Torah Community Connections

Week 85 - Sunday - 8 July 2001

GITTIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 6

If one sells his servant to a non-Jew or outside the Land he goes forth a freedman. Captives must not be ransomed for more than their value, for reasons of public welfare, and must not be helped to escape, for reasons of public welfare. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, For the benefit of the captives. And scrolls of the Law, tefillin, and mezuzot must not be purchased from the non-Jews for more than their value, for reasons of the public welfare.

Kehati

This mishnah continues to discuss regulations which were enacted by the Sages for the public welfare; The beginning of the mishnah, however, deals with the Canaanite servant.

If one sells his servant to a non-Jew or outside the Land he goes forth a freedman. The Sages fined a person who sells his servant to a non-Jew by compelling him to ransom the servant (for up to ten times his value) and then to free him, since by selling him he deprived the servant of the opportunity to fulfill mitzvot (a Canaanite servant must observe the same commandments as a woman). And if the servant escapes from the non-Jew, he does not return to his master. The Gemara explains that the servant needs a writ of emancipation from the owner. If the owner writes him an ono (a document), i.e., he writes, "If you escape from him, I have no dealings with you," this is equivalent to a writ of emancipation. And also, one who sells his servant outside Eretz Israel - he goes forth a freedman - even if he sells him to an Israelite, the servant goes free because he took him out of Eretz Israel. The Gemara explains that the servant requires a writ of emancipation and they force the second owner to issue the writ. In this case the buyer, rather than the seller was fined for "it is not the mouse who is the thief, but rather the hole" (through which the mouse goes in and out).

Captives must not be ransomed for more than their value for reasons of the public welfare for if the non-Jews see that captives are ransomed for more than their value, they will take many captives, and captives must not be helped to escape from their captors, for reasons of the public welfare so as not to cause the captors to be cruel towards any future captives. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, For the benefit of the captives - Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not concerned about the well-being of future captives, but rather of the captives who are in their hands, for if one escapes, they will be severe with the remaining captives. Thus, if they hold only one captive, he may be helped to escape since there is nothing to fear.

And scrolls of the law, tefillin and mezuzot must not be purchased from the non-Jews for more than their value, for reasons of the public welfare - so that non-Jews will not become accustomed to robbing and plundering Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot (see Deut. 6:9) from Jews.

GITTIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 7

If one sends away his wife because of a bad name, he may not take back; because of a vow - he may not take back. Rabbi Yehudah says, for a vow known to many, he may not take back; and for one not known publicly he may take back. Rabbi Meir says, for a vow which requires examination by a Sage, he may not take back; and for which does not require examination by a Sage he may take back. Rabbi Eleazar said, they only prohibited this because of this. Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah said, It once happened in Sidon that one said to his wife, "Konam if I do not divorce you," and he divorced her, and the Sages allowed him to take her back, for reasons of the public welfare.

Kehati

If one sends away divorces his wife because of a bad name - a bad reputation; she was said to have committed adultery, he may not take her back. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is because of harmful consequences, i.e., the possibility of a subsequent marriage being invalidated, if, after she remarries, the report of her misconduct proves untrue, and her first husband says, "If I had known that the report was untrue, I would not have divorced her," and (according to his statement) her get becomes invalid and the children from her second marriage are considered mamzerim. The Sages therefore ruled that a person who divorces his wife because of a bad reputation may never take her back, even if afterwards it becomes known that the report was false, i.e., he is warned about this when divorcing his wife (Baraita in the Gemara). Thus, if he divorces her, after being warned, the divorce is irrevocable and he cannot render her unfit to remarry.

Similarly, if one divorces his wife because of a vow which she took, and he says "I do not desire a wife who takes vows" (Rashi), he may not take her back for the reason stated above that he should not disgrace her after she remarries by alleging that if he had known that it was possible to release her from her vow, he would not have divorced her, thus annulling her divorce and turning her children into mamzerim. The divorce given on account of vows is therefore also irrevocable.

Rabbi Yehudah says, For a vow known to many he may not take her back - according to Rabbi Yehudah the Sages penalized women with bad reputations and who vowed needlessly not because they might be disgraced, but rather so that Israelite women should not be wanton and wont to make vows (Gemara). Therefore, if she takes a public vow from which she cannot be released because of its greater stringency, he may not take her back; and for one - but if she takes a vow not known publicly he may take her back - since she can be released from such a vow it is not considered so "wanton" as to warrant a penalty.

Rabbi Meir says, for every vow which requires examination by a Sage and cannot be annulled by the husband he may not take her back - Rabbi Meir holds that the reason he may not take her back is because of causing her disgrace, and in the case of a vow that a husband cannot annul, but needs dispensation by a Sage, (as explained) we are afraid that the first husband might impugn the divorce alleging that had he known that a Sage could release her from her vow, he would not have divorced her. It has therefore been decreed that he cannot take her back; and for which does not require examination by a Sage but can be annulled by the husband he may take her back - we do suspect the husband of harming her since he could have released her from her vow, there being no need to divorce her, and since he did, the divorce is irrevocable.

Rabbi Eleazar said, They only prohibited this because of this - Rabbi Eleazar disagrees with Rabbi Meir and holds that if she took a vow which requires examination by a Sage (in court) there is no fear of disgracing her because he cannot say, "If I had known that a Sage could release her from her vow, I would not have divorced her," for he would have done so even if he had known, because a husband does not want his wife to be humiliated before the Court, and he prefers divorcing her to taking her to Court (Hameiri). The Sages, however, extended the ruling as a precautionary measure to a vow which requires examination by a Sage, but her disgrace is actually feared in the case of a vow which does not require examination by a Sage, but that can be annulled by the husband who could say that if he had known that he could release her from vows, he would not have divorced her. Rabbi Eleazar therefore said, "They only prohibited this because of this," i.e., they prohibited him from taking her back if he divorced her for a vow which requires examination by a Sage only as a precaution because of a vow which does not require examination by a Sage.

Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah said - The Gemara explains that the above mishnah is incomplete and should read as follows: "When does the rule that he may not take her back apply? When she took a vow, but when he took a vow (that he would divorce her, and did so) he may take her back for no disgrace can come on her, and Rabbi Yose Bar Yehudah said "It once happened in Sidon that a person said to his wife, "Konam i.e., may all the produce in the world be prohibited to me in the same way as a sacrifice is prohibited to me, if I do not divorce you," and he divorced her because of this vow, and the Sages allowed him to take her back since the enactment "that he may not take her back" was made for reasons of the public welfare fearing her disgrace but when the husband takes vows it does not apply (Gemara).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives