משנה: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בֵית דִּין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמְבַטְּלוֹ. הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין כֵּן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ וְהִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁיְּהֵא כוֹתֵב אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל־שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה פְלוֹנִית וְכָל־שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. MISHNAH: In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder11Hillel’s grandson, the grandfather of Rabban Gamliel of Jabneh. instituted that one should not do that because of the public good12If it was not assured that both the agent and the wife were informed of the annulment, all kinds of complications could arise which are described in the Halakhah.. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change13For example, if he lived in the city where the bill was written under a name different from the one he used earlier in the city where his wife still lives, the court in his wife’s city will not recognize the bill as valid for divorce of the wife.; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good14It is not clear, and there were different interpretations given in rabbinic practice, whether the Mishnah requires that a bill enumerate correctly all names under which either party ever lived, or only a statement that the parties (or the town) also were known by other names..
הלכה: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בֵית דִּין כול׳. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין אָדָם מְבַטֵּל שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁכּוֹחוֹ מְרוּבֶּה. HALAKHAH: “In earlier times, he could go to court,” etc. Does this15This question is based on the interpretation of the term “court” in the Mishnah as an ad hoc court, that the husband was able ad hoc to assemble three people as a court, and declare before them that he was revoking the agency given to the agent. This is the explanation accepted in the Babli in the name of Rav Naḥman, 32b. not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that nobody can annul an agency by speech2,If a person can declare the agency void by a declaration at his place without informing the agent, why does the Mishnah accept voiding the agency only if either the agent for delivery or the recipient of the bill is informed of the annulment? R. Joḥanan’s statement is also in Qiddušin 4:9; in the parallel in the Babli, Qiddušin 59a, his reason is that words can be invalidated by words; he is opposed by R. Simeon ben Laqish. As an Amora, R. Joḥanan should not have the authority to contradict a Mishnah.16For money transactions, this is credited to R. Johanan in the Babli, 32b.. Explain it in a fully constituted court17He will hold that even in earlier times the agency could be revoked only by a public act of the local court who was presumed to transmit a copy of the document to the court at the wife’s place of residence..
מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. אָֽמְרִין בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידִי מַמְזֵירוּת. וְאָֽמְרִין בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. סְבוּרָה שֶׁבִּיטְּלָהּ וְהוּא לֹא בִיטֵּל וְנִמְצֵאת יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. סְבוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִיטֵּל וְהוּא בִיטֵּל. וְהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וְנִישֵּׂאת בְּלֹא גֵט. וְנִמְצְאוּ בָנֶיהָ בָאִין לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. סְבוּרָה שֶׁבִּיטֵּל וְהוּא לֹא בִיטֵּל וּבָא אַחֵר וְקִידְּשָׁהּ תּוֹפְסִין בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהִיא סְבוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא תוֹפְסִין בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהִיא מַמְתֶּנֶת עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וְנִישֵּׂאת. וְנִמְצָא בָנֶיהָ בָאִין לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. סַלְקִית לִשְׁייָרָא וְשָֽׁמְעִית לְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וְרִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא. אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה אִית לֵיהּ שֶׁלֹּא תָבוֹא לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. “Because of the public good.” They say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy18In the Babli, 33a, this is R. Joḥanan’s opinion.. Some say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not remain anchored19This is a technical term. Just as an anchored ship cannot move, so an abandoned woman without a clear bill of divorce cannot move into another man’s house.
In the Babli, 33a, this is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion.. He who said, that she should not remain anchored, [is afraid that] she turns out to be anchored if she thought that he annulled20That the bill of divorce delivered to her was worthless since the husband could have annulled it at a place unknown to her. when he did not annul. He who said, that she should not risk bastardy, [is afraid that] her children will be bastards if she thought that he did not annul when he annulled21She received the bill in due form in the presence of two witnesses. The husband can later reappear when she is remarried and declare her divorce void and her children from the second husband bastards born in adultery., she goes and marries without a bill of divorce. If she thought that he annulled when he did not annul, another man comes and marries her preliminarily; the preliminary marriage is valid but she thinks it is invalid22Any adulterous or incestuous marriage is null and void (cf. Yebamot 1:1, Note 64).. She waits until her first husband dies, then she goes and marries [another man]23Then in reality she is [preliminarily] married to the man to whom she thinks she is not married; her new [definitive] marriage is adulterous and her children bastards. In all these cases, the adultery is unknown to her and the world; the children are bastards only in the eyes of Heaven; it is the duty of the judicial system to see to it that such cases do not occur.; the result is that her children will be bastards. Rebbi Mana said, I went with a caravan and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Rav Huna said, even the one who said that she should not remain anchored also agrees that she should not risk bastardy.
