Gittin 45b — the Talmud in English

For the rectification of the world.

Gemara:

Rav Budya said to Rav Ashi,

and he inferred from the Mishna: “

More than their value”

is what they do not purchase,

scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot from the captors;

but for their value they do purchase them.

And if so, does

come and hear

that it is in accordance with the one who says [below]:

A Torah scroll that is found in the possession of a gentile, they read from it,

and we are not concerned that perhaps he wrote it, and [wrote it] for the sake of idol worship?

And

we reject [this]:

Perhaps

we did not teach in our Mishna that one purchases them in order to read from them, but in order

to store

them away out of doubt, lest it be a valid Torah scroll, so that it will not lie in disgrace.

And if

a gentile wrote it,

it

is stored away,

because he is not fit for writing; whoever is not subject to the tying of tefillin is not subject to writing, as stated below.

And if

a Torah scroll is found

in the possession of

a sectarian,

and it is not known whether he wrote it or perhaps found it, it

is stored away

out of doubt; but they do not read from it because of a double doubt: perhaps he did not write it, or perhaps he wrote it not for the sake of idol worship—for the sectarian is devoted to idol worship, and he certainly wrote it for the sake of idol worship.

And if it

is found in the possession of an idolater,

and it is not known whether he wrote it:

Some say

[there are those who say]

it is stored away,

because perhaps he wrote it.

And some say: They read from it,

because it is a double doubt: perhaps an Israelite wrote it, and if you should say that he himself wrote it, perhaps he wrote it in order to sell it to an Israelite, and not for the sake of idol worship.

A Torah scroll that a gentile wrote:

It was taught

in a beraita

one [teaching]: It is burned,

and it proceeds to explain the reason.

And it was taught

in

another

beraita:

It is stored away,

and it proceeds to explain.

And it was taught

in

another

[a third beraita]:

They read from it,

and it proceeds to explain it.

And we explain that

it is not difficult,

the contradiction between the beraitot, for:

This that was taught

in the first beraita: “

It is burned,”

is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The ordinary intention of a gentile is for idol worship,

and therefore it is burned.

And this that was taught

in the second beraita: “

It is stored away,”

is that tanna! For Rav Hamnuna son of Rava of Pashrunya taught

[the name of a place]:

A Torah scroll, tefillin, and mezuzot that were written by: an informer,

an idolater, a slave, a woman, a minor, and a Samaritan

[who are converts out of fear of lions],

and an apostate Israelite,

all these

are invalid, as it is stated: “

And you shall bind them”

[as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.] “

And you shall write them”;

everyone who is subject to the

mitzva of

tying is subject to writing, and whoever is not subject to tying is not subject to writing.

And since it is not idol worship, but rather a Torah scroll that is invalid, it is stored away.

А поскольку это не идолопоклонство, а лишь непригодный свиток Торы, его

откладывают на хранение. А та барайта, где передано

And this that was taught

in the third beraita: “

They read from it,”

is that tanna.

For it was taught: One may purchase scrolls from gentiles everywhere, provided that they are written according to their halakhic requirements; and there was an incident involving a certain gentile in Sidon, who used to write scrolls, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted purchasing [scrolls] from him.

And

we raise an objection: Could it be that

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires

the processing of the hide

with the proper intention,

but does not require the writing with the proper intention!?

That is, he requires it, as it proceeds to explain; whereas

writing

with the proper intention

he does not require?!

And how is it possible that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel validates the writing of a gentile?!

For it was taught

[that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires the processing of the hide with the proper intention]:

If he overlaid

the passages of his tefillin with

gold,

that is, he made the housings of gold,

or if he covered

[a term for a patch]

them with the hide of an impure animal,

that is, he made the housings from the hide of an impure animal, which is forbidden for eating, these

are invalid.

For we require housings of hide, and not of gold,

and the hide of an impure animal is invalid because it is stated: “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth,” and the Sages derived: “from that which is permitted in your mouth,” and not from an impure animal.

And if he made the housings from

the hide of a pure animal,

these

are valid, even though he did not process them with the proper intention.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if

he made them from the hide of

the hide of a pure animal,

these

are invalid until he processes them with the proper intention.

It follows that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that even processing requires the proper intention, and all the more so he should invalidate writing that is not with the proper intention?!

He said,

he answered,

Rabba bar Shmuel:

That gentile who was writing in Sidon and whose writing Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel validated was not a gentile, but

a convert who returned to his evil ways

— this was the incident, and he knew that it was necessary to write with the proper intention.

And we object: But if he returned

to his evil ways, all the more so he should be a sectarian,

and his intention is for idol worship?!

Rav Ashi said:

He did not return to his evil ways out of belief, but rather

he returned to his evil ways out of fear

of the gentiles, lest they kill him because he had converted.

