Gittin 26: מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת סוֹפְרִים שָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In order to facilitate the work of scribes, the sages permitted them to write standard forms that would be ready for use.

The Mishna on our daf discusses how different types of standardized documents are written. Specifically, the spaces that need to be left empty should include:

In divorces, the names of the husband, the wife and the date;

In loans, the names of the lender, the borrower, the sum of money and the date;

In land sales, the purchaser, the seller, the price, the parcel of land and the date.

The mishna teaches that the scribe may write the standard part of the document in advance, leaving empty the essential part, due to the ordinance. The Gemara asks: To what ordinance is the mishna referring? Rabbi Yonatan says: Due to the ordinance for the benefit of a scribe, i.e., to enable a scribe to write the standard part of a document in advance so that when a customer arrives he will not need to write the document hurriedly. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. And according to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion, by right it should have been that the scribe would not write even the standard part of the document in advance, as that part must also be written for her sake, but due to the ordinance for the benefit of scribes, the Sages permitted it.

The mishnah cryptically explains that these must be left blank “because of the takkanah”, or “enactment”, without explain what the “takkanah” is. There are several explanations for this, each of which is not without its problems. One explanation is that the “takkanah” was that scribes may write the formulas ahead of time so that when people request a certain document that document would be readily available.

We explore more modern approaches to women’s role in Halacha from Blu Greenberg to the conservative movement viewpoint.

Gittin 25: דְּאֵין בְּרֵירָה

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We learned in the Mishna on yesterday’s daf that if a man married to two women who share the same name tells a scribe to write a geṭ for one of them and that he will decide later on which wife to divorce, the geṭ would be invalid.

From this ruling our Gemara wants to conclude that en berera – that we do not take seriously a later action which clarifies an earlier issue. The question of whether or not halakha recognizes berera – the later clarification – is a topic discussed in relation to many laws throughout the Talmud.

In late 1793, when the Habsburg Monarchy led the coalition against Revolutionary France and all of Europe was at war, one Jewish woman waged her own private struggle in Trieste, the thriving Habsburg free port on the Adriatic. The desperate twenty-three-year-old Rachele Morschene Luzzatto sought to extricate herself from her failing marriage to Lucio Luzzatto, a thirty-eight-year-old broker, her husband of five years, and father of their two-year-old daughter.

We examine the Jews of the Hapsburg Empire.

Gittin 24: סוֹפְרִין מַקְרִין, סוֹפְרִין קוֹרְאִין

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes:

The third perek of Massekhet Gittin begins on our daf and deals with two main issues:

A continuation of the discussions of li-shmah – the law requiring that a geṭ be written with a specific married couple in mind, and

The laws dealing with the messenger who delivers the geṭ. For example, if a messenger travels a significant distance to deliver the geṭ, he cannot be totally certain that the husband is still alive at the time that he hands the geṭ to the wife. As we have learned, a geṭ cannot be given after the husband has died. Although the woman is free to marry whether she is a widow or a divorcee, there are differences between those two situations regarding such laws as marrying a kohen or being obligated in yibum.

We explore the legal function of transferring legal documents (Rav Taragin) and Pro Yair Furstenberg’s paper on the shaping of rabbinic divorce in the setting of Roman Jurisdiction.

Gittin 23: אֶלָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא דְּקָלָא

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or a blind person, or a gentile.

The exceptions are again those people who categorically do not have awareness. In all areas of halakhah, someone who does not have “awareness” cannot act as someone else’s agent. A blind person can also not deliver a get, even though blind people were not considered to lack “awareness”.

But why is a blind person disqualified from serving as an agent? Rav Sheishes answers: It is because he does not know from whom he is taking the get, or to whom he is giving the get. Rav Yosef asks: How, if so, will a blind person be permitted to have marital relations with his wife? And how is an ordinary person permitted to have marital relations with his wife at night (when due to the fact that he cannot see her, he might be cohabiting with a different woman)?

Rather, Rav Yosef concludes, it is permitted because he recognizes her voice. So too, here, the blind person should be qualified to serve as an agent, for he can recognize their voices (the husband and the wife)!?

We explore the notion of voice recognition and dive into the mythology of the blind prophets of yore.

Gittin 22: גּוֹי, לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ עָבֵד

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our next Mishnah states:Anyone is qualified to write a bill of divorce, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. Additionally, a woman may write her own bill of divorce and give it to her husband so that he can present it to her. And a man may write his own receipt, which must be given to him by the woman to confirm that he has paid her the value of her marriage contract. This is because the ratification of a bill of divorce is only through its signatories, and it is irrelevant who wrote it.

We explore the legal status of mental incompetency and the use of documents in gentile courts.

Gittin 21: כְּתָבוֹ לַטּוֹפֶס כְּתָבוֹ לַתּוֹרֶף

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One may not write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the ground. If one wrote it on something that was attached to the ground, and afterward he detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, then it is valid. Rabbi Yehuda deems a bill of divorce invalid unless its writing and its signing were performed when it was already detached.

We continue our exploration of divorce with attention to Gender, Multiculturalism and Dialogue by Lisa Fishbayn.

Gittin 20: גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Chisda said: If a get was not written lishmah (for the sake of the woman) and the scribe traced over it with ink lishmah, we have arrived at an argument between Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim. For we learned in a braisa: A scribe was supposed to write the Name of Hashem in a Sefer Torah, and instead intended to write the name Yehudah.

He forgot to insert the “dalet” and ended up writing the Name of Hashem but without the required intention necessary to write the Holy Name. Rabbi Yehudah posits that the scribe can pass his quill over the Name of Hashem and have the proper intention of writing the Name. The Chachamim disagree, claiming that this is not the best way to write the Name of Hashem, and the Sefer Torah is subsequently invalid.

[We derive from this dispute that Rabbi Yehudah maintains that writing over previous writing is deemed writing, and therefore, according to Rabbi Yehudah, when the scribe writes lishmah over the previous writing on the get, it will be valid. According to the Chachamim, however, writing over previous writing is not deemed writing, and writing lishmah over the previous writing will not validate the get.]

We examine intentionality re the notion of lishmah and Rabbi Jachter’s essays on Wartime Gittin.

Gittin 19: שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲגוּנוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The new Mishnah states:

One may write a bill of divorce with any material that can be used for writing: With deyo, with paint [sam], with sikra, with komos, with kankantom or with anything that produces permanent writing. However, one may not write withother liquids, nor with fruit juice, nor with anything that does not produce permanent writing.

We explore the history of inks and writing.

Gittin 18: לָא מַקְדֵּים אִינָשׁ פּוּרְעָנוּתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara asks: From when do we begin counting for a divorce? Rav says the significant moment for the geṭ is when the geṭ is handed over; Shmuel says that it is from the time that the geṭ is written. After some discussion the Gemara concludes that we can begin counting from the time that it is written.

The need to know when we can begin counting “for the geṭ” refers to a period called havhana (literally, “a period of distinction”) – three months from the time that the couple has separated.

We explore divorce and the timing of the get…comparing with Islamic Fiq..

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.