Commentary for Yevamot 191:18

לרבנן דאמרי יש גט אחר גט ה"מ בגדול אחר גדול או בקטן אחר קטן אבל קטן אחר גדול לא מהני:

has [the power to address] a <i>ma'amar</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> It was taught likewise: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A boy of the age of nine years and one day. ');">⁵⁰</span> has [the right to give] a letter of divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> and he has [the right to address] a <i>ma'amar</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> so R. Meir. Could R. Meir, however, hold the view [that such a boy] has [the power to give] a letter of divorce?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His act is effective and causes his sister-in- law to be unfit for marriage to his brothers. ');">⁵¹</span> Surely it was taught: Cohabitation with a boy of the age of nine years [and one day] was given the same validity as that of a <i>ma'amar</i> by an adult; and R. Meir said: The <i>halizah</i> of a boy of the age of nine years was given the same validity as that of a letter of divorce by an adult.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Nid. 45a, supra 68a. ');">⁵²</span> Now, if that were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Meir the letter of divorce of a boy of the age of nine years and one day is valid. ');">⁵³</span> it should have been stated, 'As that of his own letter of divorce'! — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A boy the age of nine years and one day. ');">⁵⁴</span> has [the right],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give a letter of divorce. V. supra p. 655. n. 11. ');">⁵⁵</span> but [his divorce is of a] lesser validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and small'. Hence no comparison could be made between his halizah which is as valid as that of a divorce by on adult, and his own divorce which is not so valid. ');">⁵⁶</span> For according to R. Gamaliel who ruled that there is no [validity in a] letter of divorce after another letter of divorce, his ruling is applicable only [in the case of a divorce] by an adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce] by an adult after that of a minor is effective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the divorce of the minor is of lesser validity. ');">⁵⁷</span> while according to the Rabbis who ruled that a letter of divorce given after another letter of divorce is valid, the ruling applies only to [a divorce] by adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce by] a minor after [that of] an adult is not effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the divorce of the minor is of lesser validity. ');">⁵⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 191:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.