meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nashim/Mishnah Gittin/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Gittin
  משנה גיטין
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Gittin
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  [With regard to] one who brings a bill of divorce from overseas and said, "It was written in my presence, but it was not signed in my presence;" [or,] "It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence;"  [or,] "The whole [bill of divorce] was written in my presence, but [only] half of it  was signed in my presence;" [or,] "Half of it was written in my presence and all of it was signed in my presence," it is invalid. [If] one says, "It was written in my presence," and one says, "It was signed in my presence," it is invalid. [If] two say, "It was written in our presence," and one says, "It was signed in my presence," it is invalid. But Rabbi Yehudah declares it valid. [If] one says, "It was written in my presence," and two say, "It was signed in our presence," it is valid.
  If it was written in the daytime and signed in the daytime,  [or written] at night and signed at night, [or written] at night, but signed in the daytime, it is valid. If it was written in the daytime, but signed at night, it is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid, as Rabbi Shimon would say, "All documents written during the daytime and signed at night are invalid, except for bills of divorce."
  One may write [a bill of divorce] with any [material]: with ink, with paint, with red paint, with gum, or with vitriol black, and with every other permanent material. One may not write [it] with a drink, nor with fruit juice, nor with any impermanent material. One may write [it] on anything: on an olive leaf; on a cow's horn, but he must give her the cow; on the hand of a slave, but he must give her the slave. Rabbi Yossi HaGelili says, "One may not write on anything that has the spirit of life, nor on foods." 
  One may not write [it] on anything that is attached to the ground. [If] one wrote it on something attached, [and] he detached it and signed it and gave it to her, it is valid. Rabbi Yehudah declares it invalid, until its writing and its signing be on something that is detached [from the ground]. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteirah says, "One may not write it erased paper, nor on hide prepared for writing, because it can be [easily] forged." But the Sages declare it valid.
  All are qualified to write a bill of divorce, even a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i> and  a minor. A woman may write her own bill of divorce, and the husband his receipt [for the amount of the <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a married woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] he has paid her], because the affirmation of legal documents depends solely on the signers. All are valid [agents] to bring a bill of divorce, except for a deaf-mute, an <i>shoteh</i>, a minor, a blind person, and a non-Jew.
  [If] a minor accepted a bill of divorce [to deliver] and came of age [before he delivered it], or a deaf person and he recovered his hearing, or a blind person and he recovered his sight, or a <i>shoteh</i> [a person who exhibits signs indicating profound mental incompetence] and he became mentally competent, or a non-Jew and he converted, [the bill of divorce] is invalid. But [if he] was hearing, and became deaf and then recovered his hearing; or he was seeing, and he became blind, and then recovered his sight; or a mentally competent person, and he became a <i>shoteh</i>, and then became mentally competent again, it is valid. This is the rule: Any case in which [at] the beginning and end [he] was with [his] full faculties, it is valid.
  Even those women who are not believed to say [with regard to a woman], "Her husband died," are believed to bring her bill of divorce: her mother-in-law, and the daughter of her mother-in-law, her sister-wife, the wife of her husband's brother, and her husband's daughter. What is the difference between [testifying about] a bill of divorce and [about] death? Because [with regard to the bill of divorce] the writing, [i.e., the bill itself,] proves [the testimony to be accurate]. A woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, but she must declare, "It was written and signed in my presence."
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  [With regard to] one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife [via a messenger], and then catches up with the messenger, or sent [another] messenger after the first, and said, "The bill of divorce that I gave to you is cancelled," then it is cancelled.  If the husband preceded the messenger [in getting] to the woman, or if he sent [a second] messenger, and he said to her, "The bill of divorce that I sent you is cancelled," then it is cancelled. If [he makes this statement] from, [i.e., after,] the moment that the bill of divorce reached her hands, he can no longer cancel it.
  At first, a man [who had already sent his wife a bill of divorce by means of a messenger] would set up a religious court in a different place [from where the wife lived] and cancel [the bill of divorce].  Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that they not be able to do this, due to [the need for] repairing the world [<i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>].  At first, a man could change his name and her name, the name of his city, or the name of her city.   Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that one would write: "The man, So-and-so, and any other name that he has, and the woman, So-and-so, and any other name that she has," due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>.
  A widow may only collect [the debt owed from her <i>ketubah</i>, monetary settlement payable to a married woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] from the property of orphans by [taking] an oath. They stopped imposing an oath; Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that she may make a vow with regard to whatever they desire, and collects her <i>ketubah</i>.  Witnesses sign on a bill of divorce, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>.  Hillel instituted the <i>pruzbul</i> [a court-issued exemption from the Sabbatical year cancellation of a personal loan] due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>. 
  [With regard to] a slave who was kidnapped and they ransomed him, if [he was ransomed] in order to be a slave, he may be enslaved. If [he was ransomed] to be a free man, he may not be enslaved. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "Either way he may be enslaved." [With regard to] a slave whose master mortgaged him to others, and then freed him, the baseline law is that the slave is not obligated at all. However, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i> they force his [second] master to free him, and [the slave must] write a document [of debt] for his money's worth to him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "[The slave] does not write [a debt document], rather the [original] one who freed him [does]."
  One who is half slave and half free-man, serves his master one day and [works for] himself one day. These are the words of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to them: "You have repaired [the situation] for his master, but for himself you have not repaired it. To marry a maidservant is impossible [i.e., forbidden], for he is half-free. [To marry] a free-woman is impossible, for he is half-slave. And was not the world created for the sake of reproduction, as it says (Isaiah 45:18) "Not for emptiness did He create it, but for settlement He formed it." Rather, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>, we force his master and he makes him a free-man, and [the slave] writes a document [of debt] for half his value. Beit Hillel retracted and ruled in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai.
  [With regard to] one who sells his slave to a non-Jew or to someone outside Eretz Yisrael, [the slave automatically] goes free. We do not ransom captives for more than they are worth, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>. We do not help captives escape, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "[It is] due to the enactment of the captives. We do not buy <i>sefarim</i> [books of the Tanach written in holiness, on parchment, and used for personal or public study, or for reading aloud in public. Sometimes the intent is specifically Torah scrolls], tefillin, and mezuzot from the non-Jews for more than their worth, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>.
  [With regard to] one who divorced his wife due to her bad reputation, he may not remarry her. If it was because of a vow [that she made], he may not remarry her. Rabbi Yehudah says, "[In the case of] any vow that was known to the public, he may not remarry her. [But for one] that was not known to the public, he may remarry her." Rabbi Meir says, "[In the case of] any vow that required the inspection of a Sage[to determine if it can be annulled], he may not remarry her. If it does not require inspection of a Sage, he may remarry her." Rabbi Eliezer said, "This one was only prohibited due to that one. Rabbi Yossi, son of Rabbi Yehudah, said, "There was an occurrence in Sidon with one man who said to his wife, "I take a vow if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her. The rabbis allowed them to remarry, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>.
  [With regard to] one who divorces his wife because she is an <i>aiylonit</i> [[a woman with arrested sexual development who cannot bear children], Rabbi Yehudah says, "He may not remarry her." The Sages say, "He may remarry her." If she married someone else, and she had children with him, and she demands her <i>ketubah</i> [from the first husband], Rabbi Yehudah says, "We say to her, 'Your silence is better than your speaking.'"
  [With regard to] one who sells himself and his children to a non-Jew, we do not redeem him.  But we redeem the children after the death of their father.  [With regard to] one who sells his field to a non-Jew, and a Jew buys it back from him, the buyer brings the first fruits from it, due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>.
  
  
  
  [Compensation for] damages are assessed from the highest [quality  field]; and for a creditor, from the medium [quality field]; and for the payment of a <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a married woman upon divorce or the death of her husband], from the lowest [quality field]. Rabbi Meir says, "Even the <i>ketubah</i> [is to be paid] from the medium [quality field.]"
  We do not collect[ payment] from mortgaged property [in the hands of others], when there is unmortgaged property [i.e, belonging to the debtor], even if it is from the lowest quality. We do not collect from the property of orphans except for from the lowest quality.
  We do not extract [payment] for usufruct, for the improvement of the land, or for the food of a wife and daughters [of a former marriage] from mortgaged property, due to repairing the world [<i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>]. And we do not impose an oath upon the finder of an object due to <i>Tikkun HaOlam</i>.
  [With regard to] orphans who are dependent on a [particular] homeowner, or [in the case that] their father had appointed a guardian for them, these people must tithe the [orphans'] fruit. A guardian who was appointed by the father, must take an oath; if the court appointed him need not take an oath. Abba Shaul says, "It is just the reverse." [With regard to] one who renders [fruit belonging to another] ritually impure, or mixes it [with <i>terumah</i>, a portion of a crop given to a Kohen which becomes holy upon separation, and can only be consumed by Kohanim or their household], or mixes [his wine with other wine used for idolatrous] libations. [If he did so] unwittingly, he is exempt [from paying damages]; if on purpose, he is liable. Kohanim who purposely render sacrifices ‏<i>pigul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit, due to the intention of the officiating priest, while offering it, to consume it outside its permitted time], are liable.
  Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgodah testified about a deaf woman whose father had married her off that she may leave her marriage with a bill of divorce; and about a female minor Israelite who was married to a Kohen that she may eat <i>terumah</i>, and if she dies her husband inherits her [property]; and about a stolen beam that nwas built into a castle that[ the owner] collects its monetary [value], dut to the enactment of returning[ stolen objects]; and about a stolen sin-offering that was unknown to the public [when offered in the Temple] does provide atonement, due to the enactment [on behalf] of the altar. 
  The law of <i>sikrikon</i> [violent individuals who acquired fields and houses by use or threat of force, including murder] was not in force in Judea during the time of the war when many Jews were being killed, but from that time on it did apply. How so? If one purchased land from the <i>sikrikon</i>, and then he purchased it from its [rightful] owner, the sale is void; however, [if he purchased it] from the owner and then he purchased it from the <i>sikrikon</i>, the sale is valid. If one purchased [a field] from the husband, and then he purchased it from his wife, the sale is void; but [if he purchased it first] from the wife, and then he purchased it from the husband, the sale is valid. This was the first teaching. But a different court decided that one who purchases [a field] from the <i>sikrikon</i> must pay a quarter to the [rightful] owner. This is when it is not in [the owner's] ability to repurchase [his field]; but if he has the ability to repurchase the field, [the owners] are preferred over anyone else [to repurchase the field]. Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] established a court and they decided by consensus that if [a field] remained in the hands of  the <i>sikrikon</i> for twelve months, whoever precedes others gains the rights [to purchase the filed] but he must pay a quarter to the [previous] owner.
  A deaf person may indicate and be indicated to [with signs between contracting parties]. Ben Beteirah says, "Mouthing [words] and being mouthed to [is effective] for movable property." [With regard to] children at the age of discernment, their purchase and sale is valid with regard to movable property.
  These are the things they said [i.e., enacted] due to "ways of peace:" A Kohen should read [the Torah] first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite due to "ways of peace;" we place the <i>eruv</i> [halachic merging of separate domains by means of setting aside an amount of food in a designated place] in an old house, due to "ways of peace"; the well nearest to the water-course must be filled first, due to "ways of peace." [With regard to] traps for wild animals, birds or fish or traps are included in the laws of theft, due to "ways of peace." Rabbi Yossi says, "It is actual theft." What a deaf person, a person who exhibits signs indicating severe mental incompetence, or a minor finds [is his own], and [stealing from him] is included in the laws of theft. due to "ways of peace." Rabbi Yossi says, "It is actual theft."  In the case of a poor person beating down olives from the top of a tree, that which is under him is included in the laws of theft. Rabbi Yossi says, "It is actual theft." We do not prevent non-Jewish poor from gathering <i>leket</i>[that which is dropped in the course of harvesting, which is reserved for the poor] the forgotten [grain], and the produce of the corner of the field [reserved for the poor], due to "ways of peace."
  One woman may lend to another who is suspected [not to observe properly the laws] of the Sabbatical year, a flour-sieve, a winnow, a handmill, and a stove, but she may not assist her to winnow nor to grind. The wife of a ‏<i>chaver</i> [one who scrupulously observes the detailed laws of tithes and ritual purity] may lend to the wife of an unlearned person, a flour-sieve or a winnow, and may aid her to winnow, to grind, or to sift; but as soon as water is poured over the flour, she may not further assist her, for we may not aid those who transgress the law. All of [these permitted acts] are due to "ways of peace." We may aid non-Jews [who works in the fields] during the Sabbatical year, but [we may not] aid an Israelite; and we ask how he is, due to "ways of peace."
  
  
  
  [With regard to] one who says, "Accept this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife," or, "Bring this bill of divorce to my wife," he may take it back if he wants. [With regard to ] a woman who said [to a messenger], "Accept my bill of divorce on my behalf," if [the husband] wants to take it back, he cannot. Therefore, if the husband says to [the messenger], "I do not wish that you should accept it on her behalf, rather, go bring it her [as my messenger]," he may take it back if he wants. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Even if she said, 'Pick up my bill of divorce,' if [the husband] wants to take it back, he cannot."
