Gittin 170

Chapter 170

א רבי יהודה אומר ודן דיהוי ליכי מינאי ספר תירוכין ואגרת שבוקין וגט פטורין למהך להתנסבא לכל גבר דיתצביין גופו של גט שחרור הרי את בת חורין הרי את לעצמך:
1 R. JUDAH SAYS: [HE MUST ADD,] AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE AND A BILL OF DISMISSAL. WHEREWITH YOU MAY GO AND MARRY ANY MAN THAT YOU PLEASE. THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF.
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פשיטא אמר לה לאשתו הרי את בת חורין לא אמר ולא כלום אמר לה לשפחתו הרי את מותרת לכל אדם לא אמר ולא כלום
2 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. There is no question that if a man says to his wife, Behold you are hereby a free woman, his words are of no effect,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she is already free. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג אמר לה לאשה הרי את לעצמך מהו לגמרי קאמר לה או למלאכה קאמר לה
3 and if he says to his bondwoman, Behold you are hereby permitted to any man, his words are of no effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because not having been emancipated as far as work is concerned, she cannot marry an Israelite. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ת"ש דתנן גופו של גט שחרור הרי את בת חורין הרי את לעצמך ומה עבדא דקני ליה גופיה כי א"ל הרי את לעצמך קני גופיה אשה דלא קני גופה לא כ"ש
4 If he said to his wife, Behold you belong to yourself, what are we to say? Does he mean, you belong to yourself entirely, or only as far as your work is concerned? — Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: Since we have learnt: THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF. Now seeing that a slave whose body belongs [to his master] becomes his own owner when he says to him, Behold you belong to yourself, how much more so with a wife whose body does not belong to him?
ה א"ל רבינא לרב אשי א"ל לעבדו אין לי עסק בך מהו
5 Rabina asked R. Ashi: If a man said to his slave, I have no concern with you, what [are we to say]? — R. Hanin said to R. Ashi, or, according to another report, R. Hanin of Huzna'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Or Hozae, the modern Khuzistan, S.W. Persia. V. Kid. 6b.] ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ו א"ל רב חנין לרב אשי ואמרי לה רב חנין מחוזנאה לרב אשי ת"ש דתניא המוכר עבדו לעובד כוכבים יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור מרבו ראשון אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בד"א שלא כתב עליו אונו אבל כתב עליו אונו זהו שחרורו
6 said to R. Ashi: Come and hear, as it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 43b, q.v. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ז מאי אונו אמר רב ששת דכתב ליה לכשתברח ממנו אין לי עסק בך:
7 If a man sells his slave to a heathen, he thereby becomes emancipated, but he requires a deed of emancipation from his first master. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: This is the case only if he did not write out an oni for him, but if he wrote out an oni for him, this is his deed of emancipation. What is an oni? — R. Shesheth said: If he gave him a written statement saying. If you escape from him, I have no concern with you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that these words confer emancipation. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ח ר' יהודה אומר ודן דיהוי ליכי מינאי ספר תירוכין ואגרת שבוקין: במאי קמיפלגי רבנן סברי ידים שאין מוכיחות הויין ידים ואף על גב דלא כתב לה ודן מוכחא מילתא דבהאי גיטא קא מגרש לה
8 RABBI JUDAH SAYS. [HE MUST ADD], AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE. What is the ground of the difference [between the Rabbis and R. Judah]? — The Rabbis held that an indication<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. 'yadayim', 'hands'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט ור' יהודה סבר ידים שאין מוכיחות לא הויין ידים וטעמא דכתב לה ודן דמוכחא מילתא דבהאי גיטא קא מגרש לה אבל לא כתב לה ודן אמרי בדיבורא גרשה ושטרא ראיה בעלמא הוא
9 which is not definite can still count as an indication,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hands which do not prove are still counted hands', v. Kid. 5b. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י אמר אביי האי מאן דכתב גיטא לא לכתוב ודין דמשמע ודין אלא ודן
10 and so though he did not insert the words 'and this', the circumstances show that he was divorcing her with this Get. R, Judah on the other hand held that an indication not definite does not count as an indication, and the reason why the Get is valid is because he has inserted the words 'and this', which show that he was divorcing her with this Get, but if he did not insert these words, people will say that he divorced her by word of mouth, and the document is merely a corroboration.
יא ולא לכתוב איגרת דמשמע איגרת אלא אגרת ולא לכתוב לימהך דמשמע לי מהך ולא לכתוב למחך דמשמע כי חוכא
11 Abaye said: The one who writes out the Get should not spell [H] which might be read we-din [and it is just], but [H].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We-den, 'and this'. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יב דיתיהויין דיתיצבייין תלתא תלתא יודי"ן דמשמע תהויין ותצביין ולורכיה לוי"ו דתירוכין ולוי"ו דשבוקין דמשמע תריכין ושביקין
12 He should not spell [H] which might be read igarath [a roof], but [H].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Iggereth, 'a letter'. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יג ולורכיה לוי"ו דכדו דמשמע וכדי ולא ליכתוב לאיתנסבא דמשמע לא יתנסבא אלא להתנסבא
13 He should not write [H]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In place of li-mehak [H] 'to go'. [In other words, Abaye rules out the matres lectionis in these three words, in view of the ambiguity they may give rise to.] ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יד איבעיא להו בעינן ודן או לא בעינן ודן
14 which might be read li-mehak [to me from this], nor should he spell [H]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The [H] and [H] are interchangeable letters in Semitic languages.] ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
טו תא שמע דאתקין רבא בגיטי איך פלניא בר פלניא פטר ותריך ית פלוניתא אינתתיה דהות אינתתיה מן קדם דנא מיומא דנן ולעלם ואילו ודן לא קאמר
15 which might be understood 'as a joke'. The words and [H] and [H]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Di-tehewjen, di-tezbijen, 'that you may marry', 'whom you please'. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טז ולטעמיך כולהו מי קאמר אלא בעינן הכא נמי בעינן:
16 should have each three yods [at the end], as two might be read di-tehewjan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Third pers. plur. fem. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יז מיומא דנן לאפוקי מדרבי יוסי דאמר זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו
17 [that they may be] and de-tezibjan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Third pers. plur. fem. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יח ולעלם
18 [whom they may like]. The <i>waw</i> of the words [H]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terukin, 'release', ');"><sup>14</sup></span> and [H]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebukin, 'divorce', ');"><sup>15</sup></span> should be lengthened<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as not to look like a yod. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> as otherwise the words might be read terikin [those who are divorced] and shebikin [those that are released].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not an abstract noun but a participle passive. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> The <i>waw</i> of [H]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kedu, 'accordingly'. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> should also be lengthened so as not to read [H] which means 'in vain'. He should not write [H] which might be read la-yithnesseba [she shall not be married], but [H].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Le-hithnasseba, 'to be married', ');"><sup>19</sup></span> The question was raised: Are the words 'and this' required or not? — Come and hear: Raba laid down the formula of the Get thus: '[We are witnesses] how So-and-so son of So-and-so dismissed and divorced his wife from this day and for all time'. We see that he does not mention 'and this'. But if we are to go by this, we might ask, did he mention all the rest of the Get? Nevertheless we require the rest, and so we require [this also]. The words 'from this day' are to rule out the view of R. Jose who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 72a. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> The words 'for all time',
Previous ChapterNext Chapter