Gittin 36a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

that we impose a vow upon him

the priest

in public

before his service! And since a vow that was imposed in public has neither annulment nor release, we are certain and confident that he will divorce her. And therefore he descends and serves immediately.

And we still raise an objection:

this works out well according to the one who says:

a vow that was imposed in public has no annulment

and release! Therefore, he descends and serves by means of this vow.

But according to the one who says: “

Even a vow that was imposed in public

has annulment

and release,”

what is there to say!?

And what benefit does the vow provide, for he can still have it released by a sage!?

And we answer: Here, with what are we dealing?

That we impose a vow upon him

the priest

with the consent of the many!

That the many say to him, before whom he vows: Behold, we impose a vow upon you with our consent! And this vow, according to everyone, cannot be released for him.

But

this

Ameimar said: The halakha is: even according to the one who says: “

A vow that was imposed in public has annulment” -

but if he vowed

with the consent of the many, it has no annulment.

That is: it has no release through a sage!

And these words—

that it has no release—apply specifically when he needs to have it released

for

the sake of

a voluntary matter.

But

if through its release there is a need

for the sake of a mitzva, it has annulment,

even though he vowed with the consent of the many.

And what is an example of a matter of a mitzva?

Like that incident involving a teacher of children

a teacher of children,

upon whom Rav Aḥa imposed a vow with the consent of the many,

that he should no longer teach children, because

he was abusive among the children

he was abusive toward the children, for he would strike them excessively.

And

afterward

Ravina restored him

restored him to his position, by releasing his vow, because

there was not found

another teacher

who was precise

in his teaching

like him

no other teacher was found who was precise in his teaching with the students like him!

And such as this is a matter of a mitzva, for whose sake they release even a vow imposed with the consent of the many.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the sake of the betterment of the world:

And we raised the question concerning it: Is it only

for the sake of the betterment of the world

that the witnesses need to sign a bill of divorce!?

But surely, according to the fundamental law

of the Torah! For

behold,

it is written

in Jeremiah [chapter 32]: “Fields shall be purchased for money,

and it shall be written in a book and sealed.”

And from there we learned that a document is not valid without the signatures of the witnesses; and a bill of divorce, too, is a document of severance.

A. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar disputed this concerning all documents:

Rabbi Meir says: The witnesses of the signature effect the document! For through the witnesses’ signature on the body of the document, they make the document a document; and according to his view, what is stated in the verse, “and it shall be written in a book and sealed,” is necessary for the validity of the document, that it contain signatures.

And Rabbi Elazar says: The witnesses of delivery effect the document, for in his view the document becomes a document through the witnesses who stand at the time of delivery of the document; and in a bill of divorce they see the delivery of the bill of divorce to the woman, and there is no need for them to sign on the body of the document. And according to his view, what is stated in the verse, “and it shall be written in a book and sealed,” is not a necessary condition for the validity of the document, but is only in the category of “good advice,” so that through the signature the holder of the document will not need to bring witnesses of delivery, as will be explained.

He said

he answered

Rabba:

It is necessary

for the reason of “the betterment of the world,”

but according to Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of delivery effect the document,

and according to his view, what is stated, “and it shall be written in a book and sealed,” is not an obligation but good advice. And in his view

the Sages instituted

that there be in a bill of divorce

witnesses of signature, for the sake of the betterment of the world!

And the betterment is this: If the bill of divorce were made with witnesses of delivery alone, the woman might come to confinement,

for sometimes the witnesses die

the witnesses of delivery die.

Alternatively, sometimes they go

the witnesses of delivery

to the overseas country

sometimes they go to the overseas country! And if the husband challenges and says, “I did not divorce her,” there will be no one to testify for the woman that the bill of divorce was indeed delivered to her from her husband’s hand.

But after witnesses have signed on it, their signature testifies that the bill of divorce was made with the husband’s consent, in order to divorce his wife. And since we see the bill of divorce in the woman’s hand, it is necessarily the case that the bill of divorce was delivered to her from the husband’s hand in order to divorce her with it, and there is no longer a need to bring the witnesses of delivery. [

And concerning the nature of the matter, the early authorities disputed: Some explain that the witnesses of signature are effective even if there truly were no witnesses of delivery, because Rabbi Elazar concedes that the witnesses of signature also effect the document, and therefore it is not necessary to bring the witnesses of delivery as proof.

And some explain that witnesses of signature alone, by themselves, are not effective; rather, through the witnesses of signature we know that the document was delivered, and we assume that presumably it was made validly, through witnesses of delivery. Consequently, for the purpose of the proof, we do not need to bring the witnesses of delivery before the court, and this is the betterment of the world; but the document itself is not valid without witnesses of delivery.

Rav Yosef said

he answered:

Even say

that Rabban Gamliel’s ordinance is

for

the method of

Rabbi Meir,

nevertheless it works out well, for the intention of the Mishna is not the signature itself, which is certainly required by Torah law according to Rabbi Meir, and not because of the ordinance, but rather:

The Sages instituted

that

the

the

witnesses

who sign

specify

their

names on bills of divorce, for the sake of the betterment of the world!

