## Gittin Daf 25a

###### Gittin 25a:1
[Gittin 25a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:1)

קָטָן וְאַנְפִּילְיָא – פְּסוּלוֹת וְאֵין פּוֹסְלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if the *yavam* was **a minor, or** if the *yevama* performed *ḥalitza* while he was wearing **a soft shoe made of cloth [*anpileya*]** and not the shoe used for *ḥalitza*, then these acts of *ḥalitza* are **invalid, and** in these cases **they do not disqualify** her from entering into levirate marriage.


###### Gittin 25a:2
[Gittin 25a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:2)

זְעֵירִי אָמַר: כּוּלָּן אֵין פּוֹסְלִין, חוּץ מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara quotes another opinion with regard to the question of which of the bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna would disqualify the woman from marrying a priest. **Ze’eiri says:** Reception of **any** of the bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna **does not disqualify** the woman from marrying a priest **except** in **the final** case, where the husband instructed the scribe to write a bill of divorce for one of his wives and explained that he would later decide which wife would be given the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 25a:3
[Gittin 25a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:3)

וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כּוּלָּן אֵין פּוֹסְלִין, חוּץ מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף אַחֲרוֹן נָמֵי אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, Rav Asi says:** Reception of **any** of the bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna **does not disqualify** the woman from marrying a priest **except** in **the final** case. **But Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even** in **the final** case, that bill of divorce **does not disqualify** her from marrying a priest **as well,** as even that bill of divorce is not a bill of divorce at all. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, there is no concern that retroactive clarification will determine that the bill of divorce was written for the sake of the woman who received it, while the *amora’im* who hold that the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest in the final case of the mishna regard the efficacy of retroactive clarification to be uncertain.


###### Gittin 25a:4
[Gittin 25a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:4)

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ – לָקוֹחוֹת הֵן, וּמַחְזִירִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּיּוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** own line of **reasoning. As Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Brothers who divided** property they received as an inheritance **are** considered **purchasers** from each other, **and** as purchasers of land **they must return** the portions **to each other in the Jubilee** Year. In the Jubilee Year, all land that had been purchased since the previous Jubilee Year reverts to the possession of the original owner. In this case, the land the brothers inherited from their father reverts to their joint ownership. Evidently, when they divided the land, this is not viewed as if it is retroactively clarified who inherited which portion from their father.


###### Gittin 25a:5
[Gittin 25a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:5)

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאֵין בְּרֵירָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵינַן ״לַהּ״– לִשְׁמָהּ; אֲבָל הָתָם, מֶכֶר – הוּא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא לִיהְדַּר בְּיוֹבֵל, אֲבָל יְרוּשָּׁה וּמַתָּנָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **necessary** for Rabbi Yoḥanan to state that there is no retroactive clarification both with regard to inheritance and with regard to a bill of divorce, **as, if it were stated** only **with regard to this** case, that of a bill of divorce, then one could say that **with regard to this Rabbi Yoḥanan said that there is no** retroactive **clarification because we require** that the bill of divorce be written in accordance with the verse: “He writes **for her”** (Deuteronomy 24:3), i.e., **for her sake; but there,** in the case of inheritance, one could say: **It is** only in the case of **a sale that the Merciful One states that it will be returned in the Jubilee** Year, **but an inheritance and a gift** will **not** be returned.


###### Gittin 25a:6
[Gittin 25a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:6)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שָׂדֶה, מִשּׁוּם דִּלְחוּמְרָא; אִי נָמֵי, כַּתְּחִילָּה; אֲבָל הָכָא – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if he** had **taught us** that there is no retroactive clarification only with regard to the inheritance of **a field,** then one could say that this is **due to** the fact **that** he holds that they must redistribute the property only **as a stringency,** but he would hold that in this case one must also be stringent and be concerned that it is a divorce. **Alternatively,** perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling was not because there is no retroactive clarification but because the *halakha* of the Jubilee Year requires that all land be returned to its state **as** it was **initially,** when the land had been divided among the tribes; **but here,** with regard to a bill of divorce, **say** that this consideration is **not** relevant, and there is retroactive clarification. Therefore, it is **necessary** for Rabbi Yoḥanan to rule that there is no retroactive clarification in each case separately.


###### Gittin 25a:7
[Gittin 25a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:7)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מֵרַב יְהוּדָה: אָמַר לְלַבְלָר: ״כְּתוֹב לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁתֵּצֵא בַּפֶּתַח תְּחִילָּה״, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: יָתֵר מִיכֵּן, אָמַר לְלַבְלָר ״כְּתוֹב לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ״ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ, אַלְמָא אֵין בְּרֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the final case of the mishna. **Rav Hoshaya asked of Rav Yehuda:** If a husband **said to a scribe: Write** a bill of divorce **for whichever** of my wives **emerges** from **the entrance first, what is** the *halakha*? Rav Yehuda **said to him: You learned it** already in the mishna: **Moreover,** even if he **said to the scribe: Write** a bill of divorce **for whichever** one of them **that I will want** and **I will divorce** her with it, it is **unfit** for him **to divorce** either wife **with it. Apparently, there is no** retroactive **clarification.**


###### Gittin 25a:8
[Gittin 25a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ, הָאוֹמֵר לְבָנָיו: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל מִי שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה מִכֶּם רִאשׁוֹן לִירוּשָׁלַיִם״; כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנַס רִאשׁוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ – זָכָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ, וּמְזַכֶּה אֶת אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Hoshaya **raised an objection to** Rav Yehuda’s answer based on a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 89a): In the case of **one who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Paschal offering on behalf of whichever of you goes up first to Jerusalem, once** the **first** of the children **has entered** with **his head and the majority of his** body into Jerusalem, **he has acquired his portion and acquires** the portions of **his brothers** together **with him** on their behalf. This mishna indicates that there is retroactive clarification, as it becomes clear retroactively that the father slaughtered the Paschal offering on behalf of this son.


###### Gittin 25a:9
[Gittin 25a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּרִי, מָה עִנְיַן פְּסָחִים אֵצֶל גִּיטִּין? הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי לְזָרְזָן בְּמִצְוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yehuda **said to him: Hoshaya, my son, what do Paschal offerings have to do with bills of divorce? Wasn’t it stated concerning this** mishna that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The mishna is not based on retroactive clarification; rather, the father included all his children in his Paschal offering from the outset. He created this competition only **in order to galvanize them,** so that they would be expeditious **in** their fulfillment of **mitzvot.**


###### Gittin 25a:10
[Gittin 25a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:10)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנַס רִאשׁוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ – זָכָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ, וּמְזַכֶּה אֶת אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאַמְנִינְהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא – שַׁפִּיר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא אַמְנִינְהוּ, לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה מִי קָמִיתְמְנוּ?! וְהָתְנַן: נִמְנִין, וּמוֹשְׁכִין יְדֵיהֶן מִמֶּנּוּ, עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁחֵט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that according to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches: Once** the **first** of the children **has entered** with **his head and the majority of his** body into Jerusalem, **he has acquired his portion and acquires** the portions of **his brothers** together **with him** on their behalf. **Granted, if you say that** the father **registered them initially,** before slaughtering the Paschal offering, the ruling is **well** understood. **But if you say that he did not register them** initially, **can they** then **be registered after the slaughter** of the Paschal offering? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 89a): People may **be registered and withdraw themselves from** being registered for a Paschal offering **until it is slaughtered,** but not after? Clearly, then, the children must have already been registered before the father said his statement.


###### Gittin 25a:11
[Gittin 25a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:11)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מַעֲשֶׂה, וְקָדְמוּ בָּנוֹת לַבָּנִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּנוֹת זְרִיזוֹת וּבָנִים שְׁפָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That** the competition was meant only to galvanize his children to be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot **is also taught** in a *baraita* that records this type of competition: There was **an incident** such as this, **and the daughters preceded the sons. And the daughters were found** to have demonstrated that they were **enthusiastic,** whereas **the sons** were found to have demonstrated that they were **lazy.** The *baraita* is critical of the sons but does not say that they did not partake of the Paschal offering. Evidently the father slaughtered the offering for them as well.


###### Gittin 25a:12
[Gittin 25a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:12)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: קָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת אֲחֵרִים, וְקָא פָשֵׁיט לֵיהּ תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ, וַהֲדַר מוֹתֵיב לֵיהּ תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת אֲחֵרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Questioning Rav Yehuda’s original answer to Rav Hoshaya, **Abaye said:** He **asks him** about a case where one **makes** the clarification **dependent on the decision of others, but he resolves it** based on a case where the husband **makes** the clarification **dependent on his own decision.** Rav Hoshaya asked about a bill of divorce written for whichever wife exits first, which depends on someone other than the husband, and Rav Yehuda resolved the question based on the mishna where the husband reserved the right to decide which wife he will divorce with the bill of divorce, which depends on his own decision. **And then** Rav Hoshaya **raised an objection to him** based on the mishna concerning the Paschal offering, where **one makes** the clarification **dependent on the decision of others.**


###### Gittin 25a:13
[Gittin 25a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא, דְּמַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה – לָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ וְלָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת אֲחֵרִים, אִית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה, וּמַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה – לָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ וְלָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת אֲחֵרִים, לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: What is the difficulty** here? **Perhaps** it is so **that** for the **one who accepts** the principle of retroactive **clarification,** it **is no different** if one **makes it dependent on his own decision, and** it **is no different** if one **makes it dependent on the decision of others.** In either case, **he accepts** the principle of retroactive **clarification. And** according to the **one who does not accept** the principle of retroactive **clarification,** it **is no different** if one **makes it dependent on his own decision, and** it **is no different** if one **makes it dependent on the decision of others.** In either case, **he does not accept** the principle of retroactive **clarification.**


###### Gittin 25a:14
[Gittin 25a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה, וְתוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת אֲחֵרִים אִית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava:** The issue of retroactive clarification is contingent upon the question of on whom the outcome is dependent. **But** isn’t there the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who in a case **where** one **makes it dependent on his own decision, he does not accept** the principle of retroactive **clarification, but** when one **makes it dependent on the decision of others, he accepts** the principle of retroactive **clarification?**


###### Gittin 25a:15
[Gittin 25a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/25a:15)

תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה – דְּתַנְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים, אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ – הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה; עֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן; תִּשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: When one **makes it dependent on his own decision,** Rabbi Yehuda **does not accept** the principle of retroactive **clarification, as it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Demai* 8:7): In the case of **one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans,** about whom it is assumed that they did not separate *teruma* and tithes, and he is not in a position to now separate *teruma*, he acts as follows: If there are, for example, one hundred *log* of wine in the barrels, he **says: Two *log* that I will separate in the future are *teruma*,** as the mandated average measure of *teruma* is one-fiftieth; **ten** *log* are **first tithe;** and one-tenth of the remainder, which is approximately **nine** *log*, are **second tithe.**