עָבַר וּבִיטְּלוֹ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אִם בִּיטְּלוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְבוּטָּל. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵנוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ וְלֹא לְהוֹסִיף עַל תְּנָאוֹ. יְאוּת אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי. דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל וְהֵן אָֽמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִיטֵּל. וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְכִי שֶׁמֶן עַל זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים עַל הַיַּיִן לֹא תוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיִּתְרוֹם מִפְּנֵי גֶזֶל הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְהֵם אָֽמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרוֹם. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ. עָבַר וְתָרַם אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. רִבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר לְרִבִּי יוֹדָן נְשִׂייָא. בַּאֲגָדָא דְסַבָּךְ מָאן דַּייֵק לָן. If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following24Tosephta 3:3, Babli 33a. Did Rabban Gamliel the Elder decree that any annulment not in the presence of agent or wife was null and void?: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly25It seems that the names of Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel are switched here and in the next sentence. The Babli, 33b, decides practice following Rebbi.. What is the reason of Rebbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul26The biblical text decrees that the husband has to hand his wife a bill of divorce if he has decided to divorce her. The text contains no hints to any restriction as to the exercise of his free will. but they27In this case, the rabbinic authorities of the first half of the first century C. E. said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But is it not from the Torah that one may [give as heave] olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe28Terumot 1:4, Mishnah and Note 137. Biblical heave is due only for “grain, cider, and oil”. The prohibition to satisfy the tithing duty with unprocessed grapes and olives is strict only according to the House of Hillel; they hold that if olives were given as heave for olive oil then both the olives and the oil remain ṭevel, untithed, by rabbinic decree and their consumption is a deadly sin. they said not only that one may not give heave [in this way] but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rebbi Oshaia bar Abba said to Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor29In modern Hebrew, סבא means “grandfather”. In the Talmudim, generally it means “old man”; since “grandfather” usually is formulated as ,אֲבִי אַבָּא סַבָּא can also mean “great-grandfather”. The interpretation of the word depends on the reading of the names in this discussion. meant?
אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל־שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דַּהֲוָה שְׁמֵיהּ רְאוּבֵן וָאַפִּיק שְׁמֵיהּ שִׁמְעוֹן. אֶלָּא אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי וְכָל־שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי. יוֹתֵר מִכֵּן אָֽמְרוּ. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים אַחַת בִּיהוּדָה וְאַחַת בַּגָּלִיל. וְלוֹ שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת אֶחָד בִּיהוּדָה וְאֶחָד בַּגָּלִיל. וְכָתַב זֶה שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה לְגָרֵשׁ זוֹ שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל וְשֶׁבַּגָּלִיל לְגָרֵשׁ זוֹ שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה. אֵינָהּ מְגוּרֶשֶׁת. מַתְנִיתָא שֶׁהָיָה מִיהוּדָה וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בַּגָּלִיל. מִגָּלִיל וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בִּיהוּדָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מִיהוּדָה וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בִּיהוּדָה. מִגָּלִיל וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בַּגָּלִיל. הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוּרֶשֶׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילַי. כַּתְּחִילָּה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי שֶׁמִּיהוּדָה עִם כָּל־שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בַגָּלִיל. אִם הָיָה שָׁרוּי בַּמָּקוֹם אֶחָד מְגָרֵשׁ לְאֵי זֶה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִילָּה צָרִיךְ לְמֵיעֲבַד כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי אִילַי. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אִם יָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן. 30This paragraph is quoted by R. Nissim Gerondi in his commentary to Alfassi (#456). While his spelling is still more babylonized than the ms. text and it is not clear that his deviations from our text are from his text or are his interpretation, his text is very clear in its meaning and is followed in the commentary.“Mr. X and all his names.” Think of it, if his name was Reuben and he went away31R. Nissim: אפיך “he changed it to”. under the name of Simeon. But: “I am X and32R. Nissim: עם כל שם “with every name”, i.e., all the names have to be spelled out. This is the ms. text later in the name of R. Ilai, so probably the ms. text here is original. every other name which I have.” 33Similar texts are in the Babli, 34b, and Tosephta 6:5.“In addition, they said if he had two wives, one in Judea and one in Galilee, and he is known by two names, one in Judea and one in Galilee. He used [his name] in Judea to divorce the one in Galilee and [his name] in Galilee to divorce the one in Judea. Neither one is divorced.” This baraita if he was in Judea34The translation uses the text of R. Nissim: כשהיה ביהודה. The ms. text could be read as: If he used the name from Judea, and wrote to divorce in Galilee or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Judea. But if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Judea, or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Galilee, she is divorced35If only the local name was used. The divorce is valid only if both the witnesses signing the document and the witnesses to the delivery are able to identify the husband; therefore, both names (possibly with an indication where which name is being used) are required.. Rebbi Ilai said, according to the rules he has to say: “I am X with every other name which I have in Galilee.32R. Nissim: עם כל שם “with every name”, i.e., all the names have to be spelled out. This is the ms. text later in the name of R. Ilai, so probably the ms. text here is original.” If he was at another place, he can divorce either one he wishes36R. Nissim: באיזה מהם שירצה “with any [name] he chooses”. If he is not known locally, he can identify himself in any way he chooses (as long as the name is recognized as his at the place of delivery of the bill.). Rebbi Yose said, one says that if he did it37If the bill was written without asking for rabbinical advice. This is quoted in Tosaphot 34b, s. v. והוא.. But to start out38If he asks for instructions, he has to be told to enumerate all names under which he is known. (It is not clear whether the reference, in the edict on Jewish names by the German Emperor Joseph II, to Jews having different names at different places, refers to a reality in the 18th Century or to the talmudic discussion.) he has to follow Rebbi Ilai. Rebbi Abin said, if he is known by (another) name at another place, he has to mention all three.
תַּמָּן תַּנִינָן. כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. וְשׁוֹבֵר לְאִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלָהּ עִמָּהּ. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּירָם. וְהַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר לָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט וְלָאִשָּׁה בְּשׁוֹבְרָהּ. רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהֵבִיא אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת וְגִירֵשׁ בָּהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ וְיָעִידוּ הָעֵדִים. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. עָשׂוּ עֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִים עַל הַשְּׁטָר כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. תַּמָּן בְּשֶׁאָֽמְרוּ. לֹא חָתַמְנוּ כָּל־עִיקָּר. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּאוֹמְרִים. בַּזֶּה חָתַמְנוּ וְלֹא חָתַמְנוּ עַל זֶה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי אַבָּא. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ. אִם בַּמַּכִּירָהּ בְּזֶה צָרִיךְ לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת שְׁמוֹתָם. אִית בַּר נַשׁ דְּחַכְמִין לְחַבְרֵיהוֹן בְּאַפִּין וְלָא יָֽדְעִין שִׁמְהַתְהוֹן. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי אִילַי. הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ כוֹתְבִין. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל־שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. אִשָּׁה פְלוֹנִית וְכָל־שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ. מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. מַתְנִיתָא בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּעַל כּוֹרְחוֹ. מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אִילַא בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בִּרְצוֹנוֹ. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים. מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אִילַי בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. There, we have stated39Mishnah Baba Batra 10:4. The statements of rabbis Abba and La (Ilai) are also quoted there in Halakhah 10:4.: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt40A receipt for the amount of the ketubah due her at her divorce. for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee41The scribe’s fee..” Rebbi Abba said, he42The scribe. has to know both of them. Rebbi La43He is R. Ilai. In the Babli, Baba Batra 167b, his statement is attributed to Rav. said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ 44Clearly, a name is missing. R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is known to have asked questions of R. Ilai (Yoma 3:5). ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her45Can the agent of an absent husband not fraudulently give the bill of divorce to another woman, not the wife, and have that woman foreclose the ketubah from the husband’s local property?. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say46Cf. Ketubot 2:3, Note 56, Ševi‘it 10:5, Note 96 (Baba Batra 10:16, 14d 1.26); Babli 3a, Ketubot 18b. Signatories of documents cannot claim that they never signed unless they claim that the signatures are forgeries. that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that47The witnesses can identify the persons for whom they signed; this is not a second testimony.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names48If the scribe knew all persons involved, he could not be tricked into writing a misleading document.? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names49The Mishnah treats husband and wife on an equal footing but R. Ilai does not., because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce50One of those cases in which the wife can force a divorce (cf. Ketubot 7:10) when the husband’s cooperation cannot be taken for granted., Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place51Where he has to prove his and his wife’s identities to the scribe..
כְּהָדָא דּוֹשׁוֹ אַחֲוֵי דְדוֹדוֹ הֲוָה מַשְׁבָּק אִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. הִיא תִתֵּן אַגְרָא. וְהָתַנִּינָן. הַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. רִבִּי אִילַי בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. בְּמוֹחֶלֶת לוֹ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. 52This discusses the statement of the Tosephta that the husband has to pay the expenses for the divorce document. The statement that the husband cannot change the conditions of the divorce once the document is no longer in his hands was discussed in Chapter 3, Note 45. For example Doso, Dodo’s brother, divorced his wife. The case came before the rabbis who said that she should pay the fee53The Babli, Baba Batra 168a, agrees that current rabbinic practice requires the wife to pay the scribe to prevent the husband from dragging his feet once the couple has decided on a divorce.. But did we not state: “the husband pays the fee”? Rebbi Ilai in the name of Samuel: If she forgives him her ketubah54If he makes money out of the divorce, he will not drag his feet and one can make him pay..