Gittin 86: מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 86

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches us that there are three gittin that are invalid but the children resulting from a subsequent marriage are not classified as mamzerim. These three gittin are:

· a get written in the husband's handwriting with no witness signatures.

· a get with witnesses but no date.

· a get with a date but only one witness.

The rabbis consider possible cases that would explain why children in these circumstances would not be considered mamzerim. They consider when a wife must leave her second husband and when she would be allowed to stay.

We explore the loads behind the famous Tzfat get of 2014 with the help of Rabbi Jachter of Kol Torah.

Gittin 85: הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 85

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the Mishna on our daf, the central statement of the divorce document is the idea that, “Harei at muteret le-khol adam – you are hereby permitted to any man,” a statement that breaks the bonds of the existing marriage.

Rabbi Yehuda says that it must say that this geṭ will act as a scroll of divorce; a letter of leave and a bill of dismissal, permitting the woman to marry any man that she desires.

We explore the notion of divorce as emancipation with review of the civil code and its development in the US.

Gittin 84: מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרָה לָא מַפְּקִינַן

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 84

To download, click/tap here:  PDF

Our daf continues the discussion of how to deal with a divorce that is given predicated on various conditions made by the husband. What if he makes the divorce conditional on actions that his wife cannot possibly perform? Among the examples offered by the baraita are that the geṭ is given –

On the condition that you climb up to the sky

On the condition that you go down to the deepest depths

On the condition that you swallow a reed that is four cubits long

On the condition that you cross the ocean by foot

In all of these cases the Tanna Kamma rules that since the condition cannot be fulfilled, the geṭ cannot take effect.

We examine whether verbal declarations can violate halachic norms and review the infamous case of the Get of Cleves.

Gittin 83: אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 83

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When a man writes a geṭ to divorce his wife, he can make the divorce conditional on a specific thing that the woman will do, but the divorce cannot allow him to retain any level of involvement in her life. Thus, if the husband makes the divorce conditional by saying, “This is your geṭ, on the condition that you do not go to your father’s house for the next thirty days,” the geṭ will be a good one, assuming that the wife fulfills the condition and does not go to her father’s house for thirty days. If, however, the condition was open-ended – the husband said that the geṭ was conditional on her refraining from going to her father’s house forever – then the geṭ cannot work, since the husband would still be in control of his wife’s activities even after the divorce.

We continue our exploration of the Sefer Krisus as a metaphor.

Gittin 82: חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 82

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If someone divorces his wife and says, “You are permitted to any man besides So-and-so,” Rabbi Eliezer permits this.

The Chachamim forbid it. What should the person do? He should take the Get back, given to her anew, and merely say, “You are permitted to any man.” If the above condition was written in the Get itself, even if it was later erased, the Get is invalid.

We continue our exploration of conditional divorces.

Gittin 81: וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוּנְדְּקִי

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 81

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna tells of a couple who was divorced but then spent the night together at an inn. Are they assumed to have had sexual intercourse? If so, do they need a second divorce? Or are they assumed to be partaking in licentious sexual intercourse?

The Gemara argues both sides of this question. Because sexual intercourse is a form of betrothal, the couple could be remarried and thus requiring another divorce. However, if they were only betrothed to begin with, they might not have had intercourse since the husband was not "accustomed to her”.

We explore the issue of post divorce relationships halachically and psychologically.

Gittin 80: מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת βασιλεία

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 80

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, the date written in the geṭ is an essential part of the document.

The Mishna on our daf discusses the date and how it must be written. While today the Jewish calendar begins its count from the time of Creation, and the secular (Gregorian) calendar is based on a count that begins with the birth of the founder of Christianity, throughout history different calendars were used.

Our Mishna was written at a time when the common practice was to count from the time of the ruling king of a given country, and the Sages established a rule that religious documents like a get should include that date as well, mishum shalom malkhut – in order to keep the peace with the governing body.

The Mishna teaches that it is essential for the date to accurately reflect the ruling monarchy’s current reign. In the event that the date refers to another government or to some historical event (e.g., the building of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple) the geṭ will be invalid.

When discussing other governments whose rule cannot be used as the dating source on a document like a geṭ, as one example the Mishna mentions malkhut she-ainah hogenet – an “inappropriate” kingdom. The Gemara explains that this refers to Rome, and it is labeled with this epithet because it does not have its own writing or language, rather it borrowed its language from others.

Gittin 79: ְגֵט יָשָׁן

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 79

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As is the case with all legal documents, the date that appears on a geṭ is one of the basic requirements for the document to be valid. Somewhat surprisingly, the geṭ need not be delivered on the date that is written in the document, and it will be a valid geṭ even if it is given some time later. This is only true if the couple did not continue to live in close proximity after the geṭ was written. If after the geṭ was written the husband and wife were together (i.e., they could have slept together) then the geṭ is considered a geṭ yashan – an old geṭ – which the Mishna teaches cannot be used according to Beit Hillel, although Beit Shammai permits its use.

We further explore mediation in divorce.

Gittin 78: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה

For the source text click/tap here: Gittin 78

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz informs us "How aware does the woman need to be that she is receiving a bill of divorce? Since, according to the Torah, a woman can be divorced even against her will (a law that has not been in practice since the enactments of Rebbeinu Gershom Me’or ha-Golah in the 10th century), is it necessary for the husband to inform his wife of the divorce, or can he hide the true significance of the paper until it is already in her possession?

The Mishna on our daf teaches that a man cannot say to his wife “hold this promissory note for me” and hand a geṭ to her; similarly, he cannot slip it into her hands while she is sleeping. The geṭ will not be valid until it is given to her together with the statement “here is your divorce.”

We further explore the metaphor of marriage and divorce in our relationship with the Divine.

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.