Sefaria Gittin 31a-b - 32a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz)
Sefaria Gittin 31a-b - 32a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz)
Gittin
Talmud
Gittin (plural of “Get,” or writ of divorce) is a tractate in Seder Nashim (“Order of Women,” which addresses family law). Its nine chapters primarily discuss the process of writing and transmitting a get. Also included in the tractate are sections about tikkun ha’olam, or enactments instituted by the sages for the betterment of the world, stories about the destruction of the Temple, and discussions of medical advice.
Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 - c.550 CE)נוצר/נערך: בבל התלמודית (450 - 550 לספירה בקירוב)
Current Version
Aramaic from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text AnalysisRead More
Current Translation
English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel SteinsaltzRead More
Source: korenpub.com
Digitization: Sefaria
License: CC-BY-NC
31a
בִּשְׁתֵּי תְּרוּמוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר: אַחַת תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר; כְּשֵׁם שֶׁתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה נִיטֶּלֶת בְּאוֹמֶד וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה, כָּךְ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר נִיטֶּלֶת בְּאוֹמֶד וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה; וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִתְרוֹם תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, כָּךְ יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִתְרוֹם תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר.
The verse speaks of two terumot; one is standard teruma and one is teruma of the tithe. Since they are mentioned together, they can be compared: Just as standard teruma is taken by estimate, as there is no requirement for the amount separated to be measured precisely, and it can be taken by thought, as one is not required to physically separate it before consuming the remaining produce, so too, teruma of the tithe may be taken by estimate and by thought. And this comparison also teaches that just as the homeowner has permission, i.e., the right, to separate standard teruma, so too, the homeowner has permission to separate teruma of the tithe.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּנִּיחַ פֵּירוֹת, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת; מָעוֹת, לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּימִין. אִם אָבְדוּ – הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹשֵׁשׁ מֵעֵת לְעֵת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
MISHNA: With regard to one who sets aside produce with the understanding that he will separate terumot and tithes with it, so that when he has untithed produce he can render it fit by declaring that the teruma and tithes that must be separated will be from the produce that he had set aside for this purpose, or one who sets aside money with the understanding that he will separate and to redeem second tithe with it, then he may later separate the teruma or tithe with them, based on the presumption that the produce or the money are extant. He need not be concerned that perhaps the produce or money was lost in the meantime. If he discovers that they were lost, then he must be concerned that the produce or money that he set aside was lost, from the time until the same time, as will be explained in the Gemara, and he must separate teruma and tithes from the produce a second time; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַיַּיִן – בְּקִידּוּם שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי הַחַג, וּבְהוֹצָאַת סְמָדַר, וּבִשְׁעַת כְּנִיסַת מַיִם בְּבוֹסֶר.
Rabbi Yehuda says: One checks the wine that is set aside to be used for separating terumot and tithes for other wine to see if it has turned to vinegar, which would render it unfit for this purpose, at three times during the year: When the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot, and when the blossoms fall and the grape buds emerge and appear as small clusters, and at the time when water enters and fills the unripe grape. Since there is a change in the weather at these times, one should check to ensure that the wine has not turned to vinegar.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי מֵעֵת לְעֵת? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁל בְּדִיקָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי:
GEMARA: The mishna taught that if the produce or money was lost, then one must be concerned that it occurred from the time until the same time. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: From the time until the same time? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means from the time it was checked and found to be lost, until the same time of day on the previous day. If one had used that produce to render fit other produce within the twenty-four hours before noticing that it had been lost, one must separate teruma and tithes for that produce again. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai:
31b
מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁל הַנָּחָה.
It means from the time that it was set aside until the same time the day after it was set aside. In other words, he must be concerned about all of the untithed produce that he had rendered fit after the first twenty-four hour period from when he set aside the produce or money had passed.
תְּנַן: אִם אָבְדוּ – הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹשֵׁשׁ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁל בְּדִיקָה – שַׁפִּיר;
We learned in the mishna: If he discovers that they were lost, then he must be concerned that the produce or money that he set aside was lost from the time until the same time. Granted, according to the one who said that this means from the time it was checked and found to be lost until the same time of day on the previous day, it works out well, as the wine is presumed to have turned to vinegar from that moment.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁל הַנָּחָה – הַאי ״מֵעֵת לְעֵת״?! ״עַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.
But according to the one who said that this means from the time that it was set aside until the same time the day after it was set aside, this expression: From the time until the same time, is imprecise, as the presumption is that the wine turned to vinegar dating back to the day after it had been set aside. Therefore, it should have said: One is concerned going back until then from the time it was set aside to the same time the following day, i.e., twenty-four hours after it had been set aside. The Gemara comments: The wording of the mishna is difficult according to that opinion.
דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – דִּתְנַן: מִקְוֶה שֶׁנִּמְדַּד וְנִמְצָא חָסֵר; כׇּל טְהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל גַּבָּיו לְמַפְרֵעַ – בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – טְמֵאוֹת.
The mishna teaches that this is the statement of the tanna Rabbi Elazar. The amora Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Elazar’s colleagues disagree with him, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): In the case of a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se’a, which was then measured and found deficient in its quantity of water, all pure items that had been rendered pure in it, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is found in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.
פְּשִׁיטָא דַּחֲלוּקִין! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מַאי ״לְמַפְרֵעַ״ – מֵעֵת לְעֵת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara comments: It is obvious that those who ascribe to the statement of that mishna disagree with Rabbi Elazar the tanna. What novel idea is Rabbi Elazar the amora teaching? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that what the term retroactive is referring to is any item that was immersed and purified from the time it was found to be deficient until the same time the previous day, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, he teaches us that in fact they disagree and deem impure all items immersed from the time that the ritual bath had last been checked.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים כּוּ׳: תָּנָא: בְּקִידּוּם שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי הַחַג שֶׁל תְּקוּפָה.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One checks the wine at three times during the year. One of these times is when the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot. A Sage taught: It is checked when the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot in the season of Tishrei, i.e., autumn. However, if the summer continues until the festival of Sukkot, then in the event of this unusual occurrence one does not check the wine.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים מוֹכְרִין אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה – לִפְנֵי הַזֶּרַע, וּבִשְׁעַת הַזֶּרַע, וּבִפְרוֹס הַפֶּסַח. וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים מוֹכְרִין אֶת הַיַּיִן – בִּפְרוֹס הַפֶּסַח, וּבִפְרוֹס עֲצֶרֶת, וּבִפְרוֹס הַחַג. וְשֶׁמֶן – מֵעֲצֶרֶת וְאֵילָךְ. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא: לְשׁוּתָּפִין. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, מַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל יוֹמָא פִּירְקֵיהּ הוּא.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that at three times during the year one sells the grain: Before the time of the sowing, and during the time of the sowing, and before the festival of Passover. And at three times of the year one sells the wine: Before the festival of Passover, and before the festival of Shavuot, and before the festival of Sukkot. And oil is sold from the festival of Shavuot and onward. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? One may sell these products whenever he so desires. Rava said, and some say that it was Rav Pappa who said: This halakha was stated with regard to partners, as one partner may sell these products without the permission of the other only at these times of the year. At other times, he must first receive permission from his partner. From this point forward, i.e., after the latest of the three times has passed, what is the halakha? Rava said: Every day is its time to be sold.
״וַיְהִי כִּזְרוֹחַ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וַיְמַן אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ קָדִים חֲרִישִׁית״ – מַאי ״חֲרִישִׁית״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּנַשֶּׁבֶת, עוֹשֶׂה תְּלָמִים תְּלָמִים בַּיָּם.
§ Having mentioned the east wind, the Gemara quotes a related verse: “And it came to pass, when the sun arose, that God prepared a vehement [ḥarishit] east wind” (Jonah 4:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word “ḥarishit”? Rav Yehuda says: It means a wind that plows [ḥoreshet], as at the time that the wind blows, it forms many furrows in the sea, as though it were plowing the sea.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עַל רֹאשׁ יוֹנָה וַיִּתְעַלָּף״?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּנַשֶּׁבֶת, מְשַׁתֶּקֶת כׇּל הָרוּחוֹת מִפָּנֶיהָ. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר בְּגָדֶיךָ חַמִּים בְּהַשְׁקִט אֶרֶץ מִדָּרוֹם״. אָמַר רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵימָתַי בְּגָדֶיךָ חַמִּים? בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִשְׁקִיט אֶרֶץ מִדָּרוֹם. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּנַשֶּׁבֶת מְשַׁתֶּקֶת כׇּל הָרוּחוֹת מִפָּנֶיהָ.
Rabba said to him: If that is so, then that which is written in the continuation of the verse: “And the sun beat upon the head of Jonah and he fainted” (Jonah 4:8), is difficult; it seems from the continuation of the verse that the wind was not extremely hot, not strong. Rather, Rabba says: At the time that it blows, it silences all the winds before it. Therefore, it is called ḥarishit, because all other winds are silent [maḥarishot] before it. Since only this wind was blowing, it became very hot. And this is as it is written: “You whose garments are hot, when the earth is still by reason of the south wind” (Job 37:17). Rabbi Taḥalifa bar Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ḥisda says in explanation of this verse: When are your garments hot, i.e., when is there the greatest heat? It is when the earth is still by reason of the south wind, as at the time that the southern wind blows, it silences all the winds before it.
רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי. חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל גְּנִיבָא עֲלַיְיהוּ, אֲמַר חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: נֵיקוּם מִקַּמֵּיהּ, דְּבַר אוֹרְיָין הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: מִקַּמֵּי פָּלְגָאָה נֵיקוּם?! אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא אִיהוּ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: בְּמַאי עָסְקִיתוּ? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: בְּרוּחוֹת.
