Torah Community Connections

Week 84 - Friday - 6 July 2001

GITTIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 2

At first a person used to convene a Court in another place and cancel it. Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted in the public interest that they should not do so. At first a person used to change his name and her name, the name of his city and the name of her city, and Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted in the public interest that he should write, "The man so-and-so and every name that he has," "The woman so- and-so and every name that she has."

Kehati

We learned in the previous mishnah that if a husband sends a get to his wife with an "agent of delivery," then as long as she has not received the get he may announce to his agent or to his wife that the get is cancelled. Our mishnah discusses the cancellation of the get in front of others, when the agent or the wife is not present, and it cites Rabban Gamliel the Elder's enactment regarding this matter. The mishnah also mentions another enactment of Rabban Gamliel, concerning the recording in the get of the names of the husband, the wife and their city.

At first a person used to convene a Court in another place - not in the presence of the agent or of the wife, and cancel it - the get, before it arrived in the hand of the woman. There is a disagreement in the Gemara regarding this Court. According to Rav Nahman, since only the formal announcement of facts is involved, rather than actual testimony, the husband can convene a Court with only two members, and though a qualified Court usually consists of three members, we nevertheless find that two people are also called a "Court," and since it is only for the purpose of making an announcement, a two-member court is sufficient. Rav Sheshet, however, holds that he must convene a Court with three members, so that its ruling will be publicized, and his wife will hear of it, and if he cancels before two, his action is disregarded, as will be explained below:

Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted in the public interest that they should not do so - they should not cancel the get in front of others when the agent of the wife is not present. According to one interpretation in the Gemara, the purpose of the enactment was "to prevent mamzerim (bastards)" (so that there should be no mamzerim in Israel [Rashi]). We are afraid that if the get is cancelled in another place, the agent and the wife will not hear of it and she will marry on the basis of the get, and as a consequence her children will be mamzerim. According to another interpretation in the Gemara, it is "to prevent agunot (wife-desertion)" - since we require the husband to go himself or to send an agent to cancel the get in the presence of the wife or the "agent of delivery" and do not permit him to cancel the get in front of a local court, he will not trouble himself, and his wife will be divorced and not become an agunah (a woman whose husband leaves her "tied" without a divorce).

The Gemara explains that those who say Rabban Gamliel's enactment is to prevent mamzerim hold that the husband could cancel the get before a Court of two and therefore Rabban Gamliel, fearing that the agent or the wife might not hear of the cancellation (since a court of two is not adequate for publicity - as was explained, and she will remarry, enacted that he may only cancel in the presence of the wife or agent. However, those who say that the purpose of the enactment was to prevent the incidence of agunot hold that the husband could only cancel the get before a court of three, there being no fear of mamzerim because the cancellation will be well publicized and become known to the agent and the wife (Rashi: Bartenura; see Tosefot Yom Tov who raises a question on the commentary of Bartenura; see also Mishneh Le-Melekh on Rambam, Hil. Gerushin 6:18, who resolves the interpretations of Rashi and Bartenura).

At first a person used to change his name and her name, the name of his city and the name of her city - the husband wrote the names in the get according to the way they were called in the place where the get was written, even though different names were used in their place of residence, - and Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted in the public interest that he should write, "The man so-and-so and every name that he has," "The woman so-and-so and every name that she has" - i.e., he should write: "The man so-and-so" (his principle name - that by which he is known in the place where the get is being written) and afterwards the following phrase: "and every name that he has"; "the woman so-and-so" (as in the case of the man) and afterwards "and every name that she has" and similarly in regard to his and her town (Tosafot, citing Halakhot Gedolot; Hameiri; Ran). According to Rabbeinu Tam he must write the names by which they are known in the place where the get is written, and all their other names as well, e.g., "The man so-and-so who is also called such and such."

Ravad, however, explains that if he has two different names in two different places he must, according to Rabban Gamliel's enactment, write them both, adding "and every name that he has," i.e., "The man so-and-so also known as such and such and every other name that he has," so that people will not speak ill of her and claim that she was not divorced by her first husband, because the names written in the get are not their names, or because the city-names written in the get are not the names of their cities, and that the children from her second husband are illegitimate.

