1. Where does the principle of halachic marriage annulment (afka'inhu) apply?
There are five Talmudic cases where this principle is invoked:
A man betrothed (eirusin) a minor (rabinically) and was attempting to finalize the marriage (nissuin) once she reached majority. Before he did so, a second man seized her, and seemingly betrothed her on a biblical ...
In his responsa (Tzitz Eliezer 10:47) R. Waldenburg quotes some authorities who maintained that in a state of emergency one can direct by telephone to write a get for his wife without even appearing before Bet Din. Others maintain that witnesses would be required to validate that the husband is the one on the phone directing.
A proof that one should divorce is Ezra ch. 10 where he tries to encourage everybody to leave their non-Jewish wives, he does not tell them to stay together to avoid the mizbeach shedding tears. Furthermore he makes no distinction between any cases.
Maharsha writes on that story:
הואיל והוו יתבי רבנן ולא מיחו בו: איכא למימר מה שלא מיחו מפני שלא היה בידם למחות אפשר שעשו כן כי החנופה היא שגברה באותו הדור כמ"ש בסוטה
גבי אגריפס המלך
One could say that the reason that the rabbis didn't object was
because they were not able to object. It's also possible that they did
this out of flattery, which ...
Notarization is actually much more similar to Henpek - the symbol that Beis Din would put on a document to indicate that its signors were verified. See, for example, Bava Metzia 7b:
ולא מיבעיא לא כתב ביה הנפק דאיכא למימר כתב ללות ולא לוה אלא אפי' כתב ביה הנפק דמקוים לא יחזיר
... Not only a document which does not have a "henpek," about which one ...
In the Bavli to that Mishna (Gittin 80a), 'Ula explains that the reason there was an enactment made to write the date according to the local government was "משום שלום מלכות" "to maintain peace with the government". Rashi explains that the governments would see we use their dating system and assume that we value their leadership. Accordingly, Rambam rules (...
I came across a possible explanation as to why the rabbis would insert this brief tid bit about Nero converting to Judaism into the narrative (if it wasn't factual -- if there are sources supporting that his conversion was factual, please do list -- that would be interesting)!
In Jeffrey Rubenstein's "Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and ...
The Gemara in Yevamos (66a) says that we don't let a Kohen's illegal (Jewish) wife's (Melog) slaves eat Teruma, even though according to biblical law they should, since the Rabbis want her to get angry at her husband (I can't eat Teruma, my slaves can't eat Teruma, What am I, a Zona??!!) and get a divorce.
The Gemara doesn't differentiate if there are ...
Most authorities somehow narrow the scope of the injunction.
Only with cantillation
According to R. Qafih (commentary to Hilkhot Tefillah 12:9, note 18) there is a tradition that the prohibition only applies to recitation with the cantillation. For this reason he criticises those (Yemenites) who adopted the practice of reciting the Sh'ma with cantillation, ...
Toldos Amoraim V'Tanaim brings a view from Sefer Hadoros that Yalta was the daughter of Raba bar Avu'ah "רבה בר אבוה". Although there are those that dismiss this view, they do not offer an alternative named person.
In the first case, the 2nd master has done nothing wrong - he owns half a slave and continues to own him.
We force him to free the slave (against an IOU for half his value) so that the half-slave can lead a normal life.
In the second case, the master has transgressed by either selling his slave to a non-Jew (and now he cannot keep Mitzvot) or else by ...
This is an excellent question! I don't think that I can answer it definitively, but the following information might be of use to you. If you have a look at Avraham Grossman's Rashi (trans. Joel Linsider; The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2012), you will see that he features a bit of a discussion of this issue on pp145-147.
He quotes various ...
This comment proposes:
I think the point of the Gemara is to illustrate that someone's life was
ruined by the callous way two people who contrived to ruin it within
the bounds of Halachah, as in RaMBa"N's famous interpretation of the
Naval BiRshuth HaTorah (VaYikra 19:2)
No halachic bearing whatsoever. A born-out-of-wedlock child inherits from his father just the same, and if firstborn male, would get a double portion.
"Pegam" means that people will say mean things about such a child. We try to avoid social problems too, even if they aren't halachic ones per se.
I would argue that both stories are true, and that this is not even particularly surprising.