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda were sitting, and Geneiva passed by them. One said to the other: Let us stand before him, as he is a son of the Torah. The other said to him: Shall we stand before a quarrelsome person? In the meantime, Geneiva came to them and said to them: With what were you dealing when you were sitting together? They said to him: We were dealing with winds.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא, אָמַר רַב: אַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת מְנַשְּׁבוֹת בְּכׇל יוֹם, וְרוּחַ צְפוֹנִית מְנַשֶּׁבֶת עִם כּוּלָּן; שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא כֵּן, אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים אֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת. וְרוּחַ דְּרוֹמִית קָשָׁה מִכּוּלָּן, וְאִלְמָלֵא בֶּן נֵץ מַעֲמִידָהּ, מַחְרֶבֶת כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ מִפָּנֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲמִבִּינָתְךָ יַאֲבֶר נֵץ יִפְרֹשׂ כְּנָפָיו לְתֵימָן״.
He said to them: This is what Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: Four winds blow on each day, and the north wind blows together with each of the other three; as, if this were not so and the northern wind did not blow, then the world would not survive for even one hour. And the south wind is harsher than all of them, and were it not for the angel called Ben Netz, who stops it from blowing even harder, then it would destroy the entire world before it, as it is stated: “Does the hawk [netz] soar by your wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?” (Job 39:26).
רָבָא וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק הֲווֹ יָתְבִי; הֲוָה חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב, דְּיָתֵיב בְּגוּהַרְקָא דְּדַהֲבָא וּפְרִיס עֲלֵיהּ סַרְבָּלָא דְכַרָּתֵי. רָבָא אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ, רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לָא אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ. אָמַר: דִּלְמָא מֵאִינָשֵׁי דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא נִינְהוּ; רָבָא צָרִיךְ לְהוּ, אֲנָא לָא צְרִיכְנָא לְהוּ.
The Gemara also relates that Rava and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak were sitting, and Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov was passing by them while sitting on a gilt carriage [goharka] and with a green cloak [sarbela] spread over him. Rava went to him, but Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak did not go to him. He said: Perhaps they are members of the house of the Exilarch. Rava needs them, but I do not need them.
כְּדַחֲזָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב הֲוָה, אָזֵיל לְגַבֵּיהּ. גַּלִּי לִדְרָעֵיהּ, אֲמַר: שַׁדְיָא נָשֵׁיב! אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: אִשָּׁה מַפֶּלֶת בּוֹ; וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מַרְגָּלִית שֶׁבַּיָּם מַרְקֶבֶת בּוֹ; רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה מַסְרַחַת בּוֹ.
When he saw that it was Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov, he also went to him. Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov uncovered his arm due to the heat and said: The wind called Shadya is blowing. Rava says that this is what Rav says about this wind: A woman miscarries in its wake. And Shmuel says: Even a pearl [margalit] that is in the sea decomposes in its wake. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even the semen that is in a woman’s womb putrefies in its wake.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״כִּי הוּא בֵּין אַחִים יַפְרִיא יָבוֹא קָדִים רוּחַ ה׳ מִמִּדְבָּר עוֹלֶה וְיֵבוֹשׁ מְקוֹרוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. ״יֵבוֹשׁ מְקוֹרוֹ״ – זוֹ מְקוֹרָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה. ״וְיֶחֱרַב מַעְיָינוֹ״ – זֶה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה. ״הוּא יִשְׁסֶה אוֹצַר כׇּל כְּלִי חֶמְדָּה״ – זוֹ מַרְגָּלִית שֶׁבַּיָּם.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who was present, said about their statements: And the three of them derived their statements from one verse, as it is stated: “For though he be fruitful among the reed-plants, an east wind shall come, the wind of the Lord coming up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up; he shall spoil the treasure of all precious vessels” (Hosea 13:15). The statement that a woman miscarries in its wake is based on the phrase “His spring shall become dry,” as this is referring to a woman’s womb. With regard to the phrase “And his fountain shall be dried up,” this is referring to the semen that is in a woman’s womb. And with regard to the phrase “He shall spoil the treasure of all precious vessels,” this is referring to a pearl in the sea.
אָמַר רָבָא: עָדֵי סוּרָאָה הוּא, דְּדָיְיקִי קְרָאֵי! מַאי ״כִּי הוּא בֵּין אַחִים יַפְרִיא״? אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ
Rava says: This Sage is from Sura, as they are precise with verses. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: “Though he be fruitful [yafri] among the reed-plants”? Rava said: Even
32a
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 לְךָ, 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,
32b
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,
Pirkei Avot 6:10
Dr. Joshua Kulp
חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:
Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).
I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:
Zechariah 8:23
23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." | | כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם: |
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred. | | עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו': |
Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say: "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
Read my story: https://rb.gy/i654b
Please contact me for further questions: Telegram https://t.me/ArielRepresentative WhatsApp: +972 54-568-3031 Ariel van Kessel LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ariel-van-kessel-71797424 Email: arielvankessel@aol.com Ariel, hopefully your Representative
A Living Library of Torah
Sefaria is home to 3,000 years of Jewish texts. We are a non-profit organization offering free access to texts, translations, and commentaries so that everyone can participate in the ongoing process of studying, interpreting, and creating Torah. Learn More ›Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel)
click:
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
click:
Comments
Post a Comment