Gittin 77: לְתוֹךְ חֵיקָהּ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קַלְתָּהּκάλαθος

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 77

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The eighth perek of Massekhet Gittin begins on our daf. Entitled ha-Zorek – i.e. someone who throws a geṭ – its main focus is on the method used for transferring a writ of divorce from husband to wife. Although the Torah appears to require that the geṭ actually be placed in the wife’s hand (ve-natan be-yadah – Devarim 24:1), the tradition that the sages had was that that passage was not to be taken literally, rather that it had to be placed in her possession and control.

We explore the agunot issue further.

Gittin 76: Αντιπατρίς

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora cites a braisa: If a man says to his wife, “Here is your get, but the paper belongs to me, she is not divorced (for he did not give her anything). If, however, he said, “Here is your get on condition that you return the paper to me,” she is divorced (provided that she returns him the paper). The Gemora asks: What is the difference between the two cases?

[The Gemora assumes that we are following the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the get can only be effective upon the fulfillment of the condition, and therefore, the Gemora asks: How can she become divorced after the get is returned to her husband?]

Abaye explains that the braisa is following Rabbi Meir’s opinion, who holds that a condition must be doubled (i.e., “if the condition will be fulfilled, this will result, and if it will be violated, this will result”) in order for it to be binding (derived from the condition mentioned in the Torah concerning the Tribes of Reuven and Gad before they entered Eretz Yisroel; Moshe specifically spoke out both sides of the condition).

We explore the fateful decision by Moshe to allow them to remain with conditions…

Gittin 75: דְּמַעֲשֶׂה קוֹדֵם לִתְנַאי

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 75

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora cites a braisa: If a man says to his wife, “Here is your get, but the paper belongs to me, she is not divorced (for he did not give her anything). If, however, he said, “Here is your get on condition that you return the paper to me,” she is divorced (provided that she returns him the paper). The Gemora asks: What is the difference between the two cases?

[The Gemora assumes that we are following the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the get can only be effective upon the fulfillment of the condition, and therefore, the Gemora asks: How can she become divorced after the get is returned to her husband?]

Abaye explains that the braisa is following Rabbi Meir’s opinion, who holds that a condition must be doubled (i.e., “if the condition will be fulfilled, this will result, and if it will be violated, this will result”) in order for it to be binding (derived from the condition mentioned in the Torah concerning the Tribes of Reuven and Gad before they entered Eretz Yisroel; Moshe specifically spoke out both sides of the condition).

We explore the fateful decision by Moshe to allow them to remain with conditions…

Gittin 74: שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי אִיצְטְלִיתִי

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 74

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches us that a husband can give his wife the get on the condition that she pay him a sum of money - 200 dinars, for example, which is significant. In that case, they are said to be divorced only when she gives him that money.

How can this be? First, and this is not discussed by the Gemara initially, how can the get come with a caveat like money owed? The point of the get is that the wife is guaranteed sustenance if the couple divorces. If she owes her husband money, then only a wealthy woman can meet the condition of such a get.

While discussing situations where the husband gives his wife a divorce that is conditional on some event taking place (e.g., that a monetary payment will be made), the Gemara brings other situations where a conditional agreement is made and it is not clear whether the condition was fulfilled.

We present Rabbi Yona Reiss’s transcribed lecture on Torah and Madda in the context of Beis Din.

Gittin 73: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בָּהּ בְּשִׁפְחָתָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The new Mishnah states that the wife of a husband who gave her a divorce on condition that he dies) must not be alone with him (with her husband between the delivery of the divorce and his death) unless there are witnesses there (that they did not engage in relations).

She may be with him in the presence of a slave, and even a maidservant, but not her own maidservant because she is familiar with her own slave (and will not be embarrassed to cohabit with her husband in front of her own maidservant)! What is she during those days?

We review Lord Jakobowitz's (OBM) essay on the struggles of modern orthodoxy and follow it with the conservative position on gaunt.

Gittin 72: זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ אִם מַתִּי

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

At the end of the first perek of Massekhet Gittin we learned that a divorce cannot be granted after the husband has already died (see daf 13a-b). Therefore, if the husband orders a messenger to deliver a geṭ to his wife, should he die before the geṭ was successfully delivered, there will be no divorce (i.e., the woman will be a widow, not a divorcee).

The Mishna on our daf discusses cases where the husband makes the divorce conditional on his death. It is fairly obvious that if he uses an expression that indicates that the divorce will take effect when he dies, then the divorce will have no meaning. If, however, he says that he is giving her the divorce and that once he dies, he wants the divorce to take effect retroactively from today, then the divorce will work, according to his instructions.