The Roman historian, Suetonius, mentions the incident with Josephus fairly early in his biography of Vespasian in the context of a host of similar omens and dreams that predicted that Vespasian was destined to become Caesar.
What this tells us is that not only was ...
I skimmed the gemara looking for the answer to my question, but accidentally skipped it! Tosfos Ri"d on the Mishna tipped me off to check again.
ת''ר איזהו שלא לאלתר רבי נתן אומר ששהה כדי שתעבור שיירא ותשרה ר''ש בן
אלעזר אומר כדי שיהא אדם עומד ורואה שלא עבר שם אדם ויש אומרים שלא שהה
אדם שם רבי אומר כדי לכתוב את הגט רבי יצחק ...
Medrash Rabba 94:7 says as follows.
יחצאל שחיצו אלוהות בידן והן מצחצחין בשיניהם ומלעיגים בשפתותיהן
My translation - Anyone may correct if they can translate better - "they split idols with their hands, and grinded their teeth, and smirked with their lips"
I have heard in the past that when a parent gives a child a name it is a prophecy as to what they ...
The Sde Tsufim in Gitin 20A has citted Chidushey Hatam Sofer in Gittin and in the Citted Gemoro succa 29B
I want to copy the text in hebrew and translate in english
דאפילו אם ואנוהו בשארי מצוות לאו דאורייתא, מכל מקום בכתיבת השם הוא דאורייתא כי כן משמע "זה קלי" השם הקדוש, "ואנוהו"
The litteral sense of the verse is bounded to the G-d, i.e. the Name of G-d. ...
There seems to be an issue with menumar which is worse than regular Hiddur, unrelated to a Sefer Torah.
Look in Suka 33a-b that if there are lots of berries on your Hadas - and they are spread in 2 or 3 spots - then it's menumar and it's pasul because it's missing its hiddur.
So we see that menumar is almost the opposite of hiddur and makes it ugly - and ...
Although I never learned the sugya in Gittin, I actually just got through learning the sugya in Bava Metzia. When I learned that story, I understood that story quite literally: the man was such a wicked person, he slept with someone on Yom Kippur. Not only that, but he slept with a Na'arah Ha'meorasah. (Both are assur on a d'Oraisa level, the former ...
The sources to allow such a get are the mishna on Gittin 66a (translation and interpolation by R Steinsaltz)
With regard to one who was thrown into a pit and thought that he would
die there, and he said that anyone who hears his voice should write a
bill of divorce for his wife, and he specified his name, her name, and
all relevant details, those ...
I heard a fascinating explanation.
You could ask an even better question: Both R' Akiva and Hillel were champions of the "Love your neighbor - don't do unto other" weltanschauung. How could they possibly allow one to divorce one's wife for "nonsense"?
The answer given is that by codifying that one may divorce a wife for "nonsense", it essentially ...
As Art Scroll Talmud Gittin 90 b note 10 explains, אם שנאתה שלח according to רב יהודה
This interpretation accords with the opinion of R' Akiva, who ruled
that divorce is permitted even when the wife lose favor with her
As a result, the next quote אם שנואה היא לפני המקום שלח would refer to Bais Shamai (or Bais Hillel) who do not accept ...
Here is the text of Rashi.
ואין אחד מן הראשונים ואחד מן האחרונים מצטרפין אהייא אילימא אסיפא הרי בטל אלא ארישא פשיטא מהו דתימא כל לקיומא תנאי מצטרפין קמ"ל:
מהו דתימא - הואיל ומקיים גיטא בחד מהני תנאי הוו להו כחד תנאה וכל סהדי דמסהדי לקיומי תנאה דהאי גיטא ליצטרפו קא משמע לן:
If you read on accurately. To create a valuable group of witnesses ...
Rashi says there that even if both of the first witnesses were here it
would be meaningless. But, if we only have the first two witnesses,
informing us of the original condition, how would we know of the
second condition which overwrote the first?
Rashi here means that we can assume that the Gemara would not mention the second group disqualifying the ...
Rashi in Sukah 29b states that the requirement for hadar in arba minim comes from the passuk of zeh keili ve'anveihu.
Various rishonim (see tosafos there) ask on Rashi that zeh keili ve'anveihu is le'chatchilah, not be'dieved.
It seems from Rashi that when the absolute minimum expectation of hiddur is lost the din of zeh keili becomes an ikuv.
It is a '...