In this daf, we continue our deep dive into the sugya of a dying person's instructions regarding his money, exploring the different shittos of the Tannaim. We will look at how the Sages dealt with the sons of Rokhel, and analyze whether we say it is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased (mitzvah lekayem divrei hamess) when dealing with a healthy person versus a shechiv mera. We will also clarify the identity and halachic standing of Rabbi Shimon HaNasi in this context.
We then move on to a new Mishnah that returns us to the core halachos of Gittin. The Mishnah details various cases where a shliach brings a get from overseas but can only testify to part of its writing or signing. We will begin the Gemara's analysis of why these cases are necessary and how we understand the specific testimony of the shliach regarding which parts of the get he witnessed being written.
כְּבִינְתִּי לְבִתִּי, וְהִיא בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה״, וּמֵתָה, וְקִיְּימוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דְּבָרֶיהָ! אָמַר לָהֶם: בְּנֵי רוֹכֵל תִּקְבְּרֵם אִמָּם.
The baraita related that a woman said, "My brooch is given to my daughter, and it is worth twelve hundred maneh," and she died, and the Sages fulfilled her words. Rabbi Elazar said to them: May their mother bury the sons of Rokhel, cursing them because they were wicked and the Sages only bypassed the laws of inheritance in this case to prevent them from inheriting.
תַּנָּא קַמָּא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; וְרַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִית, לָא אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת;
The Gemara analyzes the opinions in the baraita: The first tanna holds in accordance with Rabbi Elazar that there must be an act of acquisition; and Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ya'akov also hold in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, but they add that even though the giver died, we do not say that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased.
וְ״יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים״ – כְּרַבָּנַן;
And "some say" hold in accordance with the Rabbis that the verbal instruction of a dying person is legally binding.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מִיהוּ הֵיכָא דְּמִית אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת;
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who spoke in the name of Rabbi Meir, holds in accordance with Rabbi Elazar that a healthy person's speech is not binding, however, where the giver died, we do say that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלוֹקוּ – מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ;
And the Sages who say "they should divide" the money, do so because the matter is a doubt to them.
וְכָאן אָמְרוּ – שׁוּדָא עֲדִיף; וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא – מַעֲשֶׂה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן.
And the Sages who said "here they said" that the agent should do as he pleases, hold that discretion is preferable; and Rabbi Shimon HaNasi came only to let us know an incident, but does not express a new halachic ruling.
אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא; נָשִׂיא הוּא, אוֹ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנָשִׂיא קָאָמַר?
A dilemma was raised before them: Regarding this Rabbi Shimon HaNasi; was he himself the Nasi, or did he speak in the name of the Nasi?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא.
Come and hear a proof, as Rav Yosef said: The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon HaNasi, which implies he was indeed the Nasi.
וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לָך: נָשִׂיא הוּא, אוֹ דְּקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנָשִׂיא?
The Gemara rejects this: And still the question should be asked by you: Was he the Nasi, or did he speak in the name of the Nasi, and Rav Yosef was merely quoting the language of the baraita?
תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא.
The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Rav Yosef said: The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon HaNasi, that the money is returned to the sender's heirs.
וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כִּכְתוּבִין וְכִמְסוּרִין דָּמוּ!
The Gemara asks: But don't we establish that the words of a dying man are like written and delivered documents? If so, the recipient's heirs should acquire the money!
רַב יוֹסֵף מוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּבָרִיא.
The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef establishes this case as referring to a healthy person who sent the money, not a dying man.
וְהָא לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ קָאָמַר, וְקַיְימָא לַן: מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת!
The Gemara objects: But the baraita says the money goes to the heirs of the sender, implying the sender died, and we establish that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased even if he was healthy when he gave the instructions!
תְּנִי: יַחְזְרוּ לִמְשַׁלֵּחַ.
The Gemara answers: Emend the text and teach: Let them return to the sender himself, as he is still alive.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמֵּבִיא קַמָּא
May we return to you, "The first 'One who brings'" chapter.
הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאָמַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״; ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ״; ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם כּוּלּוֹ״ – פָּסוּל.
MISHNAH: One who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and says: "It was written in my presence but it was not signed in my presence"; or "It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence"; or "All of it was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence"; or "Half of it was written in my presence and all of it was signed in my presence" – in all these cases, the get is invalid.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ
Rather, Rava said: Even in this case, the get is valid.
The Gemara first analyzes the opinions of Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Natan, Rabbi Ya'akov, and the Sages regarding whether a dying person's speech alone can effect an acquisition, and whether there is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased. After resolving a dilemma regarding Rabbi Shimon HaNasi's ruling and clarifying that it refers to a healthy sender who is still alive, the Gemara introduces a Mishnah outlining invalid declarations made by a shliach bringing a get. The Gemara explains that these cases are taught to show that lacking a complete declaration invalidates the get even post-facto (bedi'avad), and begins clarifying the exact nature of the shliach's partial testimony regarding the writing and signing of the get.
In our learning today, we see the great lengths to which Chazal went to ensure that a person's wishes are carried out, establishing the principle of "mitzvah lekayem divrei hameis"—it is a holy obligation to fulfill the words of the deceased. When someone leaves this world, their physical power to act is gone, and they rely entirely on the living to carry out their will. This teaches us a profound lesson about the weight of our words and the trust others place in us.
This responsibility does not only begin after a person passes away. In our daily lives, we are constantly entrusted with the hopes, requests, and unspoken expectations of those around us—our parents, our spouses, our teachers, and our friends. When someone asks you for help or confides a wish to you, they are placing a piece of their will in your hands. Fulfilling these wishes with care and integrity is not just a favor; it is a sacred trust, an avodah of true chesed.
Today, think of one request or wish that a family member, friend, or teacher asked of you recently, and make a point to fulfill it completely and with a full heart.