Gittin 17 – When Rabba bar bar Channa got sick

When Rabba bar bar Channa got sick, the Sages came to visit him and, while there, asked a question: "If two messengers brought a Get, do they still need to say that it was written and signed in front of them?" He said, "No, they don't." He then presented a new argument: "If they testified that the husband divorced her, they would be believed, no? So we should believe them that the Get is valid."

Meanwhile, a Persian follower of the cult of "Chabar" came and extinguished their candles because, at the time of the "Chabar" holidays, the light was allowed only in their temples of idol worship. Rabba bar bar Channa said, "God, either protect us here or exile us to the Roman empire, for at least they come from Esau!" But we learned that Persia was better!? – Yes, it was before the "Chabar" people came.

A divorce document (Get) must have a date in it. Therefore, if they started writing it in the afternoon, but by the time the witnesses got to signing, it was night – it is already another day, the Get is invalid and must be rewritten. On the other hand, if they started at night, they can sign it the next morning because it is still the same calendar day.

And why do they require a date in the Get? – A man is allowed to marry his sister's daughter. In fact, there were times when this was commendable. Since he marries his niece, he may exhibit avuncular behavior. For example, to protect her in case she is unfaithful to him, he may give her a Get without a date. Now if she is ever caught being unfaithful, she can bring the Get to court and claim that she was already divorced at the time of unfaithfulness. Others say that this is rare and that the date on the Get is needed to support monetary claims.

Art: Uncle Fred by James Jacques Joseph Tissot

Gittin 13 – Is there divorce after death?

If a man says, "Give a divorce (Get) to my wife," and then dies, they should not give her a Get any longer. Why? When the husband dies, the wife is free. Because of that, divorce after death does not make sense.

A parallel situation is the Get of a slave: if the master dies and nobody inherits the slave, he is free by himself, and giving him a Get now is meaningless. And if someone does inherit, then this slave is no longer in the domain of the dead man to give him freedom.

However, if one says, "Give a hundred zuz ($5,000) to a certain person," and then he dies, the heirs are obligated to give the money to the named recipient. This is not obvious at all. There was no act of acquisition, "Give him money" are just words. Once the man dies, normal inheritance laws should take effect, meaning that his estate goes to his closest relatives. Therefore, Rav wanted to say that perhaps this is only talking about money on the shelf, which had previously been given as a deposit, or that the man who said these words was dying. In that special case, the money is considered already given; otherwise, the dying person would die even sooner.

However, the law is correct in all cases, and they do fulfill the will of the deceased.

Art: The Money Changers by Christian Van Donck

Gittin 11 – Is it good to be divorced?

A man does not have to personally deliver the divorce (Get) to his wife; he can appoint a messenger. If, while the messenger is on his way, the husband changes his mind, the Get becomes invalid, and the divorce does not happen. Thus, the husband can change his mind while the messenger is en route.

Why don't we say it is good for the wife to become free, and therefore the messenger should acquire the Get on her behalf immediately, thus affecting the divorce? – That is because a divorce has certain disadvantages: the husband is no longer obligated to provide his wife with sustenance. The rule is that if something is unquestionably good, the messenger can acquire it on behalf of a receiving person, but not if there are minuses in such acquisition.

However, when the master sends an emancipation letter (also called Get) to his slave, he cannot change his mind. Freedom is unquestionably good, and the minute the messenger receives the Get, he acquires it for the slave, who now goes free – this is the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi Meir disagrees about the slave: his freedom has this drawback the master won't feed him. And the Sages? – They say that the master is allowed to stop feeding his slaves anyway. This may not be wise and is not sustainable, but since the master has this right, the slave actually loses nothing when he becomes free.

Rabbi Meir told the Sages, "But if he is a slave of Kohen, he loses the right to eat the Kohen's portion. So that is a disadvantage!" To this, the Sages replied, "He loses it not because he is free, but because he is no longer the acquisition of a Kohen. So he loses nothing - therefore, let him be free; the master cannot change his mind."

However, what about the slave of a regular Jew, not a Kohen? What does he lose by getting freedom? - He gains by being able to marry a Jewess!! - No, he loses the availability of female slaves, who are cheap to get, available and permissive.

Art: The Freedom Ring by Eastman Johnson

Gittin 9 – Letter of freedom

A divorce document (Get) is essentially a letter of freedom for the woman, who can now marry anyone she wants. In the same way, a Get can be given to a slave, and it will be a letter of his emancipation, reading "You are free" or "You belong to yourself."

