Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

גיטין ב׳:ז׳ - ג׳:א׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Friday, June 14, 2024 is גיטין ב׳:ז׳ - ג׳:א׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Gittin Perek 2 Mishnah 7

גיטין פרק ב׳ משנה ז׳

7
There are instances in which a woman’s testimony that another woman’s husband has died is not deemed credible (Yevamot 117a). If there is a presumption that due to their familial relationship the two women hate each other, there is concern that the woman is testifying falsely in order to harm the other woman. By doing so, she can cause the other woman to remarry. If her original husband then proves to be living, she will be required to leave her second husband. This mishna teaches: Even the women who are not deemed credible to testify on behalf of a woman and say: Her husband died, and she is permitted to remarry, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce. The relatives of the woman who are not deemed credible to testify that her husband has died are: Her mother-in-law; and her mother-in-law’s daughter; and her rival wife, i.e., another wife of her husband’s; and her yevama, i.e., her husband’s brother’s wife; and her husband’s daughter. The mishna explains: What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death, that certain women are deemed credible to testify about one but not the other? With regard to a bill of divorce, it is so that the writing proves that the husband is divorcing his wife, and the testimony is needed only to supplement the bill of divorce. Similarly, the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as the Gemara will explain.
אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר מֵת בַּעְלָהּ, נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּטָּהּ, חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. מַה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה, שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ. הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶת גִּטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם:
ז׳
ברטנורא

וחמותה ובת חמותה כו' – [they] are not believed to say that her husband died, because they hate her and intend to disgrace her.

ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – and especially when the husband made a condition with her at the time that he delivered the Jewish bill of divorce to her hand and said to her: You will not be divorced other than in the court of so-and-so, and you will say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” And the court takes it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] from her hand after she said, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” and appoint an agent who will go back and give it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] to her, but the wife whose Jewish bill of divorce leaves her hand in whatever place she happens to be, is [considered to be] divorced. And even if the Jewish bill of divorce’s signatories are not verified, and she does not have to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

חמותה ובת חמותה כו׳ אינן נאמנות לומר מת בעלה, משום דסניין לה ומכוונין לקלקלה:

ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפ״נ ובפ״נ. ודוקא כשהתנה הבעל עמה בשעה שמסר הגט לידה ואמר לה לא תתגרשי אלא בבית דינו של פלוני ותאמרי בפ״נ ובפ״נ. והב״ד לוקחין אותו מידה אחר שאמרה בפ״נ ובפ״נ, וממנין שליח שיחזור ויתן אותו לה. אבל אשה שגיטה יוצא מתחת ידה בכל מקום שהיא, הרי זו מגורשת, ואפילו שאין הגט מקוים בחותמיו, ואינה צריכה שתאמר בפ״נ ובפ״נ:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Gittin Perek 3 Mishnah 1

גיטין פרק ג׳ משנה א׳

1
Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. How so? In a case of a man who was passing through the marketplace and heard the sound of scribes who write bills of divorce dictating the text to their students: The man so-and-so divorces so-and-so from the place of such and such; and the man said: This is my name and that is the name of my wife, and he wishes to use this bill for his divorce, this bill is unfit for him to divorce his wife with it, as it was not written for the sake of any woman. Moreover, if one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife’s name is the same as your wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce and I will use it; the bill of divorce is unfit for the second man to divorce his wife with it. Moreover, if one had two wives and their names were identical, and he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older one and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger one with it. Moreover, if he said to the scribe: Write a bill of divorce for whichever one of them that I will want and I will divorce her with it, this bill of divorce is unfit for him to divorce either wife with it.
כָּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה, פָּסוּל. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמַע קוֹל סוֹפְרִים מַקְרִין, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ אֶת פְּלוֹנִית מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וְאָמַר, זֶה שְּׁמִי וְזֶה שֵּׁם אִשְׁתִּי, פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ, מְצָאוֹ בֶן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ, שְׁמִי כִשְׁמֶךָ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי כְשֵׁם אִשְׁתֶּךָ, פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה, לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, אָמַר לַלַּבְלָר, כְּתֹב לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ, פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ:
א׳
ברטנורא

כל גט – קול סופרים מקרין – The adults read [the Jewish bill of divorce] to their students, and when the Jewish bill of divorce comes before you, write it as such, and they mentioned the name of any person.

יותר מכן – and not only this – that the Jewish bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of Jewish divorce but only for practice (see Gittin 24b), but even that which was written for the sake of Jewish divorce completely, but he [i.e., the husband], changed his mind, it is invalid.

יתר מכאן היו לו ב' נשים כו' – and not only this alone that it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce) was written not for the sake of divorce of this person, it is invalid. But even if he had two wives and it was written for the sake of [the] divorce of this man, it is invalid, since it was not written for the sake of divorce of that woman.

גדולה וקטנה – not exactly.

יתר מכאן – it comes to teach us that we do not say that the matter is clear retroactively, for at the time it is written, it was also his intention for this one, and there is a divorce for him and her.

כל גט. קול סופרים מקרין. הגדולים מקרין לתלמידיהם, כשיבא גט לפניך כתבהו כך. והזכירו שם אינש בעלמא:

יותר מכן. ולא זה בלבד שנכתב שלא לשם גירושין אלא להתלמד, אלא אף זה שנכתב לשם גירושין גמורים ונמלך, פסול:

יתר מכן היו לו ב׳ נשים כו׳ ולא זה בלבד שנכתב שלא לשם גירושין של אדם זה, פסול. אלא אף זה שהיו לו שתי נשים שנכתב לשם גירושין דהאי גברא, פסול, כיון שנכתב שלא לשם גירושין של זו:

גדולה וקטנה. לאו דוקא:

יתר מכן אמר ללבלר וכו׳ הא קמ״ל דלא אמרינן הוברר הדבר למפרע דבשעת כתיבה נמי דעתיה אהא ואיכא גירושין דידיה ודידה:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר