This section of Gemara Gittin, Daf 9a, continues the halachic analysis of a master who writes over all his property to his slave, leaving over a minute fraction. The Gemara explores the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir regarding whether we divide a single statement in a document, and how this impacts the slave's emancipation. It also addresses the status of a deathbed gift (shechiv mera) if the owner subsequently recuperates.
לְעוֹלָם הוּא בֶּן חוֹרִין, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״כֹּל נְכָסַיי נְתוּנִין לִפְלוֹנִי עַבְדִּי חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵרִיבּוֹא שֶׁבָּהֶן״.
The slave is always a free man, unless the master says in the document: "All my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of them."
וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּילֵּס רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר,
But didn't Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Naḥman said: Even though Rabbi Yosei praised Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is like Rabbi Meir?
דְּתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁנֶּאְמְרוּ דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״שְׂפָתַיִם יִשָּׁק מֵשִׁיב דְּבָרִים נְכוֹחִים״!
As it is taught in a braisa: When these matters were said before Rabbi Yosei, he read upon him this verse: "He kisses the lips that give the right answer."
וּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְעַבְדּוֹ, וְעָמַד – חוֹזֵר בַּנְּכָסִים, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בָּעֶבֶד.
And did Rav Naḥman actually say this, that we do not divide the statement? But didn't Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Naḥman said: A person on his deathbed who wrote all his property to his slave, and then arose from his illness, he can retract his gift regarding the property, but he cannot retract his gift regarding the slave?
חוֹזֵר בַּנְּכָסִים – מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בָּעֶבֶד – שֶׁהֲרֵי יָצָא עָלָיו שֵׁם בֶּן חוֹרִין!
He can retract regarding the property because it is a gift of a person on his deathbed, which is canceled if he survives; but he cannot retract regarding the slave, because a rumor has already gone out about him that he is a free man.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו כְּרוּת גִּיטָּא הוּא.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: There, this is the reason why Rav Naḥman ruled like Rabbi Meir, because it is not a complete severance of the bill of manumission, since the master left over some property for himself which might include the slave.
אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עוֹרְרִין, יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו:
The Mishnah states: If there are those who contest it, it should be ratified through its signatories.
עַרְעָר כַּמָּה? אִילֵימָא עַרְעָר חַד, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם!
The Gemara asks: How many people constitute this contestation? If we say a contestation of one person, but didn't Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Everyone agrees that a contestation is no fewer than two people?
וְאֶלָּא עַרְעָר תְּרֵי? תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי נִינְהוּ, מַאי חָזֵית דְּסָמְכַתְּ אַהָנֵי, סְמוֹךְ אַהָנֵי!
But rather, is it a contestation of two people? If so, they are two witnesses against two witnesses; what did you see that you rely on these witnesses who ratify it? Rely instead on these who contest it!
אֶלָּא עַרְעָר דְּבַעַל.
Rather, it is referring to a contestation of the husband himself, who claims the bill of divorce is a forgery.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו.
MISHNAH: One who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and is unable to say: "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence," if there are witnesses signed on it, it should be ratified through its signatories.
אֶחָד גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, שָׁווּ לַמּוֹלִיךְ וְלַמֵּבִיא, וְזוֹ אַחַת מִן הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁשָּׁווּ גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים לְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים.
Both bills of divorce of women and bills of manumission of slaves are equal regarding the one who delivers and the one who brings, and this is one of the ways in which bills of divorce of women are equal to bills of manumission of slaves.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר״? אִילֵימָא חֵרֵשׁ, חֵרֵשׁ בַּר אֵתוֹיֵי גִּיטָּא הוּא?!
GEMARA: What is the meaning of "is unable to say"? If we say it means a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce?
וְהָתְנַן: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן!
But didn't we learn in a Mishnah: Everyone is fit to bring a bill of divorce, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor!
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא פִּיקֵּחַ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ.
Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? For example, where he gave it to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence" before he became a deaf-mute.
אֶחָד גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים:
The Mishnah states: Both bills of divorce of women and bills of manumission of slaves are equal.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּרָכִים שָׁווּ גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים לְשִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים:
The Rabbis taught in a braisa: In three ways bills of divorce of women are equal to bills of manumission of slaves:
שָׁווּ לַמּוֹלִיךְ וְלַמֵּבִיא; וְכׇל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי – פָּסוּל, חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים; וְכׇל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת
They are equal regarding the one who delivers and the one who brings; and any document that has a Samaritan witness on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce of women and bills of manumission of slaves; and all other documents
The Gemara clarifies that according to Rav Ashi, Rav Nachman's ruling follows Rabbi Meir because a bill of manumission must fully sever the bond between master and slave, which is compromised if any property is reserved. The discussion then transitions to a Mishnah regarding a contested get within Eretz Yisrael, establishing that a contestation by the husband himself requires ratification of the signatures. Finally, the Gemara introduces a new Mishnah detailing the laws of an agent bringing a get from overseas who is unable to make the standard declaration, resolving that this refers to an agent who became a deaf-mute after delivering the document.
In our daf, we learn about a messenger who brings a get but is suddenly unable to make the required declaration because he became deaf. The Gemara explains that he was fully hearing when he received the document, but became deaf before he could speak. This teaches us a profound lesson in avodah: we must never take our tools, our health, or our opportunities for granted. A person can have every ability to perform a mitzvah one moment, and in the next, the door is closed.
This is not a reason to live in fear, but a call to live with urgency. When Hashem gives you the clarity, the energy, or the physical ability to do a chesed, to learn a piece of Torah, or to speak a kind word, do not say "I will do it later." The ability you have right now is a gift meant for this very moment.
Today, when you feel the inspiration to do a mitzvah or help another person, do not delay even for a few minutes. Act on it immediately while the opportunity and your abilities are fully in your hands.