Gittin 17: Persian Priest [Habbara]

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf describes a time when Rav Yehuda and Rabbah came to visit Rabba bar bar Ḥana while he was ill. After a discussion of halakhot related to messengers who brought a geṭ from the Diaspora to Israel, a Habara walked into the house and took away the light that they had in the room.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana reacted to this by saying that he would prefer to be ruled by God – or even by the Romans – rather than by the Persians who made life so difficult for the Jews.

The term Habara is what the Gemara calls Zoroastrians – the Persian priests – who are also referred to as amgushim and magim. They were an independent tribe who, over time, developed into the priestly caste of the Persian empire.

During one of their holidays the only lights that were permitted were those in their temple, and they had agents whose job it was to extinguish all other forbidden lights.

We explore the interaction between Talmudic and Persian texts and their influence

Gittin 16: הַקָּטַפְרֵס

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf digresses from the discussion of messengers who deliver giṭṭin from the Diaspora to Israel and raises a number of other unrelated issues. These range from a questionOur daf digresses from the discussion of messengers who deliver giṭṭin from the Diaspora to Israel and raises a number of other unrelated issues. These range from a question about the height of a fence that separates between two reshuyot – public and private domains – when there is a height differential between two areas with regard to the laws of Shabbat, to several discussions about laws of tumah ve-taharah.

One surprising halakha that we find discussed on our daf is the rule that a person who enters a pool of mayim she’uvin – simple water that was drawn, and therefore cannot be used for a mikvah – or has such water poured on him, becomes tameh!

Due to Memorial Day we bring discussions of the importance of the flag and what it represents and the intriguing she’lot regarding the flag in a beit knesset.

Gittin 15: Deathbed Wishes

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The second perek of Gittin reiterates the prior mishnayot of the first perek:

If someone brings a get (to Eretz Yisroel) from abroad and says, “The get was written in my presence,” but he did not say, “It was signed in my presence,” or if he said, “It was signed in my presence,” but he did not say, “It was written in my presence,” or if he said, “The entire get was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence” (I saw only one of the witnesses signing), or if he said, “Half of it was written in my presence and all of it was signed in my presence,” the get is invalid. If one person said, “It was written in my presence,” and another person said, “It was signed in my presence,” it is invalid.

We continue our exploration of death wishes in the Bible, and down to the Victorian age.

Gittin 14: מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a man said to an agent, “Take a maneh to So-and-so, and he went and looked for him and did not find him (because he had died), he must return the money to the sender.

If the sender has also died meanwhile, Rabbi Nassan and Rabbi Yaakov say that he should return it to the inheritors of the sender. And some say that he should return it to the inheritors of the person to whom the money was sent.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Meir: It is an obligation to carry out the wishes of the deceased (and therefore the money should be given to the recipient’s inheritors). The Chachamim say that the money should be divided. Here in Bavel, they said that the agent should use his own discretion. [He should try to ascertain what the intentions of the sender were.]

We explore the halachic status of the wishes of a dying person

Gittin 13: שְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Does a widow or widower still feel maritally bonded to their deceased spouse?

Perhaps this may sound like a strange query as most people, especially those who have sadly lost a spouse, are likely of the opinion that they surely do. Still, while this may seem to be a question relating to the emotional and spiritual bond felt between a married couple, it also has halachic ramifications.

The Mishna (Gittin 1:6) in today’s daf (Gittin 13a) informs us that ‘if someone were to say to an agent “give a ‘get’ to my wife”… and dies [before the ‘get’ is delivered], then the agent should not give [the ‘get’] posthumously’.

Perhaps, on first glance, the reason why we say that the agent should not deliver the ‘get’ is because the husband has since died which means that a ‘get’ is redundant.

Alternatively, we may claim that as a result of the husband’s death, the agents’ mission is invalidated because the agent is – halachically – an extension of the husband. Consequently, if there is no husband, there is no agency.

However, as the Tosfot HaRosh explains on the basis of the Yibbum (levirate marriage) law, a married couple does maintain a connection even after one’s spouse has died which means that, at least technically, divorce can be effective even after death. However, because, as previously mentioned, agency isn’t effective after death, the agent does not have the authority to give the ‘get’ once the husband has died.

Overall, while the halacha may not permit posthumous gittin, the very fact that this topic is addressed by the Mishna teaches us something very profound – that absent of technical reasons, a ‘get’ could possibly be effective even after death. And why? Because married couples often still feel married even once one of them has died.

Gittin 12: הַקּוֹטֵעַ יַד עַבְדּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Having been introduced to the idea that there are parallels between the laws of divorce and freeing a slave (between giṭṭin and shihrurei avadim – see daf 9) our Gemara becomes involved in a discussion of some of the laws regulating the relationship between slaves and their masters from the perspective of halakha.

One issue that is raised is the question of who will receive compensation in the event that someone injures a slave.

