Gittin 17bגיטין י״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Gittin 17b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
17bי״ז ב

זנות לא שכיחא

Adultery is infrequent, and the Sages would not institute the dating of a bill of divorce to avoid an infrequent problem.

ורבי יוחנן מאי טעמא לא אמר כריש לקיש קסבר יש לבעל פירות עד שעת נתינה

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say in accordance with the reason of Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers that he holds the produce belongs to the husband until the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and only afterward does the woman have the rights to the produce of her property. If she attempts to collect the value of the produce sold after her divorce, she will be asked to prove when she received the bill of divorce. Therefore, in terms of assisting her to collect these monies, the dating of the bill of divorce does not serve any purpose.

בשלמא לריש לקיש משום הכי קא מכשיר ר"ש אלא לרבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דר"ש דמכשיר

The Gemara continues and asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, due to that reason Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce that was signed on the day after it was written, because he holds that the rights to the produce of usufruct property revert to the woman the moment the bill of divorce is written. She is therefore within her rights to collect these monies from the date written in the bill of divorce, even if it was given at a later date. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the reason for writing the date is to prevent the husband from shielding his wife from punishment for her infidelity, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems it valid? There is still a concern that he will have the bill of divorce written and dated earlier in order to protect her.

אמר לך רבי יוחנן אליבא דר"ש לא קאמינא כי קאמינא אליבא דרבנן

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: I am not speaking in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he clearly is not concerned with the husband’s shielding his wife from punishment. When I speak, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that if the bill of divorce was signed on the night following its writing, it is invalid.

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן היינו דאיכא בין רבי שמעון לרבנן אלא לריש לקיש מאי איכא בין רבי שמעון לרבנן

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and the opinion of the Rabbis. However, according to Reish Lakish, what difference is there between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis?

פירי דמשעת כתיבה ועד שעת חתימה איכא בינייהו

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them pertains to the produce of the wife’s property from the time of the writing until the time of the signing. According to the Rabbis, the rights to the produce revert to the wife only once the bill of divorce is signed, and the bill of divorce must be dated then. According to Rabbi Shimon, the woman’s rights to the produce go into effect the moment the bill of divorce is written, and the date on which it was signed is irrelevant.

והא איפכא שמעינן להו דאתמר מאימתי מוציאין לפירות רבי יוחנן אמר משעת כתיבה וריש לקיש אמר משעת נתינה

The Gemara challenges the explanation as to why Rabbi Yoḥanan does not agree with Reish Lakish: But didn’t we hear Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish say the opposite of this? As it is stated that they had a dispute with regard to the question: From when does the court remove the property from the possession of the husband, i.e., when does he lose his right to the produce? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce, and Reish Lakish said: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce. This does not accord with what was stated above, that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the husband retains the rights to the produce until the bill of divorce is given and Reish Lakish holds that the wife regains the rights beforehand. Here, their opinions are the opposite of the way the Gemara explained earlier.

איפוך

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in this final dispute so that it is Reish Lakish who holds that the rights to the produce revert to the woman at the time of writing and it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who holds that it is at the time of giving the divorce.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף ג' גיטין פסולים ואם ניסת הולד כשר מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתן אהנו דלכתחילה לא תינשא

§ The Gemara records a series of questions with regard to the parameters of the ordinance that bills of divorce should be dated. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It was taught in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid, but if a woman married after she received one of these bills of divorce then the offspring is of unflawed lineage, meaning that the husband and wife are divorced after the fact. One of the three bills of divorce listed is a bill of divorce that does not have a date. Abaye asks: Being that the divorce does take effect, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring that the date appear on a bill of divorce? Either way the bill of divorce is valid after the fact without a date. The Gemara answers: It is effective in that she may not marry ab initio as a result of receiving this bill of divorce, which consequently limits the usage of such a bill of divorce.

גזייה לזמן דידיה ויהביה ניהלה מאי אמר ליה לרמאי לא חיישינן

Abaye continued to ask of Rav Yosef: If the husband cut out its date after the dated bill of divorce was written and gave it to her, what is the halakha? May the bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: We are not concerned about a deceiver. The ordinance requiring that the bill of divorce be dated does not apply in this case, as it was dated when it was written.

כתוב בו שבוע שנה חדש שבת מאי אמר ליה כשר ומה הועילו חכמים בתקנתן

Abaye continued and asked: If the date written in the bill of divorce made reference only to the seven-year Sabbatical cycle in which it was written, or only to the year, or only to the month, or only to the week, but the precise date was not recorded, then what is the halakha? May such a bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: It is valid to be used ab initio. Abaye asked him: If so, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring the dating of the bill of divorce? Regardless of the reason for recording the date, such vague dating will not ameliorate the problem.

אהנו לשבוע דקמיה ולשבוע דבתריה דאי לא תימא הכי יומא גופיה מי ידעי' אי מצפרא אי מפניא אלא ליומא דקמיה וליומא דבתריה הכא נמי אהני לשבוע דקמיה ולשבוע דבתריה

Rav Yosef answered: It helps for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it. If witnesses testify that the woman committed adultery before this seven-year period, then she is liable; if the husband sells produce after this seven-year period, then the woman can recover it. The reason for this is because if you do not say so, i.e., that a limited benefit is enough to justify the ordinance, then on that day itself, do we know if it was written in the morning or in the evening? All of the issues that were mentioned before could apply also to that day itself. Rather, the date is effective for the day before it and the day after it. Here also, writing the seven-year period is effective for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it.

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא כתביה

Ravina said to Rava: If he writes the bill of divorce,