The similarity goes further: a woman can bring her own Get to court, and they will use it to effect a divorce, as long as she can tell them it was written and signed before her. So too, can do the slave.

However, if in the Get, the master says to the slave, "You and all my possessions are yours," - he indeed goes free because it is similar to a Get of a woman, but the second part, "all my possessions are yours," does not take effect because, for any monetary transaction, one needs two witnesses. There are two clauses in this Get, and they work differently.

What happens if the Get says, "You acquire all my possessions." Since "all my possessions" includes the slave, he acquires himself and becomes free, and in the same step, acquires all the possessions as well. At least, this is what Abaye opined.

Rava disagreed. Since the slave did not have two witnesses, he did not acquire the possessions. And since he did not acquire the possessions, he did not acquire himself and is thus still a slave. Rava later changed his mind but still divided the single statement "You acquire all my possessions" into two. This is called severability, but here it is applied to one sentence! They continued to argue about this principle.

Art: The Hour of Emancipation by William Tolman Carlton

Gittin 8 – What is the difference between a ship and a flower pot?

We saw that a messenger bringing a divorce document (Get) from outside of Israel must confirm that he saw it being written and signed. The Talmud also discusses which neighboring cities and areas are still considered the Land of Israel for this purpose and which are not. Would writing a Get on a ship close to Israel be regarded the same as on land?

Finally, is a ship the same as a flower pot? We mean the laws of tithes. Anything that grows on a ship does not directly draw sustenance from the Land of Israel, and anything that grows in a hanging pot does not do this either, so at first glance, they should be the same. But perhaps this is not so: a ship constantly moves and thus cannot be considered connected to the ground, but a stable pot can. Or the opposite is true: the air divides between the pot and the earth, so the pot does not draw sustenance from the earth and is not liable to tithes, but a ship is in the water, which can be considered as a continuation of the water bed, and so maybe it is liable to tithes.

Art: Ships Close Inshore at Low Tide by Willem van de, the Younger Velde

Gittin 7 – To fight the bad or not to fight

One should never be too assertive with the members of his household; if he is, they will lie to him out of fear and lead him to multiple sins. For example, Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel used to put fear into his servants, and they fed him a prohibited thing. What happened? A part of a properly slaughtered animal was lost, and they substituted it with another cut from a live animal.

But is it possible that a righteous Rabbi Chanina would eat anything not kosher? God watches even over the animals of the righteous, like in the story where a donkey would not eat food from which tithe was not separated; how much more so over the righteous themselves? – True, they wanted to feed him a prohibited item, but something prevented this.

Mar Ukva sent a question to Rabbi Elazar, "There are bad people who hurt me, and I can give them away to the government, should I?" Rabbi Elazar took out a piece of parchment, made lines for writing, and wrote, "Let me not do wrong with my mouth with an evil person is in front of me." Mar Ukva replied, "But they are torturing me!" Rabbi Elazar then wrote, "Be silent unto God, and the enemies will disappear." Rabbi Elazar's words took effect right away, and the enemies of Mar Ukva were led away in chains.

The Talmud then discusses why, according to Mar Ukva, a meal can be accompanied by joyous music only if it is a meal connected to a mitzvah, as well as other signs of diminished joy, decreed after the destruction of the Temple.

Art: Wedding Dance by Pieter Brueghel the Younger

Gittin 3 – Why did we believe the messenger?

Earlier, we said that a husband can divorce his wife through a messenger. As long as the messenger (who comes from overseas) brings the divorce document (Get) and states that he saw it being written and signed, the divorce can proceed.

But why do we believe the messenger at all? After all, we have a rule that there should always be two witnesses. And if you tell me that this messenger testifies to the fact of a woman being divorced and that here one witness is enough, just as we believe anybody when he says that the food he or she prepared is kosher, then I will answer that this is not the same. About kosher food, I have no prior knowledge, but the woman was known to be married, and now he is testifying to a change of status, an event, and two witnesses should be needed.

So then, how do we believe one messenger? – The answer is that the Sages established this so that it would be easier for a woman to get a divorce and to re-marry. But you might have another problem: in the absence of two witnesses, the husband may later claim that the Get was forged. – That is exactly the point: since the messenger knows that he will have to testify in court that he saw the Get being written and signed, he will make sure that it is completely proper. If the husband later protests, people will believe the messenger and not the husband.

Art: The Messenger by Johannes Verkolje