The Gemara explains that this regulation applies only in cases where they are also known by their other names, but if not, then there is no need to write "and every name that he has," in the get and even if it becomes known afterwards that they do have other names, this does not invalidate the get. If, however, he changed his name or her name in the get, it is invalid, even though he added "and every name that he has."

GITTIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 3

A widow may not collect from the property of orphans save with an oath. They refrained from imposing an oath on her. Rabban Gamliel the Elder then enacted that she should make a neder (a vow) on whatever the orphans want, and collect her ketubah. The witnesses sign the get for the public welfare. Hillel instituted the prozbol for the public welfare.

Kehati

Incidental to the preceding mishnah, which taught two ordinances instituted by Rabban Gamliel the Elder for the public welfare, this chapter and the next chapter teach other ordinances which were instituted for the public welfare or in the interests of peace.

A widow may not collect - her ketubah, from the property of orphans - which they inherited from her husband, save with an oath - that she has not received anything on account of her ketubah, as has already been taught (Ket. 9:7-8). They - the Courts, refrained from imposing an oath on her - because she would consider it permissible to perjure herself swearing that she had not received anything from her ketubah, since she took care of the orphans, rationalizing that the part she received was remuneration for her trouble in caring for them rather than in payment of her ketubah. The Court, therefore, refrained from imposing the oath on her, and she could not collect her ketubah).

Rabban Gamliel the Elder then enacted that she should make a neder (a vow) on whatever the orphans want - i.e., instead of an oath, she would make a vow on something that the orphans chose, e.g., she would say, "may this such and such fruit be konam (forbidden as a sacrifice) to me if I received anything from my ketubah," and collect her ketubah - because people were more intimidated by a vow than by an oath (Jerusalem Talmud). Hameiri explains that since when foodstuffs which she needed daily were forbidden to her by the orphans, she would be reminded of the forbidden food each time she ate.

The witnesses sign the get - our mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, who holds that the witnesses of transfer - the witnesses in whose presence the get is given to the woman - effect the get, and witnesses sign the get only for the public welfare - in case the witnesses of transfer die or go to a country beyond the sea, and the husband disputes the get, claiming that it is forged, it can be confirmed by their signatures. According to another interpretation of the mishnah (in the Gemara), this mishnah is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the witnesses who sign the get effect the divorce. The Gemara explains that initially witnesses did not write their full name and they could not be identified. It was therefore enacted that witnesses who sign gets should write their full names for the public welfare, so that if it became necessary to confirm their signatures, people who knew them could be located to identify their handwriting. According to Rashi, this regulation was also enacted by Rabban Gamliel the Elder, and the clause, "for the public welfare," written here also applies to Rabban Gamliel's first ordinance regarding widow's vows (ketubot). Tosafot write, however, that this regulation (concerning the witnesses' signature) was instituted prior to Rabban Gamliel the Elder's time (Git. 36a; Tosafot capt. "Veha'edim ").

Hillel instituted the prozbol for the public welfare - when Hillel the Elder saw that people refrained from lending money before the Shemitah year, because they feared that the borrower would not repay the loan and the Shemitah year would cancel the debt, and were thereby disobeying the Torah warning: "Beware that there not be a base thought in your heart, saying: 'The seventh year, the year of release (Shemitah) is at hand'; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you will not give him" (Deut. 15:9), he instituted the prozbol, a document which states that the lender transfers to the Court before the Shemitah year the debts owed him, so that the Shemitah year will not cancel them (as explained in Shevi. 10:3-4). Prozbol, a Greek word, is an abbreviation of the word prosboliboti, which means: a court appointed to prevent harm and impoverishment (HeArukh). The Gemara explains the word as meaning, pros buli ve-boti - for the benefit of the rich and the poor; for the benefit of the rich - so that their money will not be lost, and of the poor - so that people will lend them money (Gemara and Rashi, Git. 36b-37a).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives