גיטין לב

גיטין לב

שׁוּפְתָּא בְּקוֹפִינָא דְמָרָא – רָפְיָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ סִיכְּתָא בְּדַפְנָא – רָפְיָא. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קַנְיָא בְּכוּפְתָּא – רָפְיָא.

the handle in the hole [kofina] of the hoe [mara] becomes loose [rafya], as he understands the word yafri to refer to separating connected items. Similarly, Rav Yosef said: Even the peg hammered into the wall becomes loose. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Even the reed woven into the basket becomes loose.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל גֵּט

הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהִגִּיעַ בַּשָּׁלִיחַ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אַחֲרָיו שָׁלִיחַ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״גֵּט שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ, בָּטֵל הוּא״ – הֲרֵי זֶה בָּטֵל. קִידֵּם אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אֶצְלָהּ שָׁלִיחַ, וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי לִךְ, בָּטֵל הוּא״ – הֲרֵי זֶה בָּטֵל. אִם מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ.

MISHNA: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent, and he reached the agent, or where he sent another agent after him, and he said to the agent delivering the bill of divorce: The bill of divorce that I gave you, it is void, then this bill of divorce is hereby void. Similarly, if the husband reached his wife before the bill of divorce reached her, or in a case where he sent an agent to her, and he said, or had the agent say, to his wife: The bill of divorce that I sent to you, it is void, then this bill of divorce is hereby void. However, if he stated this once the bill of divorce had entered her possession, he can no longer render it void, as the divorce had already taken effect.

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית דִּין מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וּמְבַטְּלוֹ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין כֵּן, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.

The mishna relates that initially, a husband who wished to render the bill of divorce void would convene a court elsewhere and render the bill of divorce void in the presence of the court before it reached his wife. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted an ordinance that one should not do this, for the betterment of the world. The Gemara will explain what this means.

גְּמָ׳ ״הִגִּיעוֹ״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״הִגִּיעַ״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מִמֵּילָא, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן לְצַעוֹרַהּ הוּא דְּקָא מִיכַּוֵּין.

GEMARA: The mishna states that if one sends a bill of divorce with an agent and then meets the agent and renders void the bill of divorce in his presence, then it is void. The Gemara points out: The mishna does not teach: He reached the agent after pursuing him; rather: He reached the agent, meaning and even if he reached him incidentally, without intent, he renders the bill of divorce void with his statement. And we do not say that in that case he intends only to vex his wife and does not actually intend to render the bill of divorce void.

״אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אַחֲרָיו שָׁלִיחַ״ – לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא אַלִּימָא שְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ דְּבָתְרָא מִשְּׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ דְּקַמָּא – דִּלְבַטְּלֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state that the bill of divorce is void when he reached the agent, or in a case where he sent another agent after him? The legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself, so it seems obvious that just as the husband can nullify the agency of the first agent, so too can the second agent nullify the agency of the first agent. The Gemara answers: This principle was stated lest you say that the agency of the latter, the second agent, is not stronger than the agency of the former, and that the latter agent cannot nullify the agency of the first agent and only the husband can nullify it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the second agent can nullify the agency of the first agent.

״קָדַם הוּא אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי לָא אָמְרִינַן לְצַעוֹרַהּ קָא מִיכַּוֵּין – הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְשָׁלִיחַ, אֲבָל לְדִידַהּ וַדַּאי לְצַעוֹרַהּ קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara continues and asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach a case where a husband reached his wife before the bill of divorce reached her? It is obvious that a husband can render void the bill of divorce before it reaches his wife. The Gemara explains: This principle was stated lest you say that when we don’t say that he intends only to vex her like in the case above, and the bill of divorce is in fact void, this matter applies only when he said to the agent that the bill of divorce is void; however, if he said that to her, he certainly intends only to vex her, and he does not actually intend to render the bill of divorce void. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in this case the bill of divorce is void.

״אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אֶצְלָהּ שָׁלִיחַ״ – לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיהוּ הוּא דְּלָא טָרַח אַדַּעְתָּא לְצַעוֹרַהּ, אֲבָל שָׁלִיחַ, דְּלָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ כִּי טָרַח – וַדַּאי לְצַעוֹרַהּ קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara continues and asks: Why do I need the mishna to state: Or where he sent an agent to her, which, as stated above, means that the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that only he would not exert himself with the sole intent to vex her, by informing her falsely that the bill of divorce is void; however, with regard to the agent, as the husband does not care if he exerts himself for no reason, and the husband certainly intends only to vex her when he sends an agent and not actually to render the bill of divorce void. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in this case as well the bill of divorce is void.

