Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

גיטין א׳:ה׳ - א׳:ו׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, July 11, 2019 is גיטין א׳:ה׳ - א׳:ו׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Gittin Perek 1 Mishnah 5

גיטין פרק א׳ משנה ה׳

5
Any document that has a Samaritan witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid. With regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, even though their signatures are those of gentiles they are all valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid, as these two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court.
כָּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי, פָּסוּל, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר. כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִים בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶם גּוֹיִם, כְּשֵׁרִים, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף אֵלּוּ כְשֵׁרִין, לֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְהֶדְיוֹט:
ה׳
ברטנורא

חוץ מגיטי נשים – that if there was upon it [a Jewish bill of divorce] one witnesses who is a Cuthean/a member of the sect of the Samaritans (on occasion, this word is used in place of גוי/non-Jew; עכו"ם /idol worshiper or מין/sectarian as a result of censorship), it is valid, if both of the them are Cutheans, the first teacher of the Mishnah disqualifies them for Jewish bills of divorce, but Rabban Gamaliel relates a story where he validated [it], even where both of them [the witnesses] were Cutheans. But nowadays, they [the Rabbis] decreed [against] the Cutheans as they were [to be considered] as non-Jews in all matters, making no distinction between other documents and Jewish bills of divorce, for even if one witness was a Cuthean, it [the document] is invalid.

בערכאות של גוים – that the witnesses would offer their testimony before the sitting judge in the place where their matters of justice take place. But this is where they knew that judge and of those witnesses who do not accept bribes. And this specifically [refers to] loan documents and documents of sale where the witnesses saw funds exchanged. But documents of admission and Jewish bills of divorce, and any thing which is a legal matter in their [i.e., Roman] gentile offices, everything is invalid.

רבי שמעון אומר כשרים – they were not mentioned in the Jewish academy (Bet Midrash) to be invalidated.

אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט – through non-Jewish commoners who are not judges, but the Halakha does not follow like [the opinion of] Rabbi Shimon.

חוץ מגיטי נשים. שאם יש עליו עד כותי אחד, כשר. אבל שניהם כותים, פוסל ת״ק אפילו בגיטי נשים. ורבן (שמעון בן) גמליאל עשה מעשה והכשיר אפילו כששניהם כותים. והאידנא דגזרו על הכותים שיהיו כגוים לכל דבריהם, לא שנא שאר שטרות ול״ש גיטי נשים אפילו עד אחד כותי פסול:

בערכאות של גוים. שהעידו העדים עדותם לפני השופט במקום מושב משפטיהם. והוא שידענו באותו שופט ובאותם עדים דלא מקבלי שוחדא. ודוקא בשטרי הלואות ושטרי מקח וממכר שהעדים ראו בנתינת הממון. אבל שטרי הודאות וגיטי נשים, וכל דבר שהוא מעשה ב״ד בערכאות שלהם, הכל פסול:

ר״ש אומר כשרים. לא הוזכרו בבית המדרש להפסל:

אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט. ע״י גוים הדיוטות שאינם דיינים. ואין הלכה כר״ש:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Gittin Perek 1 Mishnah 6

גיטין פרק א׳ משנה ו׳

6
With regard to one who says to another: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, if before the document reaches the woman or the slave the giver wishes to retract his decision, then with regard to both of them, he can retract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One can retract his decision in the case of bills of divorce but not in the case of bills of manumission. The Rabbis explain the reason for their ruling: This is because one can act in a person’s interest in his absence, and therefore the agent acquires the document on behalf of the slave from the moment the owner hands the bill of manumission to the agent. But one can act to a person’s detriment only in his presence. The receipt of a bill of divorce is considered to be to a woman’s detriment, and therefore an agent cannot receive it for her without her consent. They explain further: The emancipation of a slave is in his interests, despite the fact that he receives sustenance from his master while a slave, as, if the master wishes not to sustain his slave he is allowed not to provide him with sustenance. This demonstrates that slavery is not in the interest of the slave, as he does not receive any guaranteed benefit. But if a husband wishes not to sustain his wife, he is not allowed to proceed in this manner. Consequently, marriage is in the interests of the woman. Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But even so, it is not in the interest of a slave to be emancipated, as, if his master is a priest, he disqualifies his slave from partaking of teruma by emancipating him, just as a husband who is a priest disqualifies his Israelite wife from partaking of teruma by divorcing her. The Rabbis said to him: It is permitted for a priest’s slave to partake of teruma not because he has a right to sustenance, but rather because he is his master’s acquisition. In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one does not give it after his death. The reason for this is that bills of divorce and manumission must be transferred by the husband or the master. Once he has died the document can no longer be given, and the agency he appointed for this purpose is likewise canceled. However, if he said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then he died, one does give the recipient the money after his death.
הָאוֹמֵר, תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן, יַחֲזֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, רַשַּׁאי. וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶם, וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָנוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר, תְּנוּ גֵט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, וּמֵת, לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מָנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וּמֵת, יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה:
ו׳
ברטנורא

רצה לחזור בשניהן – before it [the Jewish bill of divorce or the bill of manumission] reaches the hand of the woman and/or the slave.

יחזור – But the agent cannot provide their needs for their benefit since it [the document] is something to their detriment and they lose their food/support.

וחכמים אומרים: בגיטי נשים – He (i.e., the husband) can retract (his Jewish bill of divorce),

אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים – but he cannot retract in his bill of manumission of slaves. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי – Therefore, when he (i.e., the owner) frees him (i.e., his slave), he does not cause him to lose his support/food, but he is not permitted to feed his wife; therefore, if he divorces her, she causes her to lose her support/food.

מפני שהוא קנינו – That is to say, since he {i.e., the slave] eats the heave-offering/Terumah when the slave is the servant of a Kohen/Priest, it is only because he is the purchase-property of the Kohen/Priest, since regarding the cattle of Kohen/Priest which can eat the veches of Terumah/heave-offering, but it is not a a perfect comparison. Therefore, when he frees him (i.e. the slave), even though he causes him to lose the ability to eat Terumah/heave-offering, it is not an obligation for the slave [to do so].

לא יתנו לאחר מיתה – The Get/Jewish bill of divorce does not take effect until it reaches her hand, and if it reaches her hand, he has died, and there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death. And similarly, the document of manumission, when it reaches his (i.e. the slave’s) hand if he died, his ownership over him is broken.

יתנו לאחר מיתה – even though he (i.e., the now deceased owner) did not say, “this Maneh”/weight equivalent to fifty silver shekels, since the words of someone who is on his death bed are regarded as if they are written and transmitted.

רצה לחזור בשניהן. קודם שיגיע ליד האשה והעבד:

יחזור. ואין השליח יכול לזכות בהם לצרכן, דחוב הוא להן, שמאבדין מזונותיהן:

וחכמים אומרים בגטי נשים. יכול לחזור:

אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים. והלכה כחכמים:

שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי. הלכך כי משחרר ליה לא מפסיד ליה מזוני. אבל שלא לזון את אשתו אינו רשאי, הלכך כי מגרש לה מפסיד לה מזוני:

מפני שהוא קנינו. כלומר הא דהוא אכיל בתרומה כשהוא עבד כהן אינו אלא מפני שהוא קנינו של כהן, מידי דהוה אבהמתו של כהן שאוכלת בכרשיני תרומה, ולאו משום מעליותא היא, הלכך כי משחרר ליה אע״פ שמפסידו מלאכול בתרומה אין זו חובה לעבד:

לא יתנו לאחר מיתה. דגיטא לא הוי עד דמטי לידה וכי מטי לידה הא מית ואין גט לאחר מיתה. ושטר שחרור נמי כי מטא לידיה הא מית ופקע רשותיה מיניה:

יתנו לאחר מיתה. ואע״ג דלא אמר מנה זה, דדברי שכיב מרע ככתובין וכמסורין דמו:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר