how to sign? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If witnesses do not know how to read, then one reads in their presence and they sign. And if they do not know how to sign, then one tears paper for them and they sign. Once the baraita is emended, it is clear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was responding to the statement of the previous tanna.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else that can be added to the list of ways in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission are equal? But isn鈥檛 there a case taught in the mishna (13a): If a person on his deathbed says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or this bill of manumission to my slave, and he dies, they should not give the bill after his death. However, if he said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and he dies, they should give it after his death. Apparently, this is another halakha in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission share equal status.

讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘砖讟专讜转 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘砖讟专讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: When the baraita teaches the ways in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission are equal, it is referring only to a matter that does not apply to typical documents and it does not teach any matter that is equally applicable to typical documents.

讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛讜讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讙讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉

The Gemara explains: As Ravin sent from Eretz Yisrael in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: You should know that Rabbi Elazar sent this teaching to the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, in the name of our teacher, Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to the case of a person on his deathbed who says: Write a deed of transfer and give with it one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then dies before they had the opportunity to write the document, one does not write and give the document. Why not?

砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara explains: Perhaps he resolved to transfer these one hundred dinars to him only with a deed of transfer, and a deed of transfer of property is not written after the death of the owner. This shows that other documents are also not written after one鈥檚 death, which means that this halakha is not specific to bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Therefore, it is not listed among the ways in which these two documents are similar.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 诇砖诪讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But isn鈥檛 there the halakha that both bills of divorce and bills of manumission must be written for her sake, i.e., for the sake of the particular woman or slave to whom they are given? Why isn鈥檛 this halakha included in the list?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, this is included in the statement: The two documents are similar with regard to the halakhot of delivering and bringing, as he maintains that this requirement to write the document for the sake of the recipient is the primary reason why the agents must state that it was written and signed in their presence. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who holds that the reason for this statement is to ratify the bill of divorce, this is difficult.

讜转讜 讘讬谉 诇专讘讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬讻讗 诪讞讜讘专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And furthermore, both according to the opinion of Rabba and according to the opinion of Rava, there is the case of bills which were written and signed while they were attached to the ground, e.g., on a leaf attached to a tree, which invalidates both bills of divorce and bills of manumission. The Gemara explains: When the baraita teaches its list it is referring solely to issues that cause the documents to be rendered invalid by rabbinic law. It does not teach cases involving invalidation by Torah law. Since these two cases, i.e., documents not written for the recipient鈥檚 sake or when they are attached to the ground, are not valid by Torah law, the baraita did not mention these cases.

讜讛讗 注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讚驻住讜诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讜讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

The Gemara challenges this response: But there is the example of documents written in gentile courts, which is an invalidation of documents that applies by Torah law, and yet the baraita teaches this halakha. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a bill of divorce that was given with valid witnesses who observe the transmission of a legal document, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says in a mishna (10b): Witnesses of the transmission of a bill of divorce effect the divorce. In his opinion, the effectiveness of the document depends on the witnesses who observe its transmission, not those who sign the bill of divorce. Consequently, a bill of divorce that was signed in a gentile court is rendered invalid by rabbinic law.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讜 讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬专讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇砖讬讟转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of that mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Even these, bills of divorce and bills of manumission, are valid, and Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Shimon accepted the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, one can learn by inference that the first tanna does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Instead, he holds that the witnesses who sign effect a divorce. Yet even so, this tanna listed the cases where bills of divorce from gentile courts are invalidated, despite the fact that they are invalid by Torah law.

Scroll To Top