Comentário sobre Guittin 3:15

כל גט – קול סופרים מקרין – The adults read [the Jewish bill of divorce] to their students, and when the Jewish bill of divorce comes before you, write it as such, and they mentioned the name of any person.

Introduction This mishnah teaches that a get must be written with the express intention to divorce the specific woman to whom it will eventually be given. This rule is derived from a midrash on Deuteronomy 24:1, “And he writes for her”. The words “for her” are interpreted to mean that the get must be written specifically for her. Our mishnah will illustrate this principle.

יותר מכן – and not only this – that the Jewish bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of Jewish divorce but only for practice (see Gittin 24b), but even that which was written for the sake of Jewish divorce completely, but he [i.e., the husband], changed his mind, it is invalid.

Any get which is not written [expressly] for the woman [for whom it is intended] is invalid. How is this so? This mishnah introduces the halakhah mentioned in the introduction, according to which a get must be expressly written for the woman who will be divorced with it. The rest of this mishnah will illustrate this principle.

יתר מכאן היו לו ב' נשים כו' – and not only this alone that it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce) was written not for the sake of divorce of this person, it is invalid. But even if he had two wives and it was written for the sake of [the] divorce of this man, it is invalid, since it was not written for the sake of divorce of that woman.

If a man was passing through the street and heard the voice of a scribe dictating “So-and-so divorces so-and-so from such and such a place” and he says “that is my name and that is the name of my wife”, it is not a valid [document] with which to divorce his wife. In this scenario, a scribe was teaching his students to practice writing divorce documents. These documents were probably always written by scribes, as they require great skill and precision. A man walking by heard the scribe and noticed that the names being used matched those of his and his wife. It dawned on him, wow, I could use this to divorce my wife (I believe that this is intentionally humorous, so you are permitted to chuckle.) The document was only for practice and was not written to be used at all, and therefore certainly cannot be considered as having been written for a specific woman.

גדולה וקטנה – not exactly.

Moreover: if he wrote [a get] with which to divorce his wife and changed his mind and a person found him and said to him, “My name is the same as yours and my wife’s name the same as your wife's”, it is not a valid [document with which the second] may divorce his wife. In this case, the document was written to be used to divorce, but not to be used by this husband to divorce this wife, but rather for different people who happen to have the same name. Since it was not written for this man’s wife, he may not use it, even though the names are appropriate.

יתר מכאן – it comes to teach us that we do not say that the matter is clear retroactively, for at the time it is written, it was also his intention for this one, and there is a divorce for him and her.

Moreover: if he had two wives with the same name and wrote a get with which to divorce the elder, he may not use it to divorce the younger. In this case, the correct husband wrote the get, but he wrote it with the intention to divorce one of his wives and now he wants to divorce the other. Since the get was not written to be given to the younger wife, he may not use it to divorce her. As an aside, you can imagine how interesting family life must have been for the family in which a husband married to two women with the same name! If you think Jacob had problems with Leah and Rachel, think of this family. (Again, I think this is supposed to make you crack a smile, so feel free).

Moreover: if he said to the scribe, “Write [a get] and I will divorce whichever I choose,” it is not a valid [document] with which to divorce his wife. Finally, a husband cannot tell a scribe to write out a get, leave the name of the woman blank, and then the husband will later decide which wife he wishes to divorce. In this case, the “correct” husband wrote the get, and he did not actively intend to give it to a different wife. Nevertheless, the positive intention to give it to a specific wife is lacking and hence the get is invalid.

הכותב טופסי גיטין – A scribe who wants that they should be ready at hand with him, for there are times when a person comes to hire him [to write a Jewish bill of divorce] and he is preoccupied with other documents.

Introduction There are two parts of any document, called in Hebrew the “tofes” and the “toref”. The “tofes” is the general formula which is used in all of these types of documents. The “toref” is the place where the names of the parties involved, the amount of money involved and the time and place where the matter referred to in the document was performed. In the previous mishnah we learned that a divorce document must be written expressly for the woman to whom it will be given. Our mishnah deals with the validity of divorce documents whose “tofes” was written without this specific intention.

צריך שיניח מקום האיש ומקום האשה ומקים הזמן – And in the Gemara, it adds even a place for [the phrase] “you are permitted to any man.”

