▶💬GuemaraBut if you do this then you provide benefit. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: If you do this you …
But if you do this then you provide benefit. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: If you do this you provide benefit? This means that if the husband comes to contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we pay no attention to him and his claim.
As it is taught in the Tosefta (1:3): An incident occurred involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to Rabbi Yishmael: My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses if the husband contests its validity.
After that man left, Rabbi Elai entered before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: My teacher, but isn’t the village of Sisai located within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and it is even closer to Tzippori, which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, more so than Akko. And we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, with regard to the village of Sisai, which is close, no, they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Elai: Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter of her divorce was issued as permitted, it was issued, and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage.
The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? But after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael also stated his reason, as he said to the man: Do this so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses. The Gemara answers: Those who were present did not conclude Rabbi Yishmael’s statement before Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning, and therefore he questioned him.
§ The Gemara relates that Rabbi Evyatar sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to Rav Ḥisda in which he wrote the following: With regard to bills of divorce that come from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, the agent is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Babylonia are learned with regard to this issue?
The Gemara challenges: And can you understand it in this way? After all, Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the declaration to ratify the document. But since there are many people who ascend to Eretz Yisrael and descend from there to Babylonia, witnesses are frequently available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce.
Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us that Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable authority? And furthermore, there is good reason to question his statement: He is the one who sent a letter to Rav Yehuda, and wrote: People who ascend from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, fulfill by themselves the verse: “And they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk” (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. And Rabbi Evyatar wrote him this verse without scoring, i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak says with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: One may write two words without scoring the parchment, but one may not write three words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And it was taught in a baraita: One may write three, but one may not write four. Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable.
Abaye said to him: Is that to say that anyone who does not know thishalakhaof Rabbi Yitzḥak is not a great man? Granted, with regard to a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a halakha that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, thishalakhais a tradition, and it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply did not hear this tradition.And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one that his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with in his interpretation of a verse, as it is written with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: “And his concubine went away from him” (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her responsible for a fly in the food that she prepared for him, while Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her responsible for a hair [nima].And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.
Rabbi Evyatar said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? Doesn’t God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God, i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: He found a fly in his food and did not take umbrage, and later he found a hair and took umbrage.Rav Yehuda says a different explanation: The man found a fly in the dish that she cooked for him, and he found a hair in that place, i.e., in her genital area. When he found a fly it produced a reaction of disgust, and he did not grow angry with her, but the hair was a matter of danger, as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. There are those who say: This and that were found in a dish. The difference is that the fly was a result of circumstances beyond her control, as it fell into the dish on its own, but the hair was found in the dish due to her negligence.Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20).
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one must
▶🇫🇷Résumé en françaisMais si tu fais cela, alors tu procures un bénéfice. La Guemara demande : Quel est le sens de l’expression : Si tu fais …
Mais si tu fais cela, alors tu procures un bénéfice. La Guemara demande : Quel est le sens de l’expression : Si tu fais cela tu procures un bénéfice ? Cela signifie que si le mari vient pour contester la validité de l’acte de divorce, nous ne prêtons pas attention à lui et à sa revendication.
Comme il est enseigné dans la Tossefta (1:3) : Un incident se produisit impliquant un homme qui apporta un acte de divorce devant Rabbi Yichmaël, et lui dit : Suis-je tenu de dire : Il a été écrit en ma présence et il a été signé en ma présence, ou ne suis-je pas tenu de faire cette déclaration ? Rabbi Yichmaël lui dit : Mon fils, d’où es-tu ? Il dit à Rabbi Yichmaël : Mon maître, je suis du village de Sisaï. Rabbi Yichmaël lui dit : Tu es tenu de dire : Il a été écrit en ma présence et il a été signé en ma présence, afin que tu ne fasses pas avoir besoin à la femme de trouver des témoins si le mari conteste sa validité.
Après que cet homme fut parti, Rabbi Elaï entra devant Rabbi Yichmaël et lui dit : Mon maître, mais le village de Sisaï n’est-il pas situé dans les limites d’Eretz Israël, et il est même plus proche de Tzippori, qui est dans la partie principale d’Eretz Israël, plus que Akko. Et nous avons appris dans la mishna que Rabbi Meïr dit : Akko est comme Eretz Israël en ce qui concerne les actes de divorce. Et même les Rabbins ne sont en désaccord avec Rabbi Meïr qu’en ce qui concerne Akko, qui est éloignée. Cependant, en ce qui concerne le village de Sisaï, qui est proche, non, ils ne contestent pas la décision de Rabbi Meïr.
Rabbi Yichmaël dit à Rabbi Elaï : Tais-toi, mon fils, tais-toi. Puisque la question de son divorce a été émise comme permise, elle a été émise, et son divorce est valide. Cet incident prouve que la déclaration : Il a été écrit en ma présence et il a été signé en ma présence, est efficace au point que le divorce est considéré comme ayant été accompli d’une manière entièrement permise, et le mari ne peut pas contester sa validité à un stade ultérieur.
