Sefaria: Babylonian Talmud Gittin 4a

Gittin 4a

וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר! וְכִי תֵּימָא אֲנַן מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קָא מַתְנִינַן לַהּ, אִי הָכִי, ״אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּבַר תּוֹרָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

and he signed it and gave it to his wife, it is a valid bill of divorce? And if you would say that we learned that this statement of Rav Naḥman applies by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law Rabbi Meir concedes that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, if so, Rav Naḥman should have said: Rabbi Meir would say that by Torah law if a husband found a document in the garbage he may use it.

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, וְכִי לָא בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חֲתִימָה – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים כְּלָל; הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים – בָּעֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּמְזוּיָּיף מִתּוֹכוֹ, שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל.

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous answer and states: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when does Rabbi Elazar not require that the signing must be for her sake? Where there are no witnesses at all on the bill of divorce. However, where there are witnesses, he does require that all their signatures must be for her sake. The proof for this is that Rabbi Abba says: Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it, i.e., a document that is signed by disqualified witnesses, that it is invalid. This shows that although Rabbi Elazar maintains that a lack of signatures does not invalidate a bill of divorce, all signatures included in the bill of divorce must be valid; otherwise the document is rendered invalid.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתִיבָתוֹ וַחֲתִימָתוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ.

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with a third opinion, that of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (21b): Rabbi Yehuda invalidates a bill of divorce unless its writing and signing are performed on an item that is detached from the ground. According to this opinion, both the writing and the signing must be done for her sake.

וּמֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מוֹקְמִינַן לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

The Gemara asks: And initially, what is the reason we did not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is explicitly stated in a mishna, isn’t it obvious that this mishna also follows his ruling?

מְהַדְּרִינַן אַרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דִּסְתַם מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי מֵאִיר; מְהַדְּרִינַן אַרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּקַיְימָא לַן הִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ בְּגִיטִּין.

The Gemara answers: We seek to explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as there is a general principle that a ruling in an unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Likewise, we seek to interpret the mishna in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, as we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion with regard to bills of divorce. For these reasons, the Gemara first attempted to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of one of these tanna’im, not that of Rabbi Yehuda.

תְּנַן, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמֵּבִיא מִן הָרְקָם וּמִן הַחֶגֶר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מִכְּפַר לוּדִּים לְלוֹד. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בַּעֲיָירוֹת הַסְּמוּכוֹת לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּבְלָעוֹת בִּתְחוּם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עָסְקִינַן,

§ The Gemara continues to explain the mishna in light of the dispute between Rabba and Rava. We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem or from Ḥeger must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod. And Abaye said in explanation of this matter: We are dealing with towns that are not part of the land itself, but are near Eretz Yisrael and within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי הָהוּא אַתְרָא, וְהָוֵי כְּמִבֵּי כוּבֵּי לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I myself saw that place, i.e., the distance between the village of Ludim and Lod, and it was similar to the distance from Bei Kuvei to Pumbedita, which is only a short distance.

מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר הָנֵי לָא צְרִיךְ; מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי; וּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְהָנֵי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחִי?

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: One can derive by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that in these places the agent is not required to testify that the bill of divorce was written and signed for the woman’s sake. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for saying: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because people living overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and the residents of these places are learned in this matter, as they are near Eretz Yisrael. And one Sage, Rabban Gamliel, holds: The reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the residents of these places are also not frequently available, as they live on the other side of the border, and it is difficult to bring witnesses from one place to another.

לָא; רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר, הָנֵי כֵּיוָן דִּסְמוּכוֹת מִיגְמָר גְּמִירִי;

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no proof that this issue is a dispute among tanna’im, as Rabba resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning, and Rava resolves them according to his line of reasoning. The Gemara elaborates: Rabba resolves them according to his line of reasoning, as everyone agrees that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. And here they disagree with regard to this issue: The first tanna holds that since the residents of these cities are located near Eretz Yisrael, they are assumed to be learned in this halakha.

וַאֲתָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר, מוּבְלָעוֹת גְּמִירִי, סְמוּכוֹת לָא גְּמִירִי; וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמֵימַר, מוּבְלָעוֹת נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: Granted, the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are learned in this halakha, however, the residents of these cities that are only near Eretz Yisrael are not learned. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say, when he mentioned the village of Ludim and the town of Lod, that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not treated as learned, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of the country overseas. In other words, anywhere that is not part of the Jewish settlement of Eretz Yisrael is classified as outside, even if they are familiar with the halakhot of bills of divorce.

רָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ – וְתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר, הָנֵי כֵּיוָן דִּסְמוּכוֹת מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי;

Likewise, Rava resolves the various opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning. He maintains that everyone agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. And the first tanna holds: Since the residents of these cities are nearby they are frequently available.

וַאֲתָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר, מוּבְלָעוֹת שְׁכִיחִי, סְמוּכוֹת לָא שְׁכִיחִי; וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמֵימַר, מוּבְלָעוֹת נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: The residents of cities within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are frequently available. However, the residents of places that are merely near Eretz Yisrael are not frequently available. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not considered to be like Eretz Yisrael in this matter, despite their proximity to the Jewish settlement, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of a country overseas.

תְּנַן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אֶלָּא הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ. מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר מוֹלִיךְ לָא צְרִיךְ; מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ,

§ We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that one is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, only if he brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, and the same applies to one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas. The Gemara analyzes this statement: One can learn by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to say this declaration. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for the declaration is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake,

Gittin 4b

וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי; וּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְהָנֵי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחִי?

and these people are learned with regard to this halakha, as a bill of divorce sent from Eretz Yisrael was certainly written in the correct manner. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The reason for the testimony is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these witnesses who travel from Eretz Yisrael overseas are also not frequently available.

רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָכָא בִּגְזֵירַת מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא קָמִיפַּלְגִי –

The Gemara again rejects the suggestion: One cannot prove that this issue is a dispute of the tanna’im, as Rabba resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning, and Rava resolves them according to his line of reasoning. Rabba resolves them according to his line of reasoning, as follows: It may be that everyone agrees that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and here they disagree with regard to a decree applied in the case of one who delivers a bill of divorce to Eretz Yisrael due to the concern that it will be confused with the case of one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael.

דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא.

The Gemara explains that the first tanna holds: The Sages do not decree with regard to one who delivers due to one who brings. In other words, although one who delivers a bill of divorce from overseas to Eretz Yisrael must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas need not state this declaration.

וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: גָּזְרִינַן מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא.

And the later Rabbis hold: The Sages do decree with regard to one who delivers due to one who brings the bill of divorce from overseas. The reason for this decree is that one might err and think that just as an agent who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence, so too, one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael need not state this declaration. Consequently, the Sages decreed that even one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must declare: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי – לְפָרוֹשֵׁי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא הוּא דְּאָתוּ.

And Rava also resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning. How so? He maintains that everyone agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the later Rabbis do not disagree with the previous opinion. Rather, they come to explain the reasoning of the first tanna. In other words, the first tanna agrees that one who takes a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must state the declaration, and he simply taught the halakha in a concise manner.

תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״. הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לֹא צָרִיךְ. לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא!

§ The Gemara attempts to cite another proof: We learned in the mishna: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within a country overseas must also say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara infers: But if he brought a bill of divorce within one region in a country overseas he is not required to state this declaration. This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as witnesses are available in the same region. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, the matter is difficult, as overseas residents are not experts in the halakha and therefore it does not matter how closely they are located to each other.

לָא תֵּימָא: הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לֹא צָרִיךְ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא צָרִיךְ.

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabba, do not say that the correct inference is: Within one region in a country overseas, he is not required to state the declaration. Rather, say that one should infer from the mishna: From region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required to do so.

הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״! אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּיעֲבַד, אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: But that halakha need not be derived by inference, as the mishna is teaching it explicitly: One who brings a bill of divorce from one place to another within Eretz Yisrael is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara answers: If this halakha were to be derived from that statement alone, I would say: This applies only after the fact, i.e., if someone acted in this manner then the bill of divorce is not invalidated. However, it might have been thought that one should not act in this manner ab initio; rather, the agent should state the declaration. Therefore, the mishna teaches us by means of this inference from its first section that he need not state the declaration even ab initio.