We explore the famous royal divorces in England that appropriated rabbinic laws of divorce.

Gittin 71: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹנְסָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ מוֹצִיאָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Deaf-mute Divorcing

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav: If a deaf-mute (who married a woman before he became deaf) can communicate his meaning by writing, a get may be written and given to his wife.

Rav Yosef asked: What is the novelty of this teaching? We have learned in our Mishnah: If a man became mute, and they said to him, “Shall we write a get for your wife?” and he nodded his head, they test him three times: If he said “no” for no, and “yes” for yes, they write the get and give it.?

We continue the exploration of the deaf mute in antiquity as well as the neurobiology of deaf mute communication suing functional MRI imaging.

Gittin 70: שׁוֹטֶה לָא סַמֵּיהּ בִּידַן

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether a Get may be given to a man's wife in a case where the man gave a command to write and give a Get to his wife and subsequently lost his sanity as a result of the Kurdiyakus sickness. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Get may not be given until the man's sanity returns, just as a Get may not be given for a Shoteh. Reish Lakish disagrees and maintains that one who is sick with Kurdiyakus can be cured, and therefore his lack of sanity is similar to one who is sleeping who can have the Get delivered for him by a Shali'ach; his condition is not similar to that of a Shoteh for which there is no known cure.

Both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that a Get may not be given for a man who became a Shoteh, even when he commanded the Shali'ach to deliver the Get before he became a Shoteh.

We explore mental competency from legal and medical perspectives.

Gittin 69: לַיְתֵי גִּירָא דְלִילִיתָא

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf continues with a discussion of medicinal recommendations of the Talmudic sages. One teaching that is presented is that there are eight things which are harmful in large quantities but in small quantities are beneficial, namely, traveling, sexual relations, wealth, work, wine, sleep, hot baths, and bloodletting.

We explore the attitude to talmudic remedies by the RAMBAM and the Tosafists with recent Geniza discoveries.

Gittin 68: Ἀσμοδαῖος, אַשְמְדּאָי

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our daf Shlomo HaMelech asked the Rabbis, “How shall I manage to build the Temple?” They replied, “There is the shamir (a creature which could cut through stone) which Moshe brought for the stones of the Ephod.” He asked them, “Where can it to be found?”

They replied, “Bring a male and a female demon and apply pressure to them; perhaps they know and will tell you.” So, he brought a male and a female demon and pressured them. They said to him, “We do not know, but perhaps Ashmedai the king of the demons knows.”

We then follow the long story of Benayahu son of Yehoyada’s mission to find the demon.

We examine the history of Ashmodai the demon in various ancient texts.

Gittin 67: קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס (καρδιακός)

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna in the seventh perek of Massekhet Gittin discusses a case where a man who is suffering from a condition called kordyakos instructs messengers to write a geṭ for his wife. The Mishna rules that in such a case the geṭ should not be written.

In the Gemara, Shmuel explains that kordyakos is a condition that comes from drinking wine that has not properly fermented. The source of the term kordyakos is Greek (καρδιακός), meaning pertaining to the heart, or heart disease. According to both the Sages and the ancient Greeks, the heart was the seat of human intellect. Therefore, the term: heart disease, was used to describe mental illness. In the context of our daf it implies temporary insanity: the heart refers to understanding and sensitivity. Thus, in a case where the husband cannot think straight because of his condition, we do not take his instructions seriously.

We explore ancient folk remedies.

Gittin 66: אִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִידְּמוֹיֵי אִידְּמוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna tells us that a person who is thrown into a pit and expects to die might call out and say that anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife and give it to her. This is considered to be valid, it seems, because people were living in times of danger. In times of danger, the rabbis rule leniently to ensure that the people maintain what they can of their Jewish observance.

The Gemara is concerned that this voice might not be that of a man but instead the voice of a demon. Does he have a shadow that can be seen? Does he have the shadow of a shadow?

We explore the talmudic complex and sympathetic view of demons and auditory hallucinations.

Gittin 65: גְּנִיבָא יוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf ends with the beginning of a new Mishna. These words tell us that a husband who requests a get be written for his wife should be indulged, regardless of the circumstance. He might have left with a caravan or he might be dangerously ill, says Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, but others should provide this service for him.

At first the Chachamim said that someone who is being taken out in chains and instructs witnesses to write a Get for his wife they shall write it and give it. Rashi says that he is being taken out to be killed; however the Yerushalmi states that even if he is taken out in chains for monetary obligation the Din applies.

The Chasam Sofer explains that Rashi also learns like the Yerushalmi that even if he is being taken out for monetary obligations the Din applies because a person who is being taken by the Malchus for monetary reasons is in mortal danger because once the Malchus gets a hold of a person for any reason they are liable to kill him.