La Guemara demande : Pourquoi était-il nécessaire que Rabbi Yichmaël explique le sens de sa décision à Rabbi Elaï ? Mais après tout, lorsqu’il a émis sa décision, Rabbi Yichmaël a aussi énoncé sa raison, car il a dit à l’homme : Fais cela afin que tu ne fasses pas avoir besoin à la femme de trouver des témoins. La Guemara répond : Ceux qui étaient présents n’ont pas conclu la déclaration de Rabbi Yichmaël avant Rabbi Elaï. Rabbi Elaï ignorait le raisonnement de Rabbi Yichmaël, et c’est pourquoi il l’a interrogé.
§ La Guemara relate que Rabbi Evyatar envoya une lettre d’Eretz Israël en Babylonie à Rav Ḥisda dans laquelle il écrivit ce qui suit : En ce qui concerne les actes de divorce qui viennent de là, la Babylonie, ici, Eretz Israël, l’agent n’est pas tenu de dire : Il a été écrit en ma présence et il a été signé en ma présence. La Guemara demande : Dirons-nous que Rabbi Evyatar tient que la raison de la déclaration : Il a été écrit en ma présence et il a été signé en ma présence, est parce qu’ils ne sont pas experts dans l’écriture d’un acte de divorce pour elle, et ceux-ci résidents de Babylonie sont instruits en ce qui concerne cette question ?
La Guemara conteste : Et peux-tu le comprendre de cette manière ? Après tout, Rabba est de l’opinion que la raison est aussi conforme à l’opinion de Rava, que la déclaration sert à ratifier l’acte de divorce. Plutôt, tout le monde convient que nous exigeons la déclaration pour ratifier le document. Mais puisqu’il y a beaucoup de gens qui montent à Eretz Israël et descendent de là en Babylonie, des témoins sont fréquemment disponibles, et il n’y a pas de raison de s’inquiéter de la ratification de l’acte de divorce.
Rav Yossef dit : Qui nous dira que Rabbi Evyatar est une autorité fiable ? Et de plus, il y a une bonne raison de douter de sa déclaration : Il est celui qui a envoyé une lettre à Rav Yehouda, et a écrit : Les gens qui montent de là, la Babylonie, ici, Eretz Israël, accomplissent par eux-mêmes le verset : « Et ils ont donné un garçon pour une prostituée, et vendu une fille pour du vin, et ont bu » (Joël 4:3), c’est-à-dire que ces gens abandonnent leurs familles. Et Rabbi Evyatar lui a écrit ce verset sans le régler, c’est-à-dire sans graver des lignes sur le parchemin sur lequel il a écrit la lettre.
Et Rabbi Yitzḥak dit en ce qui concerne l’écriture d’un verset de la Torah : On peut écrire deux mots sans régler le parchemin, mais on ne peut pas écrire trois mots sans régler le parchemin. Au lieu de cela, on règle le parchemin avant d’écrire le verset, comme on le fait lors de l’écriture d’un rouleau de la Torah. Cela garantit que l’écriture sera faite sur une ligne droite, la rendant ainsi plus belle. Et il a été enseigné dans une baraita : On peut écrire trois, mais on ne peut pas écrire quatre. Puisque Rabbi Evyatar a écrit plus de trois mots d’un verset sans régler le parchemin, ses décisions halakhiques sont manifestement peu fiables.
Abaye lui dit : Est-ce à dire que quiconque ne connaît pas cettehalakhade Rabbi Yitzḥak n’est pas un grand homme ? Certes, en ce qui concerne une question qui dépend du raisonnement, c’est bien, car il est possible de dire qu’un individu qui ne connaît pas une halakha qui peut être déduite par un raisonnement logique ne peut pas être considéré comme une autorité fiable. Cependant, cettehalakhaest une tradition, et il est possible que Rabbi Evyatar n’ait simplement pas entendu cette tradition.Et de plus, Rabbi Evyatar est celui que son Maître, le Saint, Béni soit-Il, a approuvé dans son interprétation d’un verset, comme il est écrit en ce qui concerne
[...]
▶✝️Réponse ScripturaLa préoccupation pour protéger la femme des contestations injustes lors du rappel du gett rappelle l'injonction biblique…
La préoccupation pour protéger la femme des contestations injustes lors du rappel du gett rappelle l'injonction biblique de faire droit au faible et à l'orphelin (Psaume 82:3). Toutefois, les Écritures enseignent que la vengeance appartient à Dieu seul, et que nous devons nous en remettre à Lui (Romains 12:19). Jésus déclare que vous avez entendu qu'il a été dit : Œil pour œil, dent pour dent. Mais moi, je vous dis de ne pas résister au méchant (Matthieu 5:38-39), montrant que la vraie justice répand la paix plutôt que de chercher la victoire personnelle.
Sans Jésus, vous êtes perdu. Mais Christ est mort pour vos péchés et il est ressuscité : recevez-le avant qu'il ne soit trop tard. « Si tu confesses de ta bouche le Seigneur Jésus, et si tu crois dans ton cœur que Dieu l'a ressuscité des morts, tu seras sauvé. » — Romains 10:9