Commentary for Gittin 19:10

וכי תימא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא ודאחזוק בהא ולא אחזוק בהא אי הכי מאי איריא חד אפילו תרי נמי אלמה אמר רבי אלעזר לא הכשירו בו אלא עד אחד כותי בלבד

R. Eleazar forbids [the eating of such bread], because [the Samaritans] are not familiar with the minutiae of the precepts. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that in all the precepts which the Cutheans do observe they are much more particular than the Jews themselves.' Whom now does our Mishnah follow? Shall I say the first Tanna? In that case other documents also should be valid [if attested by a Cuthean]. Shall I say R. Eleazar? In that case a writ of divorce should also be invalid. Shall I say Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? In that case, if they observe [the regulations of documents], then other documents attested by them should also be valid, and if they do not observe [these regulations], then even a writ of divorce attested by them should not he valid. And should you reply that in fact Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is the authority and that our Mishnah holds that the Cutheans observe the regulations concerning writs of divorce and emancipation but not concerning other documents — in that case why [does the Mishnah] speak of one [Cuthean witness only]? [The Get should be equally valid] even if there were two;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if both witnesses were Samaritan and neither an Israelite. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Gittin 19:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.