Gittin 64: יְדָא יַתִּירְתָּא זַכִּי לַהּ רַחֲמָנָא

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to Torah law, a father has the right to accept kiddushin on behalf of his daughter when she is a minor, and she will be married immediately. A na’ara is in a situation where either she or her father can accept kiddushin on her behalf. Once she passes that stage, she is an adult and her father can no longer act on her behalf with regard to marriage.

The Mishna on our daf teaches that in the case of a na’ara, both she and her father have the ability to accept a geṭ for her. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, arguing that only the father has the ability to do so. All agree that a basic principle is that for a geṭ to work the woman receiving it must understand the significance of the geṭ and recognize the need to guard the document properly.

Gittin 63: שָׁאנֵי מָמוֹן, דְּאִיתְיְהִיב לִמְחִילָּה

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses the case of a sheliaḥ leikabalah – a messenger appointed by a woman to accept a geṭ on her behalf. The Mishna teaches that in the event that the messenger reports that he received the geṭ, but he cannot produce it, the woman needs to produce witnesses both on the original establishment of the messenger and on the fact that the messenger received it and that it was destroyed. The Mishna concludes by noting that these do not need to be two separate sets of witnesses; the same people can attest to both parts of the divorce.

We explore the notion of Marriage, Infidelity, Divorce, and Reconciliation as Metaphor in the prophets…

Gittin 62: הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The sixth perek of Massekhet Gittin, which begins on our daf, returns us to the issues of Jewish divorce law. Specifically, this perek focuses on sheliḥut – arranging for a messenger to play a role in the divorce.

There are two types of sheliḥut that are discussed regarding a geṭ:

Sheliḥut le-holakhah – a messenger established by the husband to deliver the geṭ. In this case the divorce will take effect when it reaches the wife’s hands and she takes possession of it.

Sheliḥut le-kabalah – a messenger established by the wife to accept the geṭ. In this case, the divorce will take effect the moment that the messenger accepts it on behalf of the wife.

One issue that concerns our Gemara is whether a woman can act as a shelihaḥ le-holakhah on behalf of a man or if a man could play the role of a sheliaḥ le-kabala for a woman.

Gittin 61: אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גוֹיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have seen, our perek has begun to deal with rabbinic enactments that were instituted to establish certain norms of behavior mipnei darkhei shalom – in order to keep the peace (see daf 59).

Several of these enactments deal with cases of possession and ownership. If a child picks something up, can it be taken from him? If a poor person drops fruit to the ground from a tree, can someone take it or does it belong to him? In cases like these, even though it appears that there is no real kinyan, mipnei darkhei shalom we view these things as having been claimed.

We explore those enactments that allow for impoverished non Jews to also benefit for the sake of peace.

Gittin 60: תּוֹרָה מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Elozar says: Much of the (laws of the) Torah is able to be derived from the verses within it, and a minority of it is not hinted at in the Torah but is transmitted orally. This is as the verse states: “I will write for him most of my Torah, like a stranger they will be.”

Rabbi Yochanan says most of it is transmitted orally while only a small amount is able to be derived. This is as the verse says, “For “al pi” -- “according” to these things.” [The word “pi” can also mean mouth, indicating that these words are mainly transmitted orally.]

Rabbi Yochanan said: Hashem only made a covenant with Bnei Yisroel because of the Oral Law, as the verse states, “Because due to these things I have made a covenant with you, Israel.”

We explore the tradition of menorah, the written oral law and their relationship as well as the struggle to make sense in the face of modern tools of scholarship.

Gittin 59: מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Following a lengthy discussion of rabbinic enactments made mipnei tikkun ha-olam – to encourage the proper workings of society – our Mishna introduces a new set of similar enactments that were instituted to establish certain norms of behavior mipnei darkhei shalom – in order to keep the peace.

One example is the rule that a kohen will always be called to the Torah first, a levite second, and only afterwards will others be called. Several amora’im are quoted by the Gemara as noting that there are pesukim in the Torah that serve as sources for this rule. This leads Abaye to question why the Mishna refers to this rule as darkhei shalom when, in fact, it is a biblical law.

Gittin 58: הָיוּ דּוֹקְרִין אוֹתָן בְּחוֹטְרֵיהֶן

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Further to our agaric narratives of the Hurban we are told the following:

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving the son and the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who were taken captive and sold into slavery to two different masters. After some time, the two masters met in a certain place. This master said: I have a male slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world, and that master said: I have a female slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world.

The horror of these stories is further explored in our review of the approach to agaddic narratives of catastrophe.