  [With regard to] a wife who said, "Accept my bill of divorce on my behalf," she requires two sets of witnesses; two who [must] say, "In our presence she uttered [this order]," and two who [must] say, "In our presence [the messenger] received the bill of divorce and tore it up." Even if the first group is the same as the second group, or one of the first and one of the second pair of witnesses [as long as] another [witness] joins with them. [With regard to] a betrothed pubescent girl, either she or her father may accept her bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Two hands [i.e., people] cannot posses that right at the same time; rather, only her father may accept her bill of divorce." And any female who is unable to take proper care of her bill of divorce, cannot be divorced at all.
  [With regard to] a female minor who said, "Accept my bill of divorce on my behalf," it is not an [effective] bill until it has reached her hands. Therefore, if the husband wished to revoke it, he can do so, because a minor cannot appoint a messenger. However, if her father said [to the messenger], "Go and accept my daughter's bill of divorce on her behalf," if the husband wished to revoke it, he cannot. [With regard to] one who says, "Give this bill of divorce to my wife in the place Such-and-such a place" and [the messenger] gave it to her elsewhere, it is invalid. [But had the husband said merely] "My wife is in Such-and-such a place" and [the messenger] gave it her in another place, it is valid. [With regard to] a woman who says, "Accept my bill of divorce on my behalf in Such-and-such a place," and he accepted it for her in another place, it is invalid;  Rabbi Eliezer declares it valid. [If she said,] "Bring me my bill of divorce from Such-and-such a place," and he brought it from elsewhere, it is valid.
  [If she says,] "Bring me my bill of divorce," she may eat <i>terumah</i> [a portion of a crop given to a Kohen which becomes holy upon separation, and can only be consumed by Kohanim or their household] until the bill of divorce reaches her hands. [If she says,] "Accept my bill of divorce on my behalf," it is prohibited for her to eat <i>terumah</i> immediately. [If she said,] "Accept my bill of divorce on my behalf in Such-and-such a place," she may eat <i>terumah</i> until the bill of divorce reaches that place; Rabbi Eliezer prohibits it immediately.
  [With regard to] one who says, "Write a bill of divorce , and give it to my wife," or, "Divorce her," or, "Write her a letter and give it her," they shall write it and give it [to her]. [If he said,] "Release her," or, "Provide her her maintenance," or, "Do with her as is customary," or, "Do with her as is proper," he has said nothing [of significance]. Originally, they would say [that with regard to] one who was being led out with an iron collar [to the place of execution], and he said, "Write a bill of divorce for my wife," they shall write it and give it [to her]. They retracted [that] to say, "Even one who is going to sea, or to travel with a caravan [in the desert]." Rabbi Shimon Shazuri says, "Even one who is dangerously ill."
  [With regard to] one who was cast into a pit and said that whoever should hear his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife, they shall write it and give it [to her]. A healthy person who says, "Write a bill of divorce for my wife," [it is considered as though] he wishes to joke with her. It once happened that a healthy person said, "Write a bill of divorce for my wife," and then went on his roof, and he fell and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, "The Sages said, 'If he fell on his own [i.e., purposely], it is a [valid] bill of divorce; if the wind pushed him, it is not a [valid] bill of divorce."
  If one says to two [men], "Give a bill of divorce to my wife," or to three, "Write a bill of divorce, and give it to my wife," they shall write, and give it [to her]. If he said to three, "Give a bill of divorce to my wife," the latter [may] tell others to write it, because he made them a tribunal; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Hanina of Ono brought this law with him from prison, [as he said]: "I have received a tradition, that when he said to three, 'Give my wife a bill of divorce,' that they may tell others to write it, because he made them a tribunal." Rabbi Yossi said, "We said to the messenger, We [also] have a tradition, that even if he said to the High Court in Jerusalem, 'Give my wife a bill of divorce,' that they must learn [the procedures of a bill of divorce], write a bill of divorce, and give it [to her]." If he said to ten [men], "Write a bill of divorce for my wife," one of them shall write, and two [shall] sign it; [but if he said], "Write it all of you," then one shall write, and all [shall] sign it. Therefore, if one of them should die, the bill of divorce becomes void.
  
  
  
  If a person seized with <i>cardiacos</i> [confused condition connected perhaps with hypoglycemia] should say, "Write a bill of divorce for my wife," his words are not to be noticed. If he said [before he was taken ill], "Write a bill of divorce for my wife," and when seized with <i>cardiacos</i>, he said, "Do not write it," his last words are not to be noticed. When a person became dumb, and on being asked, "Shall we write a bill of divorce  for your wife?" nods his head [in token of assent], he shall be questioned three times, and if he [by his motions or gestures] answers rightly the questions proposed to him, both affirmative and negative, they may in that case write a bill of divorce and deliver it to his wife.
