Gittin 36a:11גיטין ל״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
36aל״ו א

דמדרינן ליה ברבים הניחא למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למאן דאמר יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest in public. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no possibility of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the possibility of nullification, what can be said?

דמדרינן ליה על דעת רבים דאמר אמימר הלכתא אפילו למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest based on the consent of the public, making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent. As Ameimar said, the halakha is as follows: Even according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification, if it was taken based on the consent of the public, it has no possibility of nullification.

והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה כי ההוא מקרי דרדקי דאדריה רב אחא על דעת רבים דהוה פשע בינוקי ואהדריה רבינא דלא אישתכח דדייק כוותיה:

The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva, it has the possibility of nullification. This is like the incident involving a certain teacher of children, upon whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow based on the consent of the public to cease teaching, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much. And Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.

והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם: מפני תיקון העולם דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו לב, מד) וכתוב בספר וחתום

§ The mishna taught: And the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: Is the reason that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world? It is by Torah law that they must sign, as it is written: “And subscribe the deeds, and sign them, and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44).

אמר רבה לא צריכא לרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי תקינו רבנן עדי חתימה מפני תיקון העולם דזמנין דמייתי סהדי אי נמי זימנין דאזלי למדינת הים

Rabba said: No, it is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and not the witnesses who sign the bill of divorce, and by Torah law it does not need to be signed. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted signatory witnesses for the betterment of the world, as sometimes it occurs that the witnesses who witnessed the transmission of the bill of divorce die, or sometimes it occurs that they go overseas, and the validity of the bill of divorce may be contested. Since they are not present, there are no witnesses who can ratify the bill of divorce. Once the Sages instituted that the witnesses’ signatures appear on the bill of divorce, then the bill of divorce can be ratified by authenticating their signatures.

רב יוסף אמר אפי' תימא לר' מאיר התקינו שיהא עדים מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם

Rav Yosef said: You can even say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna should be understood as follows: They instituted that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce and not merely sign the document, for the betterment of the world.

כדתניא בראשונה היה כותב אני פלוני חתמתי עד אם כתב ידו יוצא ממקום אחר כשר ואם לאו פסול

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:13): At first, the witness would write only: I, so-and-so, signed as a witness, but they did not state their full names. Therefore, the only way to identify the witness was to see if an identical signature could be found on a different document that had been ratified in court. Therefore, if another copy of a witness’s signature is produced from elsewhere, i.e., another court document, it is valid, but if not, then the bill of divorce is invalid even though it is possible that he was a valid witness, and as a result of this women were left unable to remarry.

אמר רבן גמליאל תקנה גדולה התקינו שיהיו מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם

Rabban Gamliel said: They instituted a great ordinance that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce, stating that they are so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and other identifying features, for the betterment of the world. This made it possible to easily clarify who the witnesses were and to ratify the bill of divorce by finding acquaintances of the witnesses who recognized their signatures.

ובסימנא לא והא רב צייר כורא ורבי חנינא צייר חרותא רב חסדא סמך ורב הושעיא עין רבה בר רב הונא צייר מכותא שאני רבנן דבקיאין סימנייהו

The Gemara asks: But is it not sufficient to sign with a pictorial mark? But Rav drew a fish instead of a signature, and Rabbi Ḥanina drew a palm branch [ḥaruta]; Rav Ḥisda drew the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya drew the letter ayin; and Rabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail [makota]. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: The Sages are different, as everyone is well versed in their pictorial marks.

מעיקרא במאי אפקעינהו בדיסקי:

The Gemara asks: Initially, with what did they publicize these marks, as they could not use them in place of signatures before people were well versed in them? The Gemara answers: They initially used their marks in letters, where there is no legal requirement to sign their names. Once it became known that they would use these marks as their signatures, they were able to use them as signatures even on legal documents.

הלל התקין פרוסבול וכו': תנן התם פרוסבול אינו משמט זה אחד מן הדברים שהתקין הלל הזקן שראה את העם שנמנעו מלהלוות זה את זה ועברו על מה שכתוב בתורה (דברים טו, ט) השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל וגו' עמד והתקין פרוסבול

§ The mishna taught that Hillel the Elder instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol]. We learned in a mishna there (Shevi’it 10:3): If one writes a prosbol, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate debt. This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that the people of the nation were refraining from lending to one another around the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, and they violated that which is written in the Torah: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). He arose and instituted the prosbol so that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans.

וזה הוא גופו של פרוסבול מוסרני לכם פלוני דיינין שבמקום פלוני שכל חוב שיש לי אצל פלוני שאגבנו כל זמן שארצה והדיינים חותמים למטה או העדים

And this is the essence of the text of the prosbol: I transfer to you, so-and-so the judges, who are in such and such a place, so that I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish, as the court now has the right to collect the debts. And the judges or the witnesses sign below, and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him.

ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא משמטא שביעית והתקין הלל דלא משמטא אמר אביי בשביעית בזמן הזה ורבי היא

The Gemara asks about the prosbol itself: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year cancels the debt but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel the debt? Abaye said: The baraita is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

דתניא רבי אומר (דברים טו, ב) וזה דבר השמיטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאי אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: “And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate” (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: At a time when you release land, when the Jubilee Year is practiced, you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, you also do not abrogate monetary debts.