Although we will be studying this sugya in Bava Kama we explore the notion of slavery and compensation in Talmud and antiquity.

Gittin 11: שֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In discussing the reliability of witnesses who had signed a contract, we find Reish Lakish asking Rabbi Yohanan how to deal with a case of witnesses who sign using non-Jewish names. Rabbi Yohanan responded by relating a case where a contract came signed by two people named Lukus and Los, and it was accepted. The Gemara continues that giṭṭin coming from the Diaspora are accepted with signatures that appear to be non-Jewish names, since we know that many Jews in the Diaspora have such names.

We explore the use by Jews of foreign names in history from talmudic times through the Inquisition.

Gittin 10: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ כּוּתִים

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: Any document that has a Cuthean witness signed on it is disqualified (for he is suspected of lying) except that of a get for a woman and for the freeing of a slave.

The Gemara brings three opinions regarding the status of kutim:

The Tanna Kamma rules that matzah made by a kuti could be eaten on Pesaḥ and used to fulfill the mitzva;

Rabbi Elazar forbids use of matzah made by a kuti;

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel believes that the kutim are even more punctilious than are Jews with regard to those mitzvot that they accepted.

Tosfos writes that this Mishna is only according to those that hold that the Cutheans were true converts to Judaism, and Biblically, they are regarded as full-fledged Jews. However, according to those who maintain that the Cutheans converted only out of fear of the lions, they are not regarded as Jews, and they cannot be eligible as a witness.

We explore their history and doctrines with acknowledgement of the work of Moses Gaster the Chacham of the Spanish and Portuguese community in London (1887).

Gittin 9: ? חֵרשֵׁ בּרַ אתֵוֹייֵ גּיִטּאָ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

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’t 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?

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.

We explore the changing attitudes to deaf/mute and even amputees in Halacha.

Gittin 8: Borders

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When discussing how the halakha differs depending on whether a geṭ is written in Israel or in the Diaspora, it is essential to define borders. What is considered “the Land of Israel”?

Our daf offers two opinions with regard to this question. According to the hakhamim, the western border of Israel is a straight line drawn from Taurus Amanus – a mountain range in Syria – to Wadi El Arish in the Sinai. This includes the water off the Mediterranean coast, which includes a number of small islands. Rabbi Yehuda suggests that the western border extends much further, measuring the length of Israel from north to south and ranging westward to include the Mediterranean Sea until the Atlantic Ocean.

We explore the notion of borders in the historical sense but also mythical.

Gittin 7: פּוּלְמוּס שֶׁל אַסְפַּסְיָינוּס

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf records a discussion about certain rabbinic enactments following the destruction of the Temple that limited the full celebration of weddings. The specific question that was raised relates to the atarot hatanim – crowns worn by the groom – a tradition that was discontinued as a sign of mourning over the hurban bet ha-mikdash.

As a source for this, Rav Huna quotes a Mishna from Massekhet Sota (49a) that as a result of pulmus shel Aspasyanus – Vespasian’s war – grooms no longer wore these crowns. ( see Daf Ditty Sotah 49).

The pulmus shel Aspasyanus that is referred to here is actually what is called “the Great Revolt”, which ended with the destruction of the Second Temple. It is called Vespasian’s war because Vespasian was the Roman general who presided over most of the fighting beginning from 67 CE.

We explore this tragic period and the rabbinic responses in theology and liturgy.

Gittin 6: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Evyatar in Israel sent a message to Rav Ḥisda in Babylon, telling him that giṭṭin sent “from Bavel to Israel” do not require the messenger to attest that the geṭ was written and signed in his presence. The Gemara’s first suggestion in explaining this ruling is that Rabbi Evyatar must agree with Rabbah (see daf 3) and believe that the potential problem is that the court where the geṭ was written may not know how to write the geṭ properly.

Rabbi Evyasar once met Eliyahu and asked him: “What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing?” Eliyahu answered, “He is discussing the concubine of Giveah.” Rabbi Evyasar asked him, “What is He saying?” Eliyahu replied, “He is saying, ‘My son Evyasar says like so, and my son Yonasan says like so.’” Rabbi Evyasar asked: Can there possibly, Heaven forbid, be uncertainty in Heaven?” Eliyahu replied: Both opinions are the words of the living God.

We explore halachic pluralism using this aphorism as a trope.

Gittin 5: אֶעֱבֵיד לְחוּמְרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Bar Haddaya sought to bring a bill of divorce from one country to another. He came before Rabbi Aḥai, who was appointed over bills of divorce in his location to ask him how to proceed. Rabbi Aḥai said to him: You are required to stand over each and every letter when the scribe writes the bill of divorce, to see that everything is performed in the correct manner. Bar Haddaya came before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi to ask if this is required, and they said to him: You are not required to do this; rather, it is enough for you to be present and oversee in general that it is done in the proper manner.

