AccueilÉtudeTanakhBibliothèqueSujetsParachaDivrei TorahRabbanimSagesHistoireÀ proposMes favorisFaire un don
Retour

Traité Gittin

21b

Étude de Gittin 21b

Étude de la Mishna & Guémara 21b

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : it is not possible to cut it off, as it is certainly prohibited to cut off the hand of a slave, and he therefore must give her the slave. But if he wrote the bill of divorce on the horn of a cow, let him cut it off and give it to her. Why does the mishna state that he must give her the cow?
לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְמִקְצְיַיהּ, אֶלָּא קֶרֶן שֶׁל פָּרָה – לִיקְצְיַיהּ וְלִיתְּבַהּ לָהּ!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1), meaning that something is valid as a bill of divorce when it is lacking only writing and giving, excluding this, a cow’s horn, which is lacking writing, cutting, and giving. Since the additional step of cutting would be required in order for him to give her the horn alone, the horn would not be a valid bill of divorce, so he must give her the cow.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכָתַב״ – ״וְנָתַן לַהּ״, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא כְּתִיבָה וּנְתִינָה; יָצָא זֶה – שֶׁמְחוּסָּר כְּתִיבָה, קְצִיצָה וּנְתִינָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna taught that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that a bill of divorce may not be written on something living, nor on food. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion? As it is taught in a baraita: It is said in the Torah with regard to a bill of divorce: “And he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). From the word “scroll,” I have derived only that a scroll is valid; from where do I derive that it is correct to include all objects as valid materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The verse states: “And he writes her,” in any case, i.e., a bill of divorce can be written on any type of surface. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “scroll”? This teaches: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. This is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili deems invalid a bill of divorce written on a living being.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? דְּתַנְיָא: ״סֵפֶר״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סֵפֶר, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״סֵפֶר״? מָה סֵפֶר – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל; אַף כׇּל דָּבָר – שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: If the verse were written: And he shall write for her in the scroll [besefer], then it would be as you said, and it would indicate the type of surface on which the bill of divorce may be written. Now that it is written: “Scroll [sefer],” it comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirat devarim] is required. In other words, sefer is referring not to the surface on which a bill of divorce must be written, but rather, to the essence of the bill of divorce. The verse teaches that the bill of divorce must contain particular content.
וְרַבָּנַן – אִי כְּתִיב ״בְּסֵפֶר״, כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ; הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״סֵפֶר״ – לִסְפִירַת דְּבָרִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara continues: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase in the verse: “And he writes her”? The Gemara answers: For them, that phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only via writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced via giving money. It might enter your mind to say: I should juxtapose leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, and I will say that just as becoming married is effected with giving money, so too, leaving marriage can also be effected with giving money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: “And he writes her”; divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״וְכָתַב״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ ״בִּכְתִיבָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, וְאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בְּכֶסֶף״ – סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, אַקֵּישׁ יְצִיאָה לַהֲוָיָיהּ: מָה הֲוָיָיה בְּכֶסֶף, אַף יְצִיאָה נָמֵי בְּכֶסֶף; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this reasoning? He derives it from the phrase “scroll of severance,” which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband and nothing else severs her from him.
וְאִידַּךְ – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״סֵּפֶר כְּרִיתוּת״ – סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And those who hold the other opinion, the Rabbis, how do they explain this phrase? For them, the phrase “scroll of severance” is required to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her, as it is taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce, on the condition that you will not ever drink wine, or on condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance, and the bill of divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition until thirty days have passed, or for any other limited period of time, that is severance. The bill of divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.
וְאִידָּךְ – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ״, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן״; ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ״; ״לְעוֹלָם״ – אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת. ״עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ – הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive that a stipulation without a termination point invalidates the divorce? From the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut. Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches us two things: Divorce can be effected only via writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance.
וְאִידָּךְ – מִ״כָּרֵת–כְּרִיתוּת״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And the other, the Rabbis, what do they derive from this? The Gemara answers: They do not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut.
וְאִידַּךְ – ״כָּרֵת–כְּרִיתוּת״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי.
Mishna 1
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : MISHNA: One may not write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the ground. If one wrote it on something that was attached to the ground, and afterward he detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, then it is valid. Rabbi Yehuda deems a bill of divorce invalid unless its writing and its signing were performed when it was already detached.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע. כְּתָבוֹ בִּמְחוּבָּר, תְּלָשׁוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתִיבָתוֹ וַחֲתִימָתוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ.(משנה)
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: One may not write a bill of divorce on erased paper or on unfinished leather [diftera], because writing on these surfaces can be forged. And the Rabbis deem valid a bill of divorce that was written on either of these items.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל הַנְּיָיר הַמָּחוּק וְלֹא עַל הַדִּיפְתְּרָא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּיף. וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
Guémara
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : GEMARA: The mishna taught: If one wrote it on something that was attached to the ground, and detached it before he gave it to her, then it is valid. The Gemara challenges: But didn’t you say in the first clause of the mishna that one may not write a bill of divorce on something that is attached to the ground? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna’s statement that if something was detached and signed then it is a valid bill of divorce is applicable only when one left a place for the essential part of the document. He did not write the entire bill of divorce while it was attached to the ground. Rather, he wrote only the standard part of the bill of divorce. However, he left a place for the essential part of the bill of divorce, which includes the names of the man and woman, and wrote that part only after it was detached.
גְּמָ׳ כְּתָבוֹ עַל הַמְחוּבָּר?! וְהָאָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא ״אֵין כּוֹתְבִין״! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף.
Gittin 21b
100%
גיטין כ״א במַסֶּכֶת גִּיטִּין