The Sages taught:

Although we learned in our Mishna that one does not purchase Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot from gentiles for more than their value, nevertheless

one may raise their price up to a terefik

in addition to the price.

And we explain:

What is a terefik? —

Rav Sheshet said: An istira,

which is a sela medina, one-eighth of a Tyrian sela.

And the reason that one raises the price by this measure is that the principal reason is so that they will not take notice and trouble themselves to plunder scrolls from Israelites; but when one raises their price by a small amount, this is not a noticeable increase that would cause them to take notice and plunder because of it.

That Ishmaelite woman

[a Muslim woman]

who brought a small sack of tefillin before Abaye,

[she brought before Abaye a small sack filled with tefillin].

He said to her,

Abaye:

Will you give them to me, one pair at a time, for a date

[sell me each pair of tefillin for one date]?

The

Ishmaelite woman

became filled with venom,

[she became filled with poison from great anger],

took

the sack and

threw it into the river

[she took the sack and threw it into the sea].

Abaye said

:

I should not have belittled them before her to such an extent

[it was not proper to belittle the tefillin so greatly in her presence].

Mishna:

One who divorces

[dismisses]

his wife because of an evil name

[a slander of sexual immorality that arose concerning her], he

may not take her back

ever again, whether the statements were found to be false or whether the statements were not found to be false.

And likewise, one who divorces his wife

because of a vow

that she vowed, because he does not want a wife who vows, he

may not take her back

ever again, whether the vow was released or whether the vow was not released.

And concerning the reason of the first tanna, they disagree in the Gemara:

There is one who says: “Because of possible damage,” for if you say that he may take her back, perhaps she will go and marry, and it will be found that the evil name was not an evil name; or she will go and have the vow released by a sage, and her first husband will cause damage, saying: “Had I known that the slander was nothing, and that she could have the vow released by a sage, even if they gave me one hundred maneh, I would not have divorced her.” It will follow according to his claim that she is still a married woman, for the bill of divorce is void, and her children will be found to be mamzerim.

And therefore they say to him at the outset: “Know that one who divorces his wife because of these matters may not take her back, and if she is dear to you, do not hurry to divorce her.” It follows that if he later comes to cause damage to her, he is not believed, since he knows that she is forbidden to him and did not take care to investigate the matter.

And there is one who says: It is a penalty that the Sages imposed on the woman, that he may not take her back ever again, so that the daughters of Israel would not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations and vows.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

When one divorces his wife because of a vow, the reason that the Sages enacted that he may not take her back is so that the daughters of Israel would not be promiscuous with regard to vows; and therefore:

Any vow known to the public,

which is a vow that cannot be released by a sage according to Rabbi Yehuda, if so, it is excessive promiscuity, and they imposed a penalty on her that he

may not take her back.

[a vow that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, cannot be annulled by a Sage], is an especially excessive act of licentiousness, and they penalized her so that he may not remarry her.

And

if he had vowed

that many did not know of it

and it has a possibility of annulment, this one

may take her back.

Rabbi Meir says:

one who divorces his wife because of a vow—which the Sages instituted that he may not take her back—is because of kilkula; and therefore:

Every vow that requires the inquiry of a Sage,

and the husband cannot annul it, since it is not among matters between him and her and is not a vow of affliction of the soul, this one is

he may not take her back,

because kilkula applies in this case, lest he say: Had I known that a Sage could annul it, I would not have divorced her.

And

if he had vowed

that does not require the inquiry of a Sage

but he himself can annul it, this one is

he may take her back,

because he cannot cause her kilkula, since he could have annulled it but did not annul it.

Rabbi Elazar said:

on the contrary!

They did not prohibit this,

they did not prohibit the husband from taking her back when she vowed a vow that requires the inquiry of a Sage,

but because of this,

because of a vow that does not require the inquiry of a Sage.

That is to say: By the essential law, we should not have prohibited taking back a woman who vowed a vow that requires the inquiry of a Sage, and this is because he cannot cause her kilkula, since certainly, even if he had known that a Sage could annul the vow, he would have divorced her, because according to Rabbi Elazar he does not want his wife to be disgraced before the court.

Rather, for this reason they prohibited him from taking her back even in this case, because with a vow that does not require the inquiry of a Sage, he can cause her kilkula and say: Had I known that I could annul it, I would not have divorced her; and because of these vows they prohibited taking back the woman who vowed all types of vows.

Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in Sidon, involving one who said to his wife: "

Konam if I do not divorce you,"

and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back, for the sake of the improvement of the world,

and in the Gemara it will be explained what connection this incident has to our Mishna.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who divorces his wife because of a bad name may not take her back; because of a vow, he may not take her back:

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said in the name of Rav Naḥman: And this—

this that we learned, that it is prohibited for him to take her back until she has married another, is only when

he said to her

when he divorced her:

"Because of a bad name I am divorcing you,"