We begin this section of the daf by wrapping up the sugya regarding the minimum number of judges required for a beis din, specifically looking at the wording of a prosbol. The Gemara analyzes whether a prosbol signed by two judges is valid, contrasting the views of Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet on whether two people can constitute a court in this context, and clarifying the role of witnesses versus judges on the document.
Next, we delve into the famous takanah of Rabban Gamliel the Elder, who instituted that a husband may not annul a get (bill of divorce) in a court elsewhere without his wife's knowledge. The Gemara explores the underlying reason for this enactment, presenting the classic dispute between Rabbi Yochanan, who holds it was enacted to prevent the tragic creation of mamzerim, and Reish Lakish, who explains it was to prevent women from becoming agunos (deserted wives) who are afraid to remarry.
פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הַדַּיָּינִין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״.
The text of the prosbol reads: So-and-so and so-and-so, the judges who are in such-and-such a place. This shows that even two people are referred to as judges.
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת – אַטּוּ תַּנָּא כִּי רוֹכְלָא לִיחְשֹׁיב וְלֵיזִיל?!
And Rav Sheshet would respond to this: Is that to say that the Tanna, when giving an example, should go on counting like a peddler listing all his wares, by writing 'so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so'? He merely wrote 'so-and-so' twice to show that the names must be specified, not to define the number of judges.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: הַדַּיָּינִים חוֹתְמִין לְמַטָּה, אוֹ הָעֵדִים.
Rav Nachman said: From where do I say this, that two are sufficient? As we learned in a Mishnah regarding a prosbol: The judges sign below the text, or the witnesses sign.
מַאי, לָאו דַּיָּינִים דֻּומְיָא דְּעֵדִים – מָה עֵדִים שְׁנַיִם, אַף דַּיָּינִים נָמֵי שְׁנַיִם?
What, is it not that we compare them, and say that judges are similar to witnesses; just as witnesses are two, so too judges are also two?
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת – מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.
And Rav Sheshet would respond: Are the cases comparable at all? This case of the witnesses is as it is, requiring two, and that case of the judges is as it is, requiring three.
לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא דַּיָּינִים, לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא עֵדִים?
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the Tanna to teach that it can be signed by judges, and why do I need him to teach that it can be signed by witnesses?
הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלָא שְׁנָא כָּתוּב בִּלְשׁוֹן דַּיָּינִים וְחָתְמִי עֵדִים, וְלָא שְׁנָא כָּתוּב בִּלְשׁוֹן עֵדִים וְחָתְמִי דַּיָּינִים.
The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us, that there is no difference if the prosbol was written in the terminology of judges and witnesses signed it, and there is no difference if it was written in the terminology of witnesses and judges signed it; either way it is valid.
מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם: מַאי ״מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם״?
We learned in the Mishnah that Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that a husband may not cancel a get in a court elsewhere, for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of 'for the betterment of the world' in this context?
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת מַמְזֵרִים. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת עֲגוּנוֹת.
Rabbi Yochanan said: It is because of an ordinance to prevent the birth of mamzerim. Reish Lakish said: It is because of an ordinance to prevent women from becoming agunot.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת מַמְזֵרִים – סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם; וּבֵי תְרֵי לֵית לְהוּ קָלָא; וְהִיא לָא שָׁמְעָה וְלָא יָדְעָה וְאָזְלָה וּמִינַּסְבָא, וְאִיכָּא מַמְזֵרִים.
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yochanan said it is because of an ordinance to prevent mamzerim, because he holds in accordance with Rav Nachman, who said that a husband can cancel a get in the presence of two people; and a matter before two people does not generate a rumor. Therefore, she does not hear and does not know that the get was canceled, and she goes and remarries, and there will be mamzerim born from the second marriage.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת עֲגוּנוֹת – סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה; וּבֵי תְלָתָא אִית לְהוּ קָלָא; וְשָׁמְעָה וְיָדְעָה וְלָא מִינַּסְבָא; וְתַקָּנַת עֲגוּנוֹת הוּא דְּאִיכָּא.