[A scribe] who writes out formulas of bills of divorce must leave blank spaces for the name of the man and the name of the woman and the date. [A scribe who writes] loan documents must leave blank spaces for the name of the lender, the name of the borrower, the amount of money and the date. [A scribe who writes] sale documents must leave blank spaces for the name of the seller, the name of the purchaser, the amount of money, the property and the date; [These spaces must be left blank] because of the “takkanah” (. According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a scribe may write out document formulas before he knows who or under what circumstances the documents will be used, but he must leave the “toref”, the details, blank. The mishnah lists three types of documents: divorce, loan and sale. The reason that these spaces must be left blank in a divorce document is that if they are not, the get will not have been written expressly for the woman to whom it will be given. This is according to the halakhah which we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. The loan and sales documents do not have such a requirement. Nevertheless, according to this opinion they too cannot be fully filled out beforehand because if the rabbis allow this, scribes will do the same with divorce documents. This is called a “fence around the Torah”, a stringency meant to prevent people from doing that which is truly problematic. The rabbis forbade filling out all documents lest divorce documents were also fully written out. The mishnah cryptically explains that these must be left blank “because of the takkanah”, or “enactment”, without explain what the “takkanah” is. There are several explanations for this, each of which is not without its problems. One explanation is that the “takkanah” was that scribes may write the formulas ahead of time so that when people request a certain document that document would be readily available. The problem with this explanation is that the mishnah seems to state that the “takkanah” was that the spaces should be left blank and not that scribes might write the formulas. A second explanation is that the “takkanah” was that they shouldn’t write out the entire document, so that people would not be rash in selling their property or borrowing money. This is a decent explanation for the sales and lending documents, but does not explain well the issue of the divorce documents, which are invalid if fully written out even without a special “takkanah.”

מפני התקנה – They permitted him to write blank forms of Jewish divorce bills and other documents not for their sake, because of the scribal ordinance that they be ready at hand with him, as long as he leaves space for the part of the document that makes it binding to write it for its own sake. And we decree that the part of the document that makes it valid for writing other documents because of the part of the document that makes bills of Jewish divorce valid.

Rabbi Judah disqualifies all of them. Rabbi Judah disqualifies all of these documents. According to the Talmud, he forbids writing the formula (“tofes”) of the get, lest the scribe come to also write the specifics, which according to the midrash must be written for the specific woman. He also disqualifies loan and sales documents whose formulas were pre-written lest a scribe pre-write a divorce document. We can see that he is doubly strict, creating many “fences” around what is actually prohibited (pre-writing the details of the get).

רבי יהודה פוסל בכולן – For he decreed the blank forms of other documents on account of the parts of the document that make them binding, and other documents on account of Jewish bills of divorce.

Rabbi Elazar validates all of them valid except divorce documents, as it says, “He writes for her” (Deut 24:1), expressly for her. Rabbi Elazar partially agrees with Rabbi Judah. He agrees that pre-writing the divorce formula is forbidden, and this he derives from the midrash. According to his interpretation, the entire get must be written with a specific woman in mind, and not just the “tofes”. However, he agrees with the opinion in section one that the formulas of other documents may be written ahead of time. He is not concerned that if the halakhah allows the scribe to pre-write these documents, the scribe might pre-write divorce documents as well.

ר"א מכשיר בכולן – for he did not decree other documents on account of bills of Jewish divorce.

חוץ מגטי נשים שנאמר "וכתב לה" – לשמה – And they decree that the blank forms of the document (for a Jewish bill of divorce) on account of the parts of the document that make them binding. But, the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer [which are not permitted – as they must be written explicitly for the sake of the divorce and for that particular couple].

לאלתר – immediately, it is valid.

Introduction The first half of this mishnah deals with a get that was temporarily lost on its way from the husband to the wife. The second half deals with a sick or old husband who sent a get to his wife. The question is whether or not the one bringing it can assume that the husband is still alive when he (the one bringing the get) arrives at the wife?

ואם לאו פסול – And especially if it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was lost in a place where [regular] caravans are found, and one could say that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] fell from those who come and go. But if it was lost in a place where caravans are not [regularly] found, even after a lengthy period of time, it is valid. And even if it was lost in a place where the caravans are [regularly] found, if there [is known] to the witnesses a distinguished mark of identification, such as if they [i.e., the witnesses] say that it [i.e, the Jewish bill of divorce document] has a perforation on the side of a certain letter, or they say, that we never signed the Jewish bill of divorce with these names but rather on this one alone, it is valid, even after a lengthy period of time.

One who brings a get and loses it on the way: If he finds it immediately it is valid, and if not it is not valid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a folder if he recognizes it, it is valid. If a messenger loses a get, we fear that the get that he finds is not the same get that he lost, and therefore the get will not have been written for that specific woman. Note that the names written on the found get have to be the same as those on the lost get, otherwise it will be clear that it is not the same get. However, as we learned in previous mishnayoth, similar names may not have been so uncommon. If the get is immediately found, it is still valid. But if time elapses we are concerned that the one bringing the get found a different get, even though the names are the same. Furthermore, if he recognizes the bag or folder which he was using to carry the get, and the get is still inside, the get is valid even if it was found after time had elapsed. The likelihood that a get with the same names as the lost get would get into a bag that looks exactly the same as the lost bag is too remote for concern.

בחפיסא או בדלוסקמא – sacks in which documents are regularly placed therein and they contain a particular sign that they belong to him.

If one brings a get and left [the husband] when [the husband] was an old man or sick, he should deliver it to her on the presumption that he is still alive. A woman may not be divorced from her husband after he died. The importance of this halakhah is in the realm of levirate marriage. A woman whose husband died before he had offspring is liable for yibbum (levirate marriage), whereas a woman who was divorced is not. Since a get goes into effect the moment that the woman receives it, and not when given to the messenger to deliver, it is important to know if the husband was alive when the get was delivered to the woman. Nevertheless, the mishnah states that the person delivering the get should not be concerned lest the husband died after he (the one delivering the get) received it. He may deliver it to the wife even if the husband was an old or sick man and presume that the husband is still alive.

אם מכירו כשר – this is a matter for itself, and this is how it should be read: If they found it in a small leather bag or in a case, even though he does not recognize it as a Jewish bill of divorce, or that he recognizes as a Jewish bill of divorce, even though he found it in any place, it is valid.

If the daughter of an ordinary Israelite is married to a priest and her husband goes abroad, she continues eating terumah on the presumption that he is still alive. The mishnah now brings two halakhot which employ a similar principle, that is we assume that a person is still alive until it is known that he has died. A woman who eats terumah because she is married to a priest can continue to do so even if her husband went on a long trip and she no longer knows if he is alive.

נותנו לה בחזקת שהוא קיים – And we don’t fear lest the husband died and his agency is voided, for we say, that a matter stands on its presumption. But if it is known that the husband died prior to the Jewish bill of divorce reaching her hand, the Jewish bill of divorce is voided, for there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death.

If a man sends a sin-offering from abroad they sacrifice it on the presumption that he is still alive. Similarly, the priests at the Temple may offer up a sin-offering which was sent from abroad under the assumption that its owner who sent it is still alive. Had they known that the owner had died, the animal would not be able to be sacrificed.

מקריבין אותה – and we don’t fear lest its owner(s) died, and the sin offering of those whose owners died, are considered as if their death is established.

כרקום – from the Aramaic translation, works of siege (the husband is presumed to be alive in such a setting as opposed to when the city is conquered).

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one who delivers a get from a husband to his wife may assume that the husband is alive, even if the husband was old or sick. The mishnah followed with two other cases where we can act as if a certain person is still alive. Our mishnah deals with three statements made by Rabbi Elazar ben Parta which deal with assuming that a person is still alive.

המטרפת – but has not yet sunk.

Three statements were made by Rabbi Elazar ben Parta before the Sages, and they upheld his words. Rabbi Elazar ben Parta spoke about three different situations, each of which can be divided into two different possibilities. The other Sages in front of whom he spoke accepted his reasoning.

לידון – in [a matter of] capital crimes.

About [people in] a besieged town; And about [people on] a ship listing at sea; And a person who has been brought to court [in a capital case] that they are presumed to be alive. We may presume that a person in a besieged town, or a person on a ship listing at sea and threatening to sink, or a person who is being tried in a capital case is still alive. This presumption may be made even if we don’t know for sure that the person is still alive. Therefore, if the man is a priest, his Israelite wife may continue to eat terumah under the assumption that he is still alive. If the man is an Israelite and his wife is the daughter of a priest, she may not eat terumah because we assume that her husband is still alive.

בת ישראל לכהן – the stringencies regarding death

[However, concerning people] in a besieged town which has been captured; Or [people in] a ship which has been lost at sea; Or a person who has been led out to execution we put upon them all of the stringencies of their being alive and all of the stringencies of their being dead. The daughter of an Israelite who has married a priest or the daughter of a priest who has married an Israelite may not eat of the terumah. In these cases we cannot assume that the person is still alive, but neither can we be sure that he/she is dead. Rabbi Elazar ben Parta says that it is likely enough that the person is dead that we cannot continue to act as if he/she is alive. Therefore, we have to rule strictly in either case. If a husband in one of these situations was a priest and he had a wife who was the daughter of an Israelite she can no longer eat terumah because her husband may be dead. If she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite she still cannot eat terumah because her husband may still be alive.

בת כהן לישראל – the stringencies regarding life

המביא גט בארץ ישראל – where it is not necessary to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who becomes sick while delivering a get inside the land of Israel. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall deal with a person who becomes sick while bringing a get from abroad.

משלחו ביד אחר – And makes him [of the other] an agent on his own and not in the Jewish court, and specifically if he had become ill.

If one bringing a get in the land of Israel becomes sick, he can send it with another. As we learned in chapter one, a person who delivers a get within the land of Israel need not state, “In my presence it was written and signed.” Therefore, there is no problem with giving the get to another person, should the original person not be able to complete the delivery due to sickness.

ואם אמר לו – the husband to the agent

But if [the husband] said to him, “Take for me from her such-and-such an object”, he may not send it [the get] with another, since the husband may not want his deposit in the hand of another. In this case, the husband told his agent to do two things: 1) bring the get; 2) retrieve something from his wife. While we can assume that the husband will not mind someone else delivering the get, he may not trust a different person to recover his belonging. Therefore, the agent cannot even send the get with another person, since that other person cannot retrieve the object.

טול לי הימנה חפץ פלוני – When you give her the Jewish bill of divorce

עושה בית דין – [the court appoints] an agent and sends him

Introduction Today’s mishnah discusses a person who is delivering a get from abroad and cannot complete his delivery.

שליח בית דין אני – without further qualification, the Jewish court did this validating him, and the second agent appoints a third agent, [and so-on-and-so-forth] until [the] one-hundred[th agent], and all of them are [appointed] in the Jewish court, since it is taught in our Mishnah, “the last agent [does not have to say, ‘it was written in my presence and signed in my presence’]” but only says that “I am the agent of the [Jewish] court.”

If one bringing a get from abroad becomes sick, he may arrange a court of law and send him [on with the get,] declaring before them, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Generally, the person who was charged to bring the get should bring it himself. If he cannot because he becomes sick on the way, he cannot merely give it to another messenger because the husband did not give him permission to do so. In order to deliver the get to the wife, he will need to set up a court of law consisting of three judges and make his declaration in front of them. The court may then, on the husband’s behalf, appoint an agent to deliver the get.

And the last agent is not required to say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, rather he declares, “I am the messenger of a court.” The agent sent from the court obviously cannot say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, which the person delivering the get usually needs to say, because that would not be true. Upon delivering the get, what he can say is “I am the messenger of the court.” We can trust that the court would not have sent him had the get not been executed properly. As an aside, by calling him “the last agent” the mishnah alludes to the fact that this may not be the original agent sent by the court. The passing of the get from one agent to the other may happen many times.

להיות מפריש עליהן מחלקן – When he separates out the Terumah/heave-offering (which goes to the Kohen) , he should [first] sell it, he should detain the money to himself on account of his own obligation that he has towards the Kohen/priest. And the first tithe and second tithe he should withhold [them] and eat it for the obligation that he has towards the Levite and the poor, but he (the Levite) separates out from the first tithe [that he has received] the heave-offering (of one-tenth) [that he is required to give to the Kohen/priest]. But if he is accustomed to give his heave-offerings and tithes to this particular Kohen or particular Levite or the poor person who lent to them, he does not need to transfer to them their tithes and heave-offerings through another person, but he takes them for himself immediately after he has separated them out. But if he was accustomed to give his heave-offerings and tithes to others, he may not withhold them through his obligation, until he takes possession of them through another [Kohen or Levite] first and thereafter he should go back and take them as part of his obligatory [gift].

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with situations in which we assume that a person is still alive even though we cannot be sure that he is.

צריך ליטול רשות מן היורשים – That inherited from them property that had been mortgaged to a creditor, he must take permission from them if they want to repay this loan through these heave-offerings and tithes [that they have received], lest they wish to take their [priestly/Levitical] gifts and to repay their hereditary loans from another place.

If a man lends money to a priest or a levite or a poor man on condition that he can may separate [terumah or tithes] from their portion, he may do so, in the presumption that they are still alive, and he need be concerned that the priest or the levite may have died or the poor man may have become rich. In this scenario a person loans money to a priest, Levite or poor person with the agreement that the debt will be worked off by the person withholding terumah (given to the priest), first tithe (to the Levite) or poor tithe (the poor person) which he would have given to them. In such a case, the person will harvest his produce and separate terumah and tithes as he normally does. The terumah he must sell to another priest but he may keep the money for himself as payment for his debt. Note that he may not eat the terumah since terumah is strictly forbidden to non-priests. The tithes he may eat himself, since non-Levites and people who are not poor may eat tithes. The person paying off his debt need not be concerned that the priest or Levite died or that the poor person is no longer poor. As we learned in the previous mishnayoth, we can assume that a person is still alive until we have strong reason to believe otherwise.

If they died, he must obtain the permission of the heirs. If he made the loan in the presence of the court, he need not obtain permission from the heirs. If the lender knows that the priest, Levite or poor person died, he may not continue the arrangement without obtaining permission from the heirs. Since the heirs may prefer to pay back the debt, the lender must let them know what about the arrangement. Assumedly they will find the arrangement acceptable. Furthermore, if the arrangement was made in the presence of the court, he need not obtain their permission. The court has the power to finalize the debt such that the debtor may not preemptively pay it back.

המניח פירות להיות מפריש עליהן כו' – He relies upon these and eat from other TEVEL/eatables forbidden to be consumed prior to the separation of sacred gifts that he has, and says, ‘Behold their heave-offerings [come] from these fruits that I have set aside for this purpose.’

Introduction The previous several mishnayoth taught that a person need not be concerned lest someone might have died. Our mishnah teaches that a person need not be concerned lest some produce that he set aside has spoiled.

ואם אבדו – He went to check them and found that they had become lost.

If a man sets aside produce in order to count it as terumah and tithe, or money in order to count it as second tithe, he may continue to count it as such in the presumption that they still exist. The person here set aside some produce in another place for it to count as tithe so that he could eat other produce without tithing it. Or he set aside some money to count it as the redemption money for second tithe. This redemption money will eventually be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. He may continue to eat his produce, assuming that the things he set aside still exist.

הרי זה חושש – for these selfsame eatables forbidden to be consumed prior to the separation of sacred gifts, which he had legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues with the promise of those. And if he did not eat them, he must separate [tithes] from them, lest when he says: ‘Behold their priest-due is with the fruit that I have set aside’ have already become lost.

If they are lost, he must be concerned from time period to time period, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Rabbi Judah says: at three seasons they check the wine: when the east wind begins to blow at the end of Sukkot, when the buds first appear [on the vine], and when the juice begins to form in the grapes. According to R. Elazar b. Shammua, if he comes back and discovers that the produce is lost, meaning it has gone bad, he must assume that it was lost within the last 24 hours. This means that he had unwittingly eaten untithed produce for the last 24 hours, and will have to repay that amount to the priests. R. Judah says that they check the wine at only three seasons to ensure that it has not gone bad. Thus he would have to assume that any wine he had left over in order for it to count as tithes and terumah had spoiled some time between the last check and the current period.

מעת לעת – of being examined. And when he checked them and found them to be lost, he fears lest from yesterday at that particular time they had been lost, and if he had designed them as tithes in the midst of the time period of twenty-four astronomical hours over other fruit. He must separate from them [tithes] out of doubt, and more than this, the Rabbis were not stringent to fear, but they rely upon the presumptive continuance of an actual condition until evidence of change is produced.

בודקין את היין – that he left it to [have tithes] separated out, he must check it, lest it soured, since we don’t offer heave-offerings from wine that had soured.

בקדים של מוצאי החג – since when the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival [of Sukkot].

בשעת כניסת המים – when they are like the white bean (see Mishnah Kilayim 1:1), they are called half-ripe fruit (i.e. grapes). But when the moistness enters and grows in it when one is able to store away from them a bit, that is at the time when the water enters. Another explanation: When they were crushing the grapes when they were half-ripe, and putting water into it, and making vinegar to make it subject to setting aside sacred gifts. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.