Gittin 34a — the Talmud in English

But did Rav Naḥman not say in the name of Shmuel: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

orphans

minors

who came to divide

an inheritance

from their father’s estate

who had died:

Behold,

the court appoints guardians for them

a separate one for each of them,

and they choose for them

the guardians—the guardians, each guardian for the orphan over whom he is appointed—

a choice portion!

For each one will strive for the benefit of the orphan appointed to him, and through this the division will be equal.

And if, after

they have grown up,

the orphans are not satisfied with the portion that the guardians chose for them,

they can

they

protest

and annul the division, and divide the inheritance anew.

And Rav Naḥman himself

[not in the name of Shmuel]

said:

Even after

they have grown up, they cannot protest,

and annul the division made by the guardians.

For if so—

that the orphans can protest—

what is the power of the court good for?!

For the guardians were appointed by virtue of the court. Therefore, their power is effective, and their division remains valid, even if in the end the orphans are not pleased with it.

It is explicit from this that Rav Naḥman held that the power of the court is effective, and it is impossible to annul what it did. If so, it is difficult: how did Rav Naḥman hold like Rabbi, concerning one who annuls not in his presence, that it is annulled?!

And we answer: It is not difficult.

There

with the orphans, the law

of monetary matters

is involved! And with money, certainly the power of the court is effective, and it is impossible to annul it. For we hold: the renunciation of the court is renunciation, since the Torah gave the Sages power to renounce this person’s property and give it to another.

But

here—

with regard to annulment—the law

of prohibition

is involved! For according to Torah law it is annulled, and the woman is forbidden to everyone under the prohibition of a married woman; and the Sages did not remove her betrothal in order to strengthen the power of their enactment.

The Gemara brings a story involving

Giddel bar Reilai

[a person’s name] who

sent a bill of divorce to his wife

[sent a bill of divorce to his wife], through an agent, and

the agent went,

and

found

the woman

who was sitting and weaving

[the agent went and found the woman while she was sitting and weaving].

He said to her

the agent said to the woman: “

Here is your bill of divorce”!

And he showed her the bill of divorce, but had not yet handed it to her.

She said to him

the woman said to the agent:

Go now for the moment, and come

[and come]

tomorrow

[go now, then, and come tomorrow], and then you will give me the bill of divorce!

The agent went

the agent went and returned

to him

to Giddel, her husband,

and said to him

such and such was the incident.

Giddel was happy that he had not given her the bill of divorce, and

Giddel began

Giddel

and said: Blessed is the One who is good and bestows good!

And Abaye and Rava disputed this law:

Abaye said:

The blessing

“Blessed is the One who is good and bestows good”

is indeed applicable here;

but

nevertheless, although he revealed his opinion that he does not desire the agency of divorce,

the bill of divorce is not annulled

by this revelation of opinion, and the agent may give it to the woman.

And Rava said:

The blessing

“Blessed is the One who is good and bestows good”

is applicable here,

but

even

the bill of divorce is annulled,

because he revealed his opinion that he does not desire the agency of divorce, and the agent can no longer divorce her with it.

And we explain:

With regard to what do

Abaye and Rava

disagree? They

[revelation of opinion, without an annulment verbally]

disagree about a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce—

whether it is effective!

For Abaye held: A revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is not a matter

[it is nothing]! Therefore, the agency is annulled only through an explicit verbal annulment, and it is not enough that he reveals his opinion that he does not desire it.

And Rava held: A revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is a matter!

Therefore, when the husband reveals his opinion that he does not desire the agency, the agency is annulled.

Rava said: From where do I say this

[from where did I say this] that a revelation of opinion is sufficient with a bill of divorce? I learned it from Rav Sheshet:

For Rav Sheshet took a bill of divorce from a certain man

[forced a man to divorce] against his will—

and

before the bill of divorce was handed to the woman,

he said to them

the husband said

to the witnesses

[to the witnesses] who had signed the bill of divorce: Behold, I heard that

this is what Rav Sheshet said to you: Let the bill of divorce be annulled

[let the bill of divorce be annulled]! And by lying to the witnesses and saying in the name of Rav Sheshet that the bill of divorce was annulled, he revealed his opinion that he wanted the bill of divorce annulled.

And

because of this revelation of opinion,

Rav Sheshet required

the husband to write

another bill of divorce

[a new bill of divorce]; this proves: “A revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is a matter.”