אִם מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּמַהְדַּר עֲלֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא לְבַטּוֹלֵי; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיגַּלַּאי מִלְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּבַטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The mishna states further: If he stated this once the bill of divorce had entered her possession, he can no longer render it void, as the divorce had already taken effect. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Once the bill of divorce has entered her possession, they are divorced. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state that even in a case where he was going around searching for the bill of divorce from the beginning in order to render it void before it reached his wife, once it enters her possession it is too late. Lest you say: Once he renders the bill of divorce void, even after it had entered her possession, it has become clear retroactively that he rendered it void from the beginning, before it reached his wife, therefore the mishna teaches us that since the bill of divorce was rendered void only after it had entered her possession, they are divorced.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בָּטֵל הוּא״; ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי בּוֹ״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. ״פָּסוּל הוּא״; ״אֵינוֹ גֵּט״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

§ The Sages taught: If a husband made one of the following statements with regard to a bill of divorce that he sent: It is void [batel hu], or: I do not desire it, then his statement takes effect and the bill of divorce is void. However, if he said: It is invalid, or: It is not a bill of divorce, then it is as though he said nothing, as the bill of divorce has nothing disqualifying it.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּ״בָטֵל״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּלִבְּטִיל מַשְׁמַע?! וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אַיְבוּ, אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת; וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה, שֶׁאָמַר לְאַחַר שֶׁבָּאתָה מַתָּנָה לְיָדוֹ: ״מַתָּנָה זוֹ מְבוּטֶּלֶת״; ״תִּיבַּטֵּל״; ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי בָּהּ״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״בְּטֵלָה הִיא״; ״אֵינָהּ מַתָּנָה״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. אַלְמָא ״בָּטֵל״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע!

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the formulation: Batel, is a prescriptive formulation that means: Let it become void, and not a descriptive formulation that means that the bill of divorce is already void? But didn’t Rabba bar Aivu say that Rav Sheshet said, and some say that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who receives a gift, who, after the gift had entered his possession, said: This gift is rendered void; or if he said: Let it become void; or if he said: I do not desire it, it is as though he said nothing. He has already acquired the gift, and he cannot undo his acquisition. However, if he said: It is void [betela he], or: It is not a gift, his statement is effective, as these formulations indicate that he had never agreed to acquire the gift in the first place. Apparently, the formulation: Batel, means that it is void from the beginning, and not that it should become void, in opposition to the baraita.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״בָּטֵל״

Abaye said: The formulation: Batel,

שְׁתֵּי לְשׁוֹנוֹת מַשְׁמַע – מַשְׁמַע דְּבָטֵל, וּמַשְׁמַע דְּלִיבְּטִיל. גַּבֵּי גֵּט לִישָּׁנָא דְּמַהֲנֵי בֵּיהּ קָאָמַר, גַּבֵּי מַתָּנָה לִישָּׁנָא דְּמַהֲנֵי בַּהּ קָאָמַר.

has two potential meanings, depending on the context. It means that it was void already, and it also means that it will become void in the future. With regard to a bill of divorce, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since his statement can be understood to mean that the bill of divorce should be void from that point onward, it is interpreted as such. With regard to a gift, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since one cannot nullify the acquisition of a gift after taking possession of it, his intention was that the gift was void from the outset, and his statement is interpreted as such.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, נְקִיטִינַן: שְׁלִיחַ מַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁלִיחַ הַגֵּט; נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי.

Additionally Abaye said with regard to the relationship between a bill of divorce and a gift that we have a tradition: An agent sent to deliver a gift is considered like an agent sent to deliver a bill of divorce. The Gemara explains: The practical difference that is learned from this is that if one says to his agent: Take this gift to so-and-so, it is not considered as if he said to him: Acquire the gift on his behalf. Therefore, as long as the gift has not yet reached the intended recipient, the one who sent the gift can retract it, and it is not as if the intended recipient had taken possession of the gift from the moment that it was given to the agent.

רָבִינָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק דִּתְלֵי וְקָאֵי בְּעִיבְרָא דְּדַשָּׁא, וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: ״בָּטֵל״ מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara relates: Ravina found Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as he was leaning on the bar of a door deep in thought, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was considering the following dilemma: What is the halakha if a husband said only: This bill of divorce is void, but did not say: This bill of divorce, it is void? Does he mean to render the bill of divorce void from that point onward, which he has the ability to do, or is he merely noting the fact that this bill of divorce is void, in which case his statement does not affect the validity of the document? No answer is given to this question and therefore the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״גֵּט זֶה לֹא יוֹעִיל״; ״לֹא יַתִּיר״; ״לֹא יַעֲזִיב״; ״לֹא יְשַׁלַּח״; ״לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ״; ״יְהֵא חֶרֶס״; ״יְהֵא כְּחֶרֶס״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

Rav Sheshet says, and some say that it was taught in a baraita, that if the husband said one of these phrases: This bill of divorce shall not be effective, shall not release, shall not cause to leave, shall not send away, shall not divorce, shall be pottery, or shall be like pottery, in all of these cases his statement is effective, and the bill of divorce is rendered void.

״אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל״; ״אֵינוֹ מַתִּיר״; ״אֵינוֹ מַעֲזִיב״; ״אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ״; ״אֵינוֹ מְגָרֵשׁ״; ״חֶרֶס הוּא״; ״כְּחֶרֶס הוּא״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

If, however, the husband used one of the following formulations: This bill of divorce has no effect, does not release, does not cause to leave, does not send away, does not divorce, it is pottery, or it is like pottery, then it is as though he said nothing. The husband has the authority only to render the bill of divorce void. However, his descriptive statements with regard to the legal standing of the bill of divorce are meaningless.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הֲרֵי הוּא חֶרֶס״, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵ״הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ״; ״הֲרֵי הוּא הֶפְקֵר״?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if he said: It is hereby pottery? Is his intention to make a descriptive statement, that the bill of divorce is not valid, or does he intend to render it void? Ravina said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and some say that Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this formulation different from saying about one’s property: It is hereby consecrated property, or: It is hereby ownerless property, where it is clear that his intention is to designate the items as consecrated or ownerless property? With regard to bills of divorce as well, his statement is effective and it renders the bill of divorce void.

חוֹזֵר וּמְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: חוֹזֵר וּמְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ; וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן.

§ The Gemara asks: If the husband rendered void a bill of divorce, can he go back and divorce his wife with it, since perhaps he did not actually render void the bill of divorce but only nullified the agency for its delivery, so it can be used again in the future; or may he not go back and divorce with it, as the bill of divorce itself was rendered void? Rav Naḥman says: He may go back and divorce with it, and Rav Sheshet says: He may not go back and divorce with it. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, that the bill of divorce may be used.

אִינִי?! וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: חוֹזֶרֶת.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But don’t we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: If a man gives a woman money for betrothal and says that the betrothal will take effect after thirty days, the woman can retract her agreement within the thirty days and decide that she does not wish to be betrothed. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that as long as the change in status had not yet taken effect, she may nullify her earlier agreement by stating a retraction. Therefore, here too, when the husband states that the bill of divorce should be rendered void, since the divorce had not taken effect, it should be rendered void.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – דִּיבּוּר וְדִיבּוּר הוּא, אָתֵי דִּיבּוּר וּמְבַטֵּל דִּיבּוּר; וְהָכָא – נְהִי דְּבַטְּלֵיהּ לִשְׁלִיחוּתָא דְּשָׁלִיחַ, גִּיטָּא גּוּפֵיהּ מִי קָא בָטֵיל?

The Gemara rejects this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of betrothal, it is speech that accepts the betrothal and speech that retracts her acceptance; therefore, her speech comes and nullifies her previous speech, as the woman first stated that she agreed and then stated afterward that she retracted her agreement. But here, even though it is true that the husband rendered void the agency of the agent, does he also render void the bill of divorce itself? Since the bill of divorce is a tangible object, it cannot be made void through speech alone.

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה. אִיתְּמַר, בִּפְנֵי כַּמָּה הוּא מְבַטְּלוֹ? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם; רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.

§ The mishna taught that initially a husband who wished to render void the bill of divorce would convene a court, even if he had already sent the document with an agent, and render the bill of divorce void in the presence of the court. It was stated: When the husband would state that the bill of divorce should be void, in the presence of how many people must he render it void? Rav Naḥman says: He must render it void in the presence of two people. Rav Sheshet says: He must render it void in the presence of three people.

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה – ״בֵּית דִּין״ קָתָנֵי. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם – לְבֵי תְרֵי נָמֵי ״בֵּית דִּין״ קָרֵי לְהוּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: ״מוֹסְרַנִי לִפְנֵיכֶם

The Gemara explains the reasoning of each amora: Rav Sheshet said that he must do so in the presence of three people, because the mishna teaches that this takes place in the presence of a court, and a court consists of three judges. And Rav Naḥman said that it may be done in the presence of two people, as two people are also called a court, and in exigent circumstances one may rely on this. Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say that two people are also called a court? As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 10:4): When one creates a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol], he states: I transfer to you in your presence,