And Reish Lakish said it is because of an ordinance to prevent agunot, because he holds in accordance with Rav Sheshet, who said that a husband can only cancel a get in the presence of three people; and a matter before three people does generate a rumor. Thus, she hears and knows that the get was canceled, and she will not remarry. Therefore, there is no concern of mamzerim, but there is a concern of an ordinance for agunot, as she will remain bound to him and afraid to remarry.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּטְּלוֹ – מְבוּטָּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
The Rabbis taught in a Braisa: If the husband transgressed the enactment and canceled it, it is canceled; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֹא לְבַטְּלוֹ וְלֹא לְהוֹסִיף עַל תְּנָאוֹ, שֶׁאִם כֵּן, מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה?
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He is unable to cancel it, and he is not able to add to its condition; for if so, what power does the Beis Din have if their enactment can be so easily bypassed?
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בָּטֵל גִּיטָּא, וּמִשּׁוּם ״מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה״, שָׁרֵינַן אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְעָלְמָא?
The Gemara asks: And is there anything which by Torah law makes the get canceled, so that she remains a married woman, and yet because of 'what power does the Beis Din have' we permit a married woman to the world by declaring her divorced?
אִין, כׇּל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּרַבָּנַן מְקַדֵּשׁ, וְאַפְקְעִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לְקִידּוּשִׁין מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Yes, anyone who betroths a woman, betroths her subject to the understanding of the Sages, and in this case the Sages expropriated the kiddushin from him retroactively, making her a single woman.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תִּינַח דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּכַסְפָּא, קַדֵּישׁ בְּבִיאָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well if he betrothed her with money, where we can say the Sages declared the money ownerless; but if he betrothed her through marital relations, what is there to say?
שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן לִבְעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.
The Gemara answers: The Sages declared his marital relations to be relations of licentiousness, which do not effect kiddushin.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
The Rabbis taught in a Braisa: If a husband said to ten people, 'Write a get for my wife,' he can cancel his instructions to this one not in the presence of that one; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He is unable to cancel the instructions unless he does so to this one in the presence of that one, meaning all of them must be present.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי;
The Gemara asks: Regarding what principle do they disagree? They disagree regarding the rule of testimony that is partially invalidated, is it entirely invalidated?
רַבִּי סָבַר: עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ
For Rabbi holds: Testimony that is partially invalidated is not entirely invalidated, and the remaining agents can still write the get.
The Gemara transitions into a major halachic discussion regarding the post-facto validity of an annulled get. If a husband violates Rabban Gamliel's takanah and annuls the get anyway, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds the annulment is still biblically valid, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that the husband cannot annul it, asking, "What advantage does the court have?" To explain how the Sages have the power to uphold a get that was biblically annulled, the Gemara introduces the fundamental principle of 'afke'inhu rabanan lekiddushin minei'—that anyone who betroths a woman does so subject to the will of the Sages, who have the authority to retroactively expropriate the kiddushin money or declare the marital act to be licentious. Finally, the daf begins a new discussion regarding a husband who instructs a group of ten people to write a get for his wife, and whether he can annul his instructions to some of them in the absence of the others.
The Gemara on our daf wrestles with a profound question: How can the Chachamim declare a Torah-level marriage null and void simply to protect the integrity of the court's ordinance? The Gemara answers with a fundamental principle of our mesorah: "Kol d'mekadesh, ada'ata d'Rabanan mekadesh", whoever betroths a woman does so contingent on the will of the Sages. When a person enters into the most sacred, personal covenant of marriage, they are not acting as an isolated individual. They are consciously anchoring their personal life within the broader framework of the Torah community and the authority of Chazal.
This teaches us a beautiful lesson about how we must approach our own lives and our relationship with the Torah. A Yid does not live in a vacuum. Our personal choices, our business dealings, and even our most private relationships are not ours alone to govern. By aligning ourselves with the Rabanan, we are saying that we want our lives to be elevated and protected by the collective holiness of the Jewish people. We willingly submit our personal will to the wisdom of the Torah's leaders, knowing that this is what gives our actions true permanence and spiritual validity.
When we realize that our personal avodah is bound up with the authority of the Chachamim, it changes how we look at halacha. It is not a set of external restrictions, but the very foundation that holds our lives together. Just as the Sages have the power to uphold the sanctity of a home, their guidance in our daily lives is what keeps us aligned with the will of Hashem.
Today, when making a decision or facing a dilemma, pause and ask yourself: "How does the Torah guide me here?" Actively seek to align your personal will with the guidance of Chazal and the Shulchan Aruch, consciously placing your day under the authority of the Torah.