And if you would say: I will act stringently, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aḥai, then you are casting aspersions on the earlier bills of divorce, i.e., bills of divorce written in previous generations, as the agents who delivered them did not examine them to this extent.

We explore the notion of chumrah in Halacha….

Gittin 4: דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One who brings a get 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.

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.

We explore the notion pilgrimage in late antiquity and pilgrimage itineraries through the eyes of the rabbis and Philo.

Gittin 3: אֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A person who is a messenger to bring a geṭ from a community in the Diaspora to Israel must be able to attest that the document was written and signed in his presence. Two reasons for this are suggested by the Gemara.

According to Rabba, it is because Diaspora communities are not all aware that the get must be written for this specific situation, and we must ascertain that it was done correctly.

Rava suggests that the reason for this is because in the event that a question arises about this document, it will be difficult to find people who can recognize and attest to the authenticity of the witnesses’ signatures.

We explore the basic outlines of the masechta and the concepts of shlichus.

Gittin 2: בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The popular term for a divorce document – a geṭ (and, in plural, giṭṭin) – is not a word with a biblical, or even a Hebrew source. It is apparently borrowed from the Syriac gitetu, which means a contract or document of any sort. From the Syriac the word became widely used in neighboring languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. In the Talmud the word is used by the sages both in its original meaning – a contract of any sort – as well as the specific sefer keritut – a contract given by a man to his wife to end their marital relationship and effect a divorce.

The first Mishna in Massekhet Gittin opens with the rule that a person who is a messenger to bring a bill of divorce – a geṭ – from a community in the Diaspora to Israel must be able to attest that the document was written and signed in his presence.

One (an agent sent by the husband to the wife) who brings a get (bill of divorce) to Eretz Yisroel from abroad must say, “In my presence it was written, and in my presence, it was signed.” [The Gemora will explain the reason for this decree.]

We explore the history of the geographical borders of biblical Israel vs those of the post bavel Aliyah.

Sotah 48: Music After Churban

For the source text click/tap here: Sotah 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah teaches that when the Sanhedrin ceased to convene, the Chachamim prohibited song at celebrations, as the verse says, "They do not drink wine with song" (Yeshayah 24:9). The Gemara in Gitin (7a) cites a second verse from which it learns that the prohibition against song applies not only to musical instruments but to vocal song (with no musical accompaniment) as well.

The words of the Mishnah, and the verse which provides the source for the prohibition, imply that the prohibition against song applies only at a Beis ha'Mishteh, a party or celebration, or while drinking wine. The Gemara, however, teaches that "any ear that hears song shall be cut off," and that if there is song in a house "destruction is at its doorstep." The Gemara continues and says that even "the song of the weavers" (which accompanies them as they weave) is prohibited. These statements imply that there is a universal prohibition against song which applies even while one is not celebrating or dining. How are these contradictory implications to be reconciled?

We explore the halachot of music after the Churban in preparation for Masechet Gitten.

Sotah 47: מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַמְנָאֲפִים

For the source text click/tap here: Sotah 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna stated: When the amount of murderers increased, the rite of the eglah arufah was abolished. The Gemora cites a braisa: When the amount of murderers increased, the rite of the eglah arufah was abolished, because it is only performed in a case of doubt; but when murderers increased openly, the rite of the eglah arufah was discontinued (because we probably know who committed the murder).

The Mishna had stated: When the amount of adulterers increased, the bitter water of the sotah was discontinued. The Gemora cites a braisa: The bitter waters of the sotah will only examine her if the husband is free from any sin (involving illicit relations); however, if he is not free of sin, the waters will not examine her.

We examine Philo’s interpretation of the Sotah ritual and Adreana Destro’s work on the historical background.

Sotah 46: וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֲגָל֔וֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Sotah 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

"They told him all of Joseph's words that he had said to them, and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, and the spirit of their father Jacob was revived." (Gen. 45:27)

"all of Joseph’s words" - [Including] a sign he gave them: in what Torah topic he was engaged when he [Joseph] separated from him [from Jacob], the section dealing with the heifer that was to be beheaded [Egla Arufa--(Deut. 21:1-9)] and this is why [our verse] says, "and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent," and not, "that Pharaoh had sent." (Ibid., Rashi based on Gen. Raba 94:3)

We explore the connection between the semantic pun of the wagons Jacob saw and the Parsha dealing with Eglah Arufah.

Sotah 45: חָלָל בָּאֲדָמָה

For the source text click/tap here: Sotah 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When a dead man is found between two cities, measurements are taken to ascertain which of the cities is closer to the man and the elders of that city are called upon to bring an eglah (a calf) arufah and to state that they did not play a role in this man’s death. 

The Gemara explains that we do not really suspect the city elders of having killed the man, rather they are being called upon to attest to the fact that the man received an escort when he left the city.

We explore this troubling phenomenon and the way the talmud interprets it and the eglah arufah as vicarious ritual offering.