וְאִיכָּא דְּמוֹתֵיב לַהּ הָכִי: הָא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא צָרִיךְ.

The Gemara offers an alternate version of this discussion: And some raise this objection like this, by inferring differently from that ruling of the mishna. The mishna teaches: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within a country overseas must also say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara infers from here that if he brings the document from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required to state the declaration.

לְרַבָּה נִיחָא, לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא! לָא תֵּימָא: מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא צָרִיךְ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לֹא צָרִיךְ.

This works out well according to the opinion of Rabba, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rava. The Gemara rejects this inference: Do not say that the mishna is teaching that from one region to another region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required. Rather, say: Within one region in a country overseas he is not required to state the declaration.

אֲבָל מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַאי, צָרִיךְ?! לִיתְנֵי: ״הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה״ – סְתָם!

The Gemara questions this interpretation: However, if that is so, with regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, what is the halakha? Is he required to state the declaration? If so, let the mishna teach simply: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region must state the declaration, without specification, and this would apply both overseas and in Eretz Yisrael.

לְעוֹלָם מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לֹא צָרִיךְ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים, מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי.

The Gemara answers: Actually, one who brings from region to region within Eretz Yisrael is also not required to state the declaration even according to the opinion of Rava, for the following reason: Since there are those who ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival, witnesses are frequently available and they can come even from one region to another.

תִּינַח בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים; בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בָּתֵּי דִינִין דִּקְבִיעִי – מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well when the Temple is standing, as there are those who ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival at that time. However, when the Temple is not standing what can be said? The Gemara answers: Since there are central courts that are fixed in a permanent location where everyone goes, witnesses are frequently available to ratify the bill of divorce.

תְּנַן, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵהֶגְמוֹנְיָא לְהֶגְמוֹנְיָא. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עִיר אַחַת הָיְתָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַעֲסָסְיוֹת שְׁמָהּ, וְהָיוּ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי הֶגְמוֹנְיוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה, לְפִיכָךְ הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר מֵהֶגְמוֹנְיָא לְהֶגְמוֹנְיָא.

The Gemara suggests a different proof: We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one district to another district must say that it was written and signed in his presence. And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael, and Asasiyyot was its name, and it contained two districts that divided the city. And its two governors were so particular with each other that they enacted travel restrictions that made it impossible to cross through the city, and consequently they were required to say the declaration when bringing a bill of divorce from district to district.

לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא! רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא.

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who holds that the reason is due to witnesses, as the witnesses could not pass from one district to another. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, as he maintains that there is no need to state the declaration in Eretz Yisrael because its residents are aware of the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. The Gemara answers: Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, i.e., Rabba agrees that one of the reasons for this halakha is because witnesses are not available to ratify the bill of divorce. He adds another reason, that they are not experts in the halakha of writing the document for her sake.

אֶלָּא מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאַתְיוּהּ בֵּי תְרֵי.

The Gemara asks: Rather, what then is the difference between them, i.e., between Rava’s explanation and that of Rabba? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a case where two people bring the bill of divorce from a country overseas. According to the opinion of Rava they do not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as additional witnesses are not needed to confirm this bill of divorce. However, it is still necessary to declare that the document was written for the sake of the wife.

אִי נָמֵי, בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

Alternatively, the difference between the two explanations involves a case where one agent brought the bill of divorce from one place to another within a single region in a country overseas, where witnesses are available to ratify it. According to Rabba it is still necessary for the agent to utter the declaration so that he can confirm that the bill of divorce was written for her sake. According to Rava, he does not have to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as witnesses are readily available if needed.

תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. וַהֲוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי ״וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר״?

§ We learned in a mishna (9a): With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and he 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 then it shall be ratified by its signatories, i.e., it can be ratified by validating the witnesses’ signatures. And we discussed this halakha: What is the meaning of the phrase: And he is unable to say?

Ariel your Representee,
Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) for Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit and to all the Israeli people.

I am born in Holland and became on a later age a Ba’al Teshuva: Originally, the term referred to a Jew who transgressed the halacha (Jewish law) knowingly or unknowingly and completed a process of introspection to "return" to the full observance of Elohim's mitzvot. Read my story

Search This Blog

Har HaBait Jewish Sovereign for all Israel