Gittin 88bגיטין פ״ח ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Gittin 88b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
88bפ״ח ב

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב שמע מינה מהרה דמרי עלמא תמני מאה וחמשין ותרתי הוא:

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Learn from this numerical value that soon [mehera] for the Master of the World is eight hundred and fifty-two years, as it is stated in the verse in Deuteronomy: “You will soon [maher] utterly perish.” Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon.

מתני׳ גט מעושה בישראל כשר ובעובדי כוכבים פסול ובעובדי כוכבים חובטין אותו ואומרים לו עשה מה שישראל אומרים לך (וכשר):

MISHNA: With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled by a Jewish court it is valid, but if he was compelled by gentiles it is invalid. But with regard to gentiles they may beat him at the request of the Jewish court and say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you, and it is a valid divorce.

גמ׳ אמר ר"נ אמר שמואל גט המעושה בישראל כדין כשר שלא כדין פסול ופוסל

GEMARA: Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by a Jewish court to give his wife, if they did so lawfully, as the halakha obligated the husband to divorce his wife, it is valid. This is referring to cases where sexual intercourse is forbidden or specific cases where the Sages instituted that the husband is obligated to divorce his wife. If they did so unlawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it is not considered entirely invalid, as it disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest after her husband’s death.

ובעובדי כוכבים כדין פסול ופוסל שלא כדין אפי' ריח הגט אין בו

And in a case where the husband was compelled by gentiles, if he was compelled lawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest. But if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, and the wife is not even disqualified from marrying a priest.

מה נפשך אי עובדי כוכבי' בני עשויי נינהו איתכשורי נמי ליתכשר אי לאו בני עשויי נינהו מיפסל לא ליפסל

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to the statement that if the husband was compelled by gentiles the divorce is invalid but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest, whichever way you look at it, the statement is difficult. If gentiles are legally capable of compulsion, it should be rendered valid with regard to the woman’s permission to remarry as well. If they are not legally capable of compulsion, it should not disqualify her either.

אמר רב משרשיא דבר תורה גט מעושה בעובדי כוכבי' כשר ומה טעם אמרו פסול שלא תהא כל אחת ואחת הולכת ותולה עצמה בעובד כוכבי' ומפקעת עצמה מיד בעלה

Rav Mesharshiyya says: By Torah law a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by gentiles to write and give his wife is valid, and what is the reason the Sages said that it is invalid? It is so that each and every woman will not go and depend on a gentile to compel her husband to divorce her through temptation or bribery, and thereby she will release herself from her husband unlawfully.

אי הכי שלא כדין אפי' ריח הגט אין בו ונהוי שלא כדין כישראל ומפסיל נמי לפסול

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that where the husband was compelled by gentiles the bill of divorce is valid by Torah law, why did Shmuel rule that if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce? Let a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles to give his wife be compared to a case where he was compelled unlawfully by Jews, and disqualify the wife from marrying a priest as well.

אלא הא דרב משרשיא בדותא היא

Rather, that statement of Rav Mesharshiyya, that by Torah law a bill of divorce is valid even if the husband was compelled by gentiles to write it and give it to his wife, is a mistake. In principle it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, even if the husband is required by law to divorce his wife.

וטעמא מאי כדין בכדין דישראל מיחלף שלא כדין בכדין ישראל לא מיחלף:

And what is the reason that the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest in this case? It is because the case where the husband was compelled lawfully by gentiles can be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews. If a bill of divorce that gentiles compelled the husband to write and give to his wife carries no weight, people might think that this is likewise the halakha with regard to a case where Jews compelled the husband to do so. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree that even if the husband was compelled by gentiles the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest. By contrast, the case where the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles cannot be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews, as they are too dissimilar. Therefore, a bill of divorce that gentiles unlawfully compelled the husband to write and give his wife is entirely invalid.

אביי אשכחיה לרב יוסף דיתיב וקא מעשה אגיטי א"ל והא אנן הדיוטות אנן ותניא היה ר"ט אומר כל מקום שאתה מוצא אגוריאות של עובדי כוכבים אע"פ שדיניהם כדיני ישראל אי אתה רשאי להיזקק להם שנאמר (שמות כא, א) ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם לפניהם ולא לפני עובדי כוכבים דבר אחר לפניהם ולא לפני הדיוטות

§ Abaye found Rav Yosef sitting in court as the judge and compelling husbands to give their wives bills of divorce. He said to him: But aren’t we ordinary people, not ordained judges? And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Tarfon would say: With regard to any place where you find gentile courts [agoriot], even if their laws are like Jewish laws, you may not attend them, as it is stated: “Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them” (Exodus 21:1). It is derived from here that one may go to court only before them, i.e., Jewish judges, and not before gentiles. Alternatively, it is derived that one may go to court before them, i.e., ordained judges, and not before ordinary people. Since we are not ordained judges, how can you perform a distinctly judicial act?

א"ל אנן שליחותייהו קא עבדינן מידי דהוה אהודאות והלואות

Rav Yosef said to him: We see ourselves as agents of the ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael, and we are performing our task as judges on the basis of their agency, just as is the case with regard to cases of admissions and loans, which we attend to on the same basis.

אי הכי גזילות וחבלות נמי כי עבדינן שליחותייהו במילתא דשכיחא במילתא דלא שכיחא לא עבדינן שליחותייהו:

The Gemara asks: If so, why is the halakha that judges living outside Eretz Yisrael do not judge in cases of robbery and personal injury? They should judge in these cases as well. The Gemara answers: When we perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency, it is with regard to common matters, e.g., cases that pertain to the halakhot of admissions and loans, which arise frequently between people. But with regard to uncommon matters, e.g., cases of robbery or personal injury, we do not perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency.

מתני׳ יצא שמה בעיר מקודשת הרי זו מקודשת מגורשת הרי זו מגורשת ובלבד שלא יהא שם אמתלא

MISHNA: If a rumor circulated in the city that an unmarried woman is betrothed, she is considered to be betrothed. Similarly, if a rumor circulated that a married woman is divorced, she is divorced, provided there is no valid alternative explanation [amatla] for the rumor.

איזו היא אמתלא גירש איש פלוני את אשתו על תנאי זרק לה קידושיה ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו זו היא אמתלא:

What is considered a valid explanation? For example, it is a case where there is a rumor that so-and-so divorced his wife but that the bill of divorce was given to her conditionally. It is therefore possible that the condition was not fulfilled and she is not actually divorced. Similarly, if there is a rumor that a woman was betrothed but that the man threw her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, to her, and it is uncertain whether it was closer to her and uncertain whether it was closer to him, and therefore the status of their betrothal is likewise uncertain, this is considered a valid explanation.

גמ׳ ואסרינן לה אגברא והא אמר רב אשי כל קלא דבתר נישואין לא חיישינן ליה

GEMARA: With regard to the statement that a woman who is rumored to be divorced is divorced, do we render her forbidden to her husband if she is married to a priest? But didn’t Rav Ashi say that we are not concerned about any rumor that circulates after marriage? Accordingly, a woman should not be compelled to leave her husband merely on the basis of a rumor.

ה"ק יצא שמה בעיר מקודשת הרי זו מקודשת מקודשת ומגורשת

The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If a rumor circulated in the city that a woman is betrothed, she is betrothed, and she may not marry another man until she receives a bill of divorce from the man to whom she is rumored to be betrothed. If she is rumored to have been betrothed to a certain man and subsequently divorced from him,