And Abaye—

who holds that a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is not a matter—would say to you:

It is impossible to interpret the husband’s intention literally, for is it so that

perhaps Rav Sheshet annuls the bills of divorce of other people

otherwise

is that so?!

Yet only the husband can annul his bill of divorce.

Rather, certainly

he himself

himself

annulled it

with these words,

and this that he said this to them

that he annulled the bill of divorce—in the name of Rav Sheshet—

was because of the men beating him

[people who were striking him], for Rav Sheshet’s agents were beating him and forcing him to divorce, and he was afraid to annul the bill of divorce on his own; therefore, he attributed his words to Rav Sheshet.

And since there was here an explicit annulment of the bill of divorce, Rav Sheshet therefore required him to obtain another bill of divorce; but concerning “a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce,” it may be said that it is not a matter.

And Abaye said: From where do I say this

that a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is ineffective? I learned this from the incident involving Rav Yehuda.

For Rav Yehuda took a bill of divorce

[forced him to divorce]

from Rav Yirmeya Birאה’s son-in-law

[the son-in-law of the amora Rav Yirmeya Birאה], and forced him to say to the witnesses: “Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife.”

And

after the bill of divorce was written,

he annulled it

the husband.

And again

the teaching

Rav Yehuda

took it

[again forced him] to instruct them to write another bill of divorce,

and

again

he annulled it

the husband.

Again he taught and took it

[again Rav Yehuda returned and forced him]

against his will

a third time;

and he said to them

Rav Yehuda said to the witnesses:

Put pieces of pumpkin into your ears

[place thin pieces of pumpkin in your ears], so that if he again wishes to annul it, you will not hear his words;

and write it for him

a bill of divorce and give it to his wife.

And Abaye concluded his proof:

And if it enters your mind: “

a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is a matter,”

then even if they do not hear the husband’s words, nevertheless the bill of divorce is annulled. For

they see him

the witnesses see the husband

running after them

[running after them], and by this he reveals his opinion that he wants to annul the bill of divorce. It is necessarily the case that a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is nothing.

And Rava,

who holds that a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is a matter, would say to you:

There is no proof from there, because in his running after the witnesses there is still no revelation of opinion that he wants to annul it, since they did not hear his words; and they may interpret that

this is why he is running after them

[he is therefore running after them], because

he said to them: Hurry, give it to her quickly, so that the distress of that man will be paid off!

[Strengthen yourselves and give her the bill of divorce quickly, so that the distress of the divorce will quickly pass from me].

And Abaye said

further:

From where do I say this

that “a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is not a matter”? I learned this from Shmuel’s words.

That certain

man

who

gave a bill of divorce to his wife, and

said to them

to the witnesses at the time of delivering the bill of divorce: “

If I do not come by

the end of

thirty days, let it be a bill of divorce”!

That is, he made the effectiveness of the divorce conditional upon his not returning to this city by the end of the thirtieth day from the day he left; and if he returned within this period, the divorce would be annulled.

And he went from there, and

came

[came to his city] toward the end of the stated period. And he reached the city, but could not enter it, because

the ferry passage was cut off

[the water crossing interrupted him, for the ferry was on the other side of the river and he could not cross].

He said to them

from his place beyond the river, to the people of the city:

See that I have come, see that I have come

[see that I have come, see that I have come]! By this he intended to say: Since I have come, the divorce does not take effect, for my condition concerning the divorce was that it should take effect only “if I do not come”; but I have come, and the condition was not fulfilled.

And Shmuel said: This is not called coming

[this is not coming to the city], meaning: although he did not enter the city due to circumstances beyond his control, this is not considered as though he came; and if so, the condition that he stated, “if I do not come,” was fulfilled, and the divorce took effect at the end of the thirtieth day.

And from here Abaye learned that “a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is not a matter”:

For since he said, “If I do not come, let it be a bill of divorce,” and he did not add “from now,” the divorce takes effect only from the time the condition is fulfilled; and until then he can still retract from it.

And if Shmuel held that “a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is a matter,” he should have said: Since the husband said, before the divorce took effect, “See that I have come, see that I have come,” he revealed his opinion that he does not desire the divorce, and the divorce should have been annulled. Necessarily, Shmuel holds: “A revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is not a matter.”

