Gittin 4

הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ בַּשָּׁלִיחַ, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אַחֲרָיו שָׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לוֹ, גֵּט שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ בָּטֵל הוּא, הֲרֵי זֶה בָטֵל. קָדַם אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אֶצְלָהּ שָׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהּ, גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי לִיךְ בָּטֵל הוּא, הֲרֵי זֶה בָטֵל. אִם מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ:

If one sent a get to his wife, and he came upon the messenger, or if he sent a messenger after him and said to him: "The get that I gave you is void," it is void. [("if he came upon the messenger":) without having pursued him to overtake him, but the messenger stopping on the way and the husband chancing upon him and voiding the get. Even so, it is void, and we do not say that he was simply taunting him and that if he really had wanted to void it, he would have pursued him.] If he reached his wife first or sent a messenger to her, telling her: "The get that I sent you is void," it is void. Once the get has reached her hand (however) he can no longer void it. [We are hereby apprised that even though we see him bent upon voiding it, we do not say that this is clear indication of its having been voided. And in an instance in which a man gives his wife a get (to take effect) at a certain time or with (the fulfillment of) a certain condition — if he says to her: "This is your get from now, (to take effect) at that time," or "if that condition is fulfilled," once the get reaches her hand, he can no longer void it, and she is divorced at that time or with the fulfillment of that condition. And if he did not say to her: "from now," then even after the get reached her hand, he can void it.]

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בֵית דִּין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמְבַטְּלוֹ. הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין כֵּן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן 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 שׁוּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

In the beginning, he would convene a beth-din in a different place and void it. [He would void it not in the presence of the woman or of the messenger, but wherever he was, in the presence of three (a beth-din)]. R. Gamliel the elder instituted that they should not do so, for "the general good." [For the messenger, not aware (of the later revocation) would take it to her and she would remarry through it. And by the power of R. Gamliel's ordinance, stripes are administered to one who voids a get or protests it.] In the beginning, he would change his name and her name, the name of his city and the name of her city. [If he had two names, one here and one abroad, he would divorce her by the name in the place of the get and not take care to write both.] R. Gamliel the elder instituted that he write "this and this man and every (other) name that he has"; "this and this woman and every (other) name that she has," for "the general good." [so that her children by her second husband not be brought into disrepute, viz.: "Her husband did not divorce her; this is not his name." And if a man is known by two names, one in the place of the writing (of the get) and another in the place of the delivery, she is not divorced until both be written. But if he were known by two (different) names in one place, and only one of them were written — if it were done, it is valid, but ab initio, both should be written. And if he changed his name or her name in the get, even if he wrote afterwards: "and any other name that I have," the get is void.]

אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת לַיְתוֹמִים כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, וְגוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. הִלֵּל הִתְקִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל מִפְּנֵּי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

A widow claims payment [of her kethubah] from the property of the orphans only with an oath [that she had received nothing of it]. They (beth-din) forbore from administering the oath to her. [For because she exerted herself for the orphans she would rationalize her swearing that she had received nothing even if she had received a small amount, feeling that she had received it for her exertions and not as payment of the kethubah. Therefore, they would forbear from administering the oath to her, and she would lose her kethubah.] R. Gamliel the elder instituted that she vow to the orphans whatever (formula of vow) they desire [such as: "I bevow enjoyment of this and this food if I have derived any benefit from my kethubah"], and she collects her kethubah. [And if she remarried before the orphans bevowed her for her kethubah, in which instance her husband might nullify her vow, what do they do? They beswear her, outside of beth-din an "oath of the rabbis," transgression of which is not so severe (as that of a Torah oath), and she takes her kethubah after she is married. And if she comes to collect her kethubah before she remarries, the orphans have the option: If they wish, they administer the oath outside of beth-din, or they bevow her in beth-din. Witnesses sign on a get for "the general good." [This ("for the general good") refers to both, viz.: A widow is bevowed by the orphans for "the general good," that widows remarry and not worry about losing their kethubah; and witnesses sign on the get for "the general good." For since the witnesses to the delivery cause the get to take effect, the witnesses to the woman's having received the get being the underpinning of the divorce, there is really no need for witnesses to sign the get. But because of "the general good" — because we fear that one of the witnesses to the delivery might die, and the get be like a mere shard in her hand, (it was instituted that witnesses sign)]. Hillel instituted the prozbol for "the general good." [For because he saw the people forbearing to lend each other (in apprehension of the loan's being dissolved by the shemitah year), and (by their forbearance) transgressing (Deuteronomy 15:9): "Take heed unto yourself lest there be in your heart a thing of wickedness, etc." — he arose and instituted the prozbol. This is the text of the prozbol: "I give over to you, ploni and ploni, the judges, (all of my claims) so that I can claim whatever ploni owes me whenever I wish"].

עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּפְדָאוּהוּ, אִם לְשׁוּם עֶבֶד, יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. אִם לְשׁוּם בֶּן חוֹרִין, לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ אַפּוֹתִיקִי לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁחְרְרוֹ, שׁוּרַת הַדִּין, אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר:

If a (Canaanite) bondsman were taken captive and redeemed [by other Israelites after his master had despaired of his return] — if (he were redeemed) for servitude, he serves [the second master]; if for freedom, he does not serve [neither the first nor the second. Not the second, for he redeemed him for freedom. Not the first, [lest they not redeem him]. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: In either event, he serves [his first master, lest every bondsman cause himself to be taken captive by brigands to escape his master.] If a master made his bondsman an apotiki [po tehei kai ("Here shall it stand"), i.e., From this (the bondsman) shall you collect your debt, and not from elsewhere)], and he [his first master] freed him, justice dictates that the bondsman owes nothing [to the second, for his first master's manumission dissolved his servitude]; but because of "the general good" [lest the second find him in the marketplace and say to him: "You are my bondsman," bringing his children into disrepute], his master [the second] is compelled to free him and he [the bondsman] writes him (the second) a bill of debt for his worth [i.e., for his market value (as a bondsman); not for the amount of the debt if the debt were more than his worth.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: He [the bondsman] does not write [him a bill of debt, for he owes him nothing. But his first master, who "damaged" what was owing the second must pay him his worth. For one who damages what is owed to another is liable. (The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel)], but he (the second) frees him.

מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין. בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עָבֶד. יִבָּטֵל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וְלִרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מה) לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:

If one were half bondsman-half free [as when he were the bondsman of two masters, and one of them freed him], or else, when his master received half of his value from him and freed half of him for that money], he serves his master one day, and himself the other day. These are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: "You have 'amended' his master, [who loses nothing], but you have not amended him!" He cannot marry a bondswoman, for he is half-free. He cannot marry a free-woman, for he is half-bondsman. Not to marry — Was the world not created for fruitfulness and multiplication, viz. (Isaiah 45:18): "Not for naught did He create it; to be inhabited did He form it." Rather, because of "the general good" his master is compelled to free him, and he (the servant) writes a bill of debt for half of his value. [The same holds if he were the bondsman of a hundred partners and one of them freed him. All of them are compelled to free him.] And Beth Hillel reversed themselves to rule according to the words of Beth Shammai.

הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹי אוֹ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, יָצָא בֶן חוֹרִין. אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִים יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשְּׁבוּיִין. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִים סְפָרִים, תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

If one sold his bondsman to a gentile or (to servitude) outside Eretz Israel, he goes out free [if he escaped from the gentile, or if beth-din penalized him to redeem him from the gentiles (as stated: "He is compelled to redeem him"), and after he redeems him, he may not keep him in servitude. The sages penalized him for having removed him from mitzvoth. Likewise, if (he sold him) outside of Eretz Yisrael, he goes out free because he sent him out of Eretz Yisrael.] Captives are not to be redeemed for more than their worth, for "the general good" [so that the gentiles not be zealous to amass captives.] And captives are not to be "smuggled out" of captivity, for "the general good" [lest the captors vent their wrath on others who fall into their hands and chain them and place their feet in stocks.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: For the good of the captives, [R. Shimon b. Gamliel not being apprehensive for those who might fall into captivity, but for those who are now captive with him; but if he alone were captive, he is to be smuggled out. No fear is to be entertained for other captives if they are not already with him. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.] (Torah) scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzoth are not to be purchased for more than their worth, for "the general good."

הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם רָע, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. מִשּׁוּם נֶדֶר, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ בוֹ רַבִּים, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְשֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ בוֹ רַבִּים, יַחֲזִיר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם, יַחֲזִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לֹא אָסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַעֲשֶׂה בְצַיְדָּן בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, קוֹנָם אִם אֵינִי מְגָרְשֵׁךְ, וְגֵרְשָׁהּ. וְהִתִּירוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

If one divorced his wife because of an evil report [rumors of infidelity], he may not take her back; because of a vow [that she made, and he said: "I do not want a vowing woman"], he may not take her back. [Even if the report were found to be false or she were absolved of the vow by a sage. (He may not take her back) lest she go and marry another and the report of infidelity be found false or she be absolved of the vow by a sage, so that she not be a "wanton vower," and the husband say: "Had I known this, even if they had given me a hundred manah, I would not have divorced her," thereby voiding the get and rendering her children mamzerim. Therefore, he is told: "Be apprised that if one divorces his wife because of an evil report or because of a vow, he may never take her back," hearing which, he divorces her categorically, and he can no longer compromise her.] R. Yehudah says: With every vow known to many, he may not take her back; not known to many, he may take her back. [R. Yehudah holds that the rabbis said: "If one divorced his wife because of an evil report or because of a vow, he may not take her back," so that the daughters of Israel not be promiscuous with arayoth (illicit connections) or with vows, for which reason he says that with every vow known to many (ten or more Israelites), there is relatively greater promiscuity, and she was penalized not to be taken back. And with what is not known to many, there is relatively less promiscuity, and she was, accordingly, not penalized.] R. Meir says: With every vow that requires the deliberation of a sage, he may not take her back. (With every vow) that does not require the probing of a sage, he may take her back. [R. Meir holds the rationale (for forbidding him to take her back) is the possibility of undermining (the get). Therefore, with a vow that he himself cannot annul, but which only a sage can absolve her of, he can undermine the get after she remarries by saying: "Had I known that a sage could have absolved you of it, I would not have divorced you." But with a get that does not require the probing of a sage, but which can be annulled by the husband himself, the sages did not need to forbid him to take her back. For he cannot compromise her by saying: "Had I known, etc.", for it was an "open" vow, which he could have annulled, and he did not.] R. Eliezer said: They forbade the one [i.e., taking her back in the instance of a vow which requires the probing of a sage] only because of the other [which does not require it. For with one that does require it, we need not fear undermining, for he cannot say: "Had I known that a sage could have absolved her of it, I would not have divorced her." For "we are witnesses" that even had he known it, he would have divorced her, a man not wanting his wife to be demeaned in beth-din before a sage, to go to his beth-din and to inquire as to her oath. But it is because of a vow that does not require a sage, which the husband himself could have annulled, that they forbade (him to take her back) in all instances, that he not say: "Had I known that I could have annulled it, I would not have divorced her."] R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said; It happened in Tziddon that one said to his wife: "I vow to divorce you," and he divorced her, and the sages permitted him to take her back, for "the general good." [The gemara explains that something is lacking and that this is the intent: When is this so (that he may not take her back)? When she vowed. But if he vowed to divorce her, and he divorced her, he may take her back, and we do not fear any undermining. And R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: It also happened in Tziddon that one said to his wife: "Konam, if I do not divorce you." That is: May all the fruits in the world be forbidden to me if I do not divorce you. And he divorced her, and the sages permitted him to take her back. ("for the general good":) That is, the sages said: "One who divorces his wife because of a vow may not take her back" only for "the general good," in that we apprehend subsequent undermining. But this is possible only where she vows. Where he vows, however, the consideration of "the general good" does not obtain, and he was permitted to take her back. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]

הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אַיְלוֹנִית, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יַחֲזִיר. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְהָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים הֵימֶנּוּ, וְהִיא תוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אוֹמְרִים לָהּ, שְׁתִיקוּתִיךְ יָפָה לִיךְ מִדִּבּוּרִיךְ:

If one divorced his wife on the grounds of her being an eilonith (incapable of bearing children) — R. Yehudah says: He may not take her back [lest she marry another and have children, and he say: "Had I known this, even if they had given me a hundred manah, I would not have divorced you."] The sages say: He may take her back [for we do not fear (the above) "undermining." The gemara explains: Who are "the sages"? R. Meir, who holds that a double-condition (t'nai kaful) is required; and our instance is one in which he did not double the condition, not telling her: "Be apprised that I am divorcing you on the grounds of your being an eilonith; and, if you are not an eilonith, it is not a get," in which instance (not having doubled it thus), it is a get even if she is not an eilonith.] If she married another and had children from him, and she wished to claim her kethubah, [for an eilonith has no kethubah; and now that she was found not to be an eilonith, she wishes to claim her kethubah] — she is told: "You would do better to remain silent than to speak." [For he could tell her: "Had I known that in the end I would have to pay your kethubah, I would not have divorced you," thus voiding the get and rendering her children mamzerim.]

הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו לְגוֹי, אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַבָּנִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְגוֹי וְחָזַר וּלְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, הַלּוֹקֵחַ מֵבִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בִכּוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

If one sold himself and his children (in servitude) to a non-Jew, he is not to be redeemed, [if he is wont to do so, as when he has already done so two or three times]; but the children are redeemed after their father's death. If one sold his field to a gentile, he buys and brings bikkurim (first-fruits) from it (see Rashi), for "the general good." [Every year he must buy its first-fruits from the gentile and bring them to Jerusalem. ("for the general good":) that he not be wont to sell land in Eretz Yisrael to gentiles, and so that, if he did sell it, he would exert himself to redeem it.]