Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 34a

'If orphans [under age] desire to divide the property left to them by their father, the Beth din appoints for each of them a guardian who sees that he obtains a fair share. When they grow up, however, they are able to object,' and did not R. Nahman, speaking in his own name, hold that they are not at liberty to object, because if they are, what becomes of the authority of the Beth din? — The question there was one of money, here it is one of a forbidden act.¹

Giddal b. Re'ilai sent a Get to his wife. The bearer went and found her weaving. He said to her, Here is your Get. She said to him: Go away now at any rate and come again tomorrow. He went back to him and told him, whereupon he exclaimed, Blessed be He who is good and does good!²  Abaye said, 'Blessed is He who is good and does good,' and the Get itself is not cancelled,³  and Raba said, 'Blessed is He who is good and does good,' and the Get is cancelled. What is the point at issue between them? — The point at issue is the revealing of intention in respect of a Get. Abaye holds that the revealing of intention in respect of a Get makes a difference, and Raba held that it makes no difference. Said Raba: What makes me take this view? Because R. Shesheth compelled a man to consent to give a Get, and the man said afterwards [to the witnesses], I heard R. Shesheth say to you, 'Let the Get be cancelled,' and R. Shesheth forced him to give another Get.⁴  And did R. Shesheth then, asked Abaye, cancel other men's bills of divorce? In fact the man himself cancelled it, and the reason why he used these words⁵  was on account of his [R. Shesheth's] beadles.⁶

Said Abaye: What makes me take my view? Because Rab Judah once forced the son-in-law of R. Jeremiah Bira'ah to give his wife a Get, and he cancelled it, whereupon he forced him again. He cancelled it again and he again forced him to give it, and he said to the witnesses, stuff grass⁷  into your ears and write it.⁸  Now if you assume that the revealing of intention makes a difference in a Get, do they not see him running after them? And Raba? — [He will reply that they may think] the reason why he ran after them was to tell them to make sure to give it to her so that he could put an end to his troubles.

Said Abaye further: What makes me take this view? Because there was a man who said to the witnesses, If I do not come within thirty days, this shall be a Get. He came on the thirtieth day, but could not get across the river,⁹  and he called to them, 'See that I have come, see that I have come,' and Samuel said that this was no coming.¹⁰  And Raba? — [He can rejoin,] In that case did he want to annul the Get? What he wanted was but to fulfil his condition, and his condition was not fulfilled.¹¹

A certain man said [on writing a Get for his betrothed], If I do not marry her within thirty days, this shall be a Get. When the thirtieth day came, he said, See, I am busy making the preparations. Now why should we have any doubts [about the validity of the Get]? If because the man was forcibly prevented [from marrying], force majeure is no plea in regard to a Get. If again because he revealed his intention [of annulling it], on this point there is a difference of opinion between Abaye and Raba.¹²

A certain man said [on writing a Get for his betrothed]. If I do not marry by the first day of Adar, this will be a Get. When the first of Adar came he said, I meant the first of Sivan. Now should we have any doubts about the validity of the Get? If because he was forcibly prevented, force majeure does not invalidate a Get. If because he revealed his intention, on this point there is a difference of opinion between Abaye and Raba.¹³

The law¹⁴  follows Nahman, and the law follows Nahman,¹⁵  and the law¹⁶

1. Viz., of allowing a married woman to marry again, and where this was involved the Rabbis disregarded the authority of the Beth din.
2. In giving him a chance to change his mind.
3. But can still be used to divorce the woman.
4. Because he had made it clear that he did not desire the Get to be given.
5. I.e., why he mentioned R. Shesheth.
6. Who beat him and asked him why he had cancelled it. Thus according to Abaye there was here not a mere revealing of intention but an actual annulment.
7. Lit., 'pumpkins'.
8. That you may not hear the annulment.
9. Lit., 'the ferry prevented him', as there was no ferry available for him to cross.
10. This proves that his revealing of his intention to annul the Get made no difference.
11. By calling 'See, I have come' he 'did not mean to annul the Get, but simply to announce that he had endeavoured to fulfil the condition which should invalidate the Get.
12. According to Abaye, the revealing of his intention makes no difference, according to Raba he reveals his intention not to annul the Get but to fulfil his condition. Both, however, agree that the Get is valid.
13. V. preceding note.
14. That the Get can be annulled in the presence of two.
15. Who said that the halachah is according to Rabbi in both points in dispute.
16. In regard to the revealing of intention.

follows Nahmani.¹

MISHNAH. ORIGINALLY THE HUSBAND WAS ALLOWED TO GIVE [IN THE GET] AN ADOPTED NAME²  OF HIMSELF OR OF HIS WIFE, OR AN ADOPTED TOWN OF HIMSELF OR OF HIS WIFE.³  RABBAN GAMALIEL THE ELDER MADE A REGULATION THAT HE SHOULD WRITE, 'THE MAN SO-AND-SO OR BY WHAT EVER NAMES HE IS KNOWN,'⁴  'THE WOMAN SO-AND-SO OR BY WHATEVER NAMES SHE IS KNOWN,' TO PREVENT ABUSES.⁵

GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The Jews from overseas sent to Rabban Gamaliel the following inquiry: If a man comes here from Eretz Yisrael whose name is Joseph but who is known here as Johanan, or whose name is Johanan but who is known here as Joseph, how is he to divorce his wife? Rabban Gamaliel thereupon made a regulation that they should write in the Get, The man So-and-so or by whatever names he is known, the woman So-and-so or by whatever names she is known, to prevent abuses.⁶  R. Ashi said: This is necessary only if the man is known to have two [or more] names. Said R. Abba to R. Ashi: R. Mari and R. Eleazar concur with you in this. It has been taught in agreement with R. Ashi: If a man has two wives, one in Judea and the other in Galilee, and he has two names by one of which he is known in Judea and by the other in Galilee, and if he divorces his wife in Judea under the name which he bears in Judea and his wife in Galilee under the name which he bears in Galilee, the divorce is not effective: it does not become so until he divorces his wife in Judea under the name he bears in Judea with the addition of the name he bears in Galilee, and his wife in Galilee under the name he bears in Galilee with the addition of the name he bears in Judea.⁷  If, however, he goes away to another place⁸  and gives a divorce under one of the names only, the divorce is effective. But did you not just say, 'with the addition of the name he bears in Galilee'?⁹  This shows that the one rule¹⁰  applies where he is known [to have more than one name], and the other rule¹¹  applies where he is not known [to have more than one name].

There was a woman who was known to most people as Miriam but to a few as Sarah, and the Nehardeans ruled that [in a Get she should be referred to as] 'Miriam or any other name by which she may be called' and not 'Sarah or any other name by which she may be called.'¹²

MISHNAH. A WIDOW HAS [BY RIGHTS] NO POWER TO RECOVER [HER KETHUBAH]¹³  FROM THE PROPERTY OF ORPHANS SAVE ON TAKING AN OATH.¹⁴  BUT THEY [THE RABBIS] REFRAINED FROM IMPOSING AN OATH ON HER.¹⁵  RABBAN GAMALIEL THE ELDER THEREUPON MADE A REGULATION THAT SHE SHOULD TAKE ANY VOW¹⁶  WHICH THE ORPHANS CHOSE TO IMPOSE ON HER AND SO RECOVER HER KETHUBAH. AND [SIMILARLY] WITNESSES SIGN THEIR NAMES TO A GET TO PREVENT ABUSES.¹⁷  HILLEL THE ELDER ALSO INSTITUTED THE PROSBUL¹⁸  TO PREVENT ABUSES.

GEMARA. Why is this rule [about an oath] laid down with reference to a widow, seeing that it applies to everybody, since it is an established rule that 'one who seeks to recover payment from the property of orphans¹⁹  cannot recover save on taking an oath'?²⁰  — There is a special reason for the mention of a widow. For it might occur to you to say that

1. Abaye, so called because he was brought up by Rabbah b. Nahmani, who called him by the name of his father (Rashi). [According to Aruch, Abaye's real name was Nahmani after his grandfather. but he was nicknamed Abaye ('Little father') by his uncle Rabbah b. Nahmani, who had adopted him at an early age, in order to avoid confusion with his grandfather.]
2. Lit., 'he used to change'.
3. Supposing he had changed his residence temporarily and assumed another name.
4. According to Tosaf., this means that all his other names should be specifically mentioned. V. Infra
5. Lit., 'for the better ordering of society.'
6. I.e., to prevent people in case she remarries, from saving that the first husband never divorced her.
7. This seems to confirm the opinion of Tosaf., that all the names must be written in the Get.
8. Neither in Judea nor Galilee.
9. Which shows that his other names must be included.
10. That his other name must be included.
11. That one name is sufficient.
12. This would seem to show that the Mishnah is to be taken in its literal sense and not as interpreted by Tosaf.
13. V. Glos.
14. That she had not received any part of the kethubah.
15. V. infra.
16. E.g., a vow to abstain from certain kinds of food if it should be found that she had already received any part of the kethubah.
17. V. infra. Lit., 'for the better ordering of society.'
18. V. Glos. and infra.
19. For a debt incurred by their father.
20. B.B. 5b; Keth. 872.