And Rava

would say to you: There is no proof from there, for there was no revelation of opinion there concerning the annulment of the divorce. For

there

in what he said, “See that I have come”—is it so that he

needs to annul the bill of divorce?!

That is, was his intention to remove the divorce by annulling it?

But

there, he seeks to fulfill his condition,

that is, he wants the divorce annulled by virtue of the condition that he stipulated at the outset, because since he came as far as the river, he thought that the condition had not been fulfilled and that the divorce had automatically been annulled.

But

in truth this is not so, for

the condition was not fulfilled

[that is, the thing that annuls the divorce—namely, coming—did not occur here].

A story involving

a certain

man

who

gave a bill of divorce to his betrothed, and

said to them

to the witnesses at the time of delivering it:

Behold, I am divorcing her on the condition that

if I do not marry her by

the end of

thirty days, let it be a bill of divorce

[if I do not marry my betrothed by the end of thirty days, then the divorce takes effect]! But if I marry her within this period, this is not a bill of divorce!

When thirty days arrived

[when the thirtieth day arrived and the day had not yet passed], which was the set time, such that if he did not marry her on this day the bill of divorce would take effect,

he said to them

the divorcer:

Behold, I have been occupied

[behold, I am occupied] with the needs of the wedding, and I am prevented from marrying her.

And the Gemara explains that certainly the divorce took effect, for

why should we be concerned about it

to say that the divorce should not take effect?!

If because of compulsion,

for we hold throughout the Torah that “the Merciful One exempts one under compulsion,” and even a divorce that took effect through a condition fulfilled under compulsion is not a divorce—this is not so, for we hold:

there is no

claim of

compulsion in bills of divorce.

And

if because

he claimed and said: “The condition was not fulfilled, because ‘behold, I have been occupied,’” and this contains

revelation of opinion

that he wants the divorce annulled, which has not yet taken effect until the end of thirty days—

this matter

is subject to the dispute between Abaye and Rava

and according to Abaye, a revelation of opinion concerning a bill of divorce is not a matter! And the halakha follows Abaye, as will be explained below.

A story involving

a certain

man

who

gave a bill of divorce to his betrothed, and

said to them

to the witnesses:

If I do not marry her

by

the

end of

the beginning of the month

[the beginning of the month]

of Adar, let it be a bill of divorce

[if I do not marry her by the end of the beginning of the month of Adar, the divorce takes effect]; and if I marry her by this time, it will not be a bill of divorce.

When the beginning of the month of Adar arrived

[when the beginning of the month of Adar arrived], and he still had not married her,

he said to them: I

behold

I said “the beginning of the month of Nisan”

[behold, I said the beginning of the month of Nisan]! That is, this is why I did not marry her, because I thought that I had stipulated the beginning of the month of Nisan and not Adar.

And the Gemara explains that even in this incident the divorce certainly took effect at the end of the day, for

why should we be concerned about it?!

If because

he did not marry her because of an error, for he thought that the time ended at the beginning of the month of Nisan, and it follows that his condition was fulfilled because of

compulsion—

yet we hold:

there is no

claim of

compulsion in bills of divorce!

And since, in the end, the condition was fulfilled, the divorce takes effect.

And

if because of a revelation of opinion,

for by his very claim that the divorce should be annulled, he reveals his opinion that he does not desire it—this

depends on the dispute between Abaye and Rava,

and the halakha follows Abaye.

Three disputes were stated in our sugya:

a. The dispute between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet [above, 32b]: In the presence of how many people does the husband annul the bill of divorce before the enactment of Rabban Gamliel the Elder—before two or before three?

b. The dispute of Rav Nahman with Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yoshiyah [above, 33b]: whether the halakha follows Rabbi in the two disputes in which he disputed with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel [regarding the law of “if they nullified it, it is nullified,” and regarding the law of “this nullification not in the presence of the other”], or whether the halakha follows Rabbi in only one of them.

c. The dispute of Abaye and Rava [here]: whether disclosure of intent regarding a get is a matter, or not.

And the Gemara rules the halakha in all these matters.

And the halakha is according to Nahman,

that before the enactment he would nullify it before only two!

And the halakha is according to Nahman:

for the halakha follows Rabbi in both, both in what he says: “if they nullified it, it is nullified,” and in what he says: “he can nullify this not in the presence of the other”"!