As it was taught: At first, the witness would write

on the bill of divorce:

I, so-and-so,

signed as a witness,

but he would not state his name; rather, his very handwriting was considered a signature.

And then, only

if

there was

the handwriting of the witness appearing elsewhere

appearing in another document, the bill of divorce was

valid.

For if the husband challenged and said, “It is a forged bill of divorce,” the woman would have had to authenticate the signatures and prove that they were indeed the handwriting of the witnesses, and that she herself had not forged them. And since the witnesses’ names did not appear in the document, it was not known who the witnesses were, and the woman could not find witnesses who recognized their signatures; she would have had to search for other documents that had already been authenticated in court, and find a document containing signatures similar to the signatures on this bill of divorce, and only in this way would they validate the bill of divorce.

But if not—

that similar signatures were not found elsewhere—the bill of divorce was

invalid,

if the husband challenged it, saying that it was forged.

Therefore,

Rabban Gamliel said: The Sages instituted a great ordinance

that

the witnesses

specify

their

names on the bill of divorce, for the sake of the betterment of the world!

And through the fact that their names are specified on the bill of divorce, we will search for those who know and recognize them, and they will testify that it is indeed their handwriting, and we will validate the bill of divorce.

And we raise an objection: Is it necessary that the witnesses sign specifically with their explicit names,

and

that

with a sign

alone

not

be sufficient for them to sign!? For according to what was said, through a sign we will not be able to identify the witnesses, and we will not find witnesses to authenticate it.

But Rav,

when he would sign a bill of divorce, he would

draw a fish

a fish, and he would not write his name; rather, this sign was the form of his signature.

And

likewise

Rabbi Ḥanina would draw a palm branch

a palm branch, and this was his signature.

And likewise

Rav Ḥisda

signed in the form of the letter

samekh.

And likewise

Rav Hoshaya

signed in the form of the letter

ayin.

And likewise

Rabba bar Rav Huna would draw a ship’s rudder

a ship’s rudder, as a signature.

And how did they do this, without specifying their names!? Is this not contrary to Rabban Gamliel’s ordinance, according to Rav Yosef!?

And we answer:

The Sages are different,

for they were permitted to sign with mere signs, because

the people were expert

in

their signs!

That is: Since it was publicized that this was the signature of each one of them, witnesses to authenticate their signature would easily be found.

And we raise an objection:

But initially, through what did they publicize them?!

How did the aforementioned Sages begin publicizing that this was their signature!? For it is impossible to say that they began doing so by signing on documents, because at the outset, before their signature had become publicized, they were prevented from doing this because of Rabban Gamliel’s ordinance.

And we answer: The Sages began signing this way

in letters!

In letters of questions and answers, and in requests for greetings; and after their signature had already become recognizable to everyone, they were already permitted to sign this way even on documents.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Hillel instituted the prosbul

for the sake of the betterment of the world:

We learned there

in tractate Sheviit:

If the creditor made a

prosbul

before the time arrived for the remission of debts, then it

is not remitted,

and the creditor may collect his debt, and

this is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted!

And he instituted this because

he saw the people, who

feared the remission, and

refrained from lending to one another

on the eve of the Sabbatical year,

and transgressed what is written in the Torah: “

Beware lest there be a base thought in your heart

saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is approaching,’ and your eye be evil toward your needy brother and you do not give him; and he will call out to the Lord against you, and there will be sin in you.”

Therefore,

he arose and instituted a prosbul,

through which the Sabbatical year does not remit! And once he instituted this advice for them, they no longer refrained from lending to one another.

And this is the body of the prosbul:

The creditor writes to the court in the prosbul document:

I deliver to you, so-and-so and so-and-so,

the

judges in such-and-such a place,

my documents, so that you will be the collectors who compel the borrower to repay his debt, while I will not collect, so that

every debt that I have with so-and-so, I may collect it whenever I wish!

And the judges

themselves are the ones who

sign below

at the bottom of the prosbul document,

or the witnesses.

And we wonder:

and

is it that

there is such a thing

is it possible that there is such a thing,

that by Torah law the Sabbatical year remits, and Hillel instituted that the Sabbatical year does not remit

through a prosbul!? But in this way he uprooted the Torah law.

He said

he answered

Abaye:

With regard to the Sabbatical year in the present time—

when it is only rabbinic—only the law of prosbul applies,

and

according to the method of

Rabbi it is,

for in his view the remission of debts does not apply by Torah law in the present time. And since it applies now only by rabbinic law, the Sages have the power to uproot it, as he explains and proceeds.

As it was taught: Rabbi says:

It is written concerning the remission of debts,

“And this is the matter of the remission: you shall remit

every creditor his hand.” And from the juxtaposition of the words “the remission, you shall remit,” it is implied:

The verse speaks of two remissions,

of the Sabbatical year:

one, the remission of the land,

not to work it in the seventh year,

and one, the remission of debts,

not to collect the debt when the seventh year has passed!

And the Torah compared these two laws to one another, in order to teach:

When you remit the land,

then

you remit debts.

But

when you do not remit the land,

also

you do not remit debts!

And since the remission of the land does not apply in the present time, because the sanctity of the Land was annulled, the remission of debts likewise does not apply in the present time.