  If a person is asked, "Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife?" and he answered, "Write it;" and they spoke to the scribe, who wrote it, and the witnesses, who signed it: although it was duly written, attested and delivered to the husband, who delivered it to his wife, nevertheless it is ineffective, because it is only then valid when the husband himself orders the scribe to write, and the witnesses to attest it.
  [When a husband says to his wife] "This is your bill of divorce in case I die," or, "If I die of this illness," or, "To take effect after my decease," his words are vain; but if he said, "Here is your bill of divorce, to take effect from this day," or, "from this moment, if I should die," it is a valid bill of divorce. If he said, "To take effect from this day and after my death," it is doubtful whether such bill of divorce is valid or not: and in case he dies [without leaving issue], his widow must perform <i>Chalitsah</i> [the ceremony performed to release a widow of a childless man from the obligation of Levirate marriage], but is not married via <i>Yibbum</i> [a Levirate marriage].  If he said, "This is your bill of divorce from this day if I die of this illness," and he rose [from his sick bed], went out into the street, and became ill again and died: if he died in consequence of a relapse of the former illness the bill of divorce is valid, but not otherwise.
  Under the mentioned circumstances  the wife may not meet the husband but in the presence of witnesses. A slave or a bondwoman is a competent witness for this purpose, her own bondwoman excepted, because a mistress is usually quite familiar with such a one. How is she to be considered during that interval? According to R. Yehudah, "As a married woman in every respect," but according to R. Yose, "As one whose divorce is doubtful."
  If he [a husband] says, "Here is your bill of divorce, on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>," she is divorced from the moment she accepts the bill of divorce, and is bound to pay the stipulated amount. If he said, "On condition that you give me [two hundred <i>zuz</i>, or any other sum] within thirty days," and she consented and paid the amount agreed upon within the time stipulated, she is duly divorced, but not if she did not pay it within that time. R. Shimon ben Gamaliel relates, "Once, in Sidon, a husband said to his wife, 'Here is your bill of divorce, on condition that you give me my ‏fine coat,' and she lost it: the sages decided that the bill of divorce should be still valid, if she paid him a sum equal to the value thereof."
  If a husband says to his wife, "Here is your bill of divorce, on condition that you wait on my father," or "suckle my child" [the period allowed for the general duration of suckling a child is two years]. What period is she bound to suckle it? R. Yehudah says, "Eighteen months only, and if during that period the child or the father should die, the bill of divorce is valid." If he said, "Here is your bill of divorce, on condition that you wait on my father for two years," or "suckle my child two years," and either the child or the father dies, or that the latter refuses her services, without being angry with her, the bill of divorce is not valid: but Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel considers it valid under the mentioned circumstances, for he establishes it as a rule "That every impediment which does not proceed from the part of the wife does not render the bill of divorce void."
  Should a husband say to his wife, "Here is your bill of divorce if I do not return within thirty days," and intending to travel from Judea into Galilee he returned after having proceeded to Antipatris only, he has voided his condition. If he said, "Here is thy bill of divorce if I do not return within thirty days," and intending to travel from Judea to Galilee returns from the village Otenai, he has voided his condition. If he said, "Here is your bill of divorce if I do not return within thirty days," and intending to travel beyond sea he went only as far as Acco and returned, he has voided his condition. If he said, "Here is your bill of divorce if at any time I should stay away from you for thirty days," though he should frequently go and return for that period, the bill of divorce is valid, provided he did not remain alone with her.
  When a husband said to his wife, "Here is your bill of divorce if I do not return within twelve months ," and he died within twelve months, the bill of divorce is void; but if he said, "This is your bill of divorce from the present moment, if I do not return within twelve months from this day," and he died within that time, the bill of divorce is valid.
  When a husband said, "If I do not return within twelve months from this day, write and deliver a bill of divorce to my wife;" if they wrote it within twelve months, but did not deliver it till after that time, the bill of divorce is void. If he said, "Write and deliver a bill of divorce to my wife if I do not return within twelve months from this day;" if they wrote it within that time, but did not deliver it till after the expiration thereof, the bill of divorce is void. R. Yose says, "It is valid in similar cases." If they wrote and delivered it after twelve months, and the husband died meanwhile; if the delivery of the bill of divorce preceded the death of the husband, the bill of divorce is valid;  if the death of the husband preceded the delivery of the bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is void; and where it cannot be ascertained which event was prior to the other, she is to be considered as one whose divorce is doubtful. 