Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And there are those who reverse the attribution of the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef with regard to this matter.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָפֵיךְ לְהוּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The mishna teaches that if a man said to ten people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, one of the ten writes the bill of divorce and two sign it. The Sages taught: If one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, one writes on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you write the document, one writes it in the presence of them all. If he said: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, one person brings it on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you deliver a bill of divorce, then one brings it in the presence of them all.
אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט, וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב עַל יְדֵי כּוּלָּם. ״כּוּלְּכֶם כְּתוֹבוּ״ – אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב בְּמַעֲמַד כּוּלָּם. ״הוֹלִיכוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – אֶחָד מוֹלִיךְ עַל יְדֵי כּוּלָּם. ״כּוּלְּכֶם הוֹלִיכוּ״ – אֶחָד מוֹלִיךְ בְּמַעֲמַד כּוּלָּם.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he said: Write a bill of divorce, and he enumerated them by name, what is the halakha? Can one of them write the bill of divorce on behalf of them all? Or perhaps it is comparable to a situation where one says: All of you write, when it must be written in the presence of them all. Rav Huna says: If one enumerated them by name, it is not comparable to saying: All of you write. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar of Rome: If one enumerated them by name, it is comparable to saying: All of you write.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מָנָה אוֹתָן, מַהוּ? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מָנָה אֵינוֹ כְּ״כוּלְּכֶם״, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּמִן רוֹמָה אָמַר: מָנָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּ״כוּלְּכֶם״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree. This is referring to a case where he enumerated them all, and that is referring to a case where he enumerated some of them. Some say that the distinction between the cases should be explained in this manner, and some say it in that manner. Some explain that the distinction is that if he enumerated them all, he insists that they all participate, but if he enumerated some of them, he does not insist that they do so. He enumerated the names that he did only to indicate that he wants the people performing the task to be chosen from those people. Others explain that if he enumerated only some of them, he thereby expressed his intent that they alone participate, but if he enumerated them all but did not say: All of you write, that is not the case.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי; הָא דְּמָנָה כּוּלְּהוּ, וְהָא דְּמָנָה מִקְצָתַיְיהוּ – אָמְרִי לַהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara recounts: Rav Yehuda instituted in the case of a bill of divorce with regard to which the husband gave instructions in the presence of many people and the concern is that it will be interpreted that he said: All of you write, and if they do not all sign there will be uncertainty whether or not the woman is divorced, that he should say: Write it, either all of you or each and every one of you; sign it, either all of you or every two of you; deliver it, either all of you or each and every one of you. In that way, there is no concern that the bill of divorce will be invalid if one of them fails to participate.
אַתְקֵין רַב יְהוּדָה בְּגִיטָּא דְּ״כוּלְּכֶם״: כְּתוֹבוּ – אוֹ כּוּלְּכוֹן אוֹ כֹּל חַד וְחַד מִינְּכוֹן; חֲתוֹמוּ – אוֹ כּוּלְּכוֹן אוֹ כֹּל תְּרֵי מִינְּכוֹן; אוֹבִילוּ – אוֹ כּוּלְּכוֹן אוֹ כֹּל חַד וְחַד מִינְּכוֹן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava said: This ordinance still leaves room for a pitfall. Since Rav Yehuda instituted a formula that is that long and complex, sometimes the husband may truncate his statement and say: All of you, but he will not say: Every one of you. And the bill of divorce will be invalidated as a result.
אָמַר רָבָא: זִימְנִין דְּגָאֵיז לֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ, וְאָמַר ״כּוּלְּכוֹן״ וְלָא אָמַר ״כֹּל חַד מִינְּכוֹן״, וְאָתֵי לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, Rava said that he must say: Each of you may write it, every two of you may sign it, each one of you may deliver it. However, he should not say: All of you, so that the bill of divorce will not be invalidated if one fails to do so.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״כְּתוֹבוּ – כֹּל חַד מִינְּכוֹן, חֲתוֹמוּ – כֹּל תְּרֵי מִינְּכוֹן, אוֹבִילוּ – כֹּל חַד מִינְּכוֹן״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) :
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאוֹמֵר
Mishna 1
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : MISHNA: In the case of one who was afflicted with temporary insanity [kordeyakos] and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, he said nothing, because he was not lucid at the time. If he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, when he was lucid, and was then afflicted with temporary insanity and he retracted his previous statement and said: Do not write it, his latter statement is considered to be nothing, i.e., it is not halakhically valid.
מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס, וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וַאֲחָזוֹ קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר: ״לֹא תִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ״ – אֵין דְּבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם.(משנה)
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The mishna continues: In a case where the husband became mute, and two people said to him: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head indicating his agreement, they examine him with various questions three times. If he responded to questions that have a negative answer: No, and responded to questions that have a positive answer: Yes, indicating his competence, they shall write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife based on the nod of his head.
נִשְׁתַּתֵּק, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ״, וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ – בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים, אִם אָמַר עַל לָאו – ״לָאו״, וְעַל הֵן – ״הֵן״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ.
Guémara
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the nature of the temporary insanity mentioned in the mishna? Shmuel said: The reference is to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine that came directly from the winepress. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna of the mishna then teach explicitly: With regard to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the name of the demon that causes this insanity is Kordeyakos.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דְּנַכְתֵיהּ חַמְרָא חַדְתָּא דְּמַעְצַרְתָּא. וְלִיתְנֵי: מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ יַיִן חָדָשׁ! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּהָא רוּחָא – ״קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס״ שְׁמַהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: What difference is there? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to writing an amulet to prevent harm caused by the demon. The amulet must include the name of the demon. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for that illness? The Gemara responds: The afflicted person should eat red meat roasted over coals and drink wine diluted [marka] with a large amount of water.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לִקְמִיעָא. מַאי אָסוּתֵיהּ? בִּישְׂרָא סוּמָּקָא אַגּוּמְרֵי, וְחַמְרָא מַרְקָא.