Gittin 127

או אחד מן הראשונים ואחד מן האחרונים ואחד מצטרף עמהן:

OR IF THERE WAS ONE MAN IN THE FIRST SET AND ONE IN THE SECOND AND THE SAME MAN JOINED WITH BOTH OF THEM.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר בעל אומר לפקדון ושליש אומר לגירושין מי נאמן רב הונא אמר בעל נאמן ורב חסדא אמר שליש נאמן

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been stated: If the husband says, [I gave you the Get] in deposit, and the depository says, [You gave it to me] to divorce [your wife with], which is to be believed? — R. Huna said: The husband's word is to be taken. R. Hisda said: The depository's word is to be taken. R. Huna said the husband's word is to be taken, because if he had meant to give it to him for divorcing the wife, he would have given it to the wife herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We presume that they are all in the same town. ');">¹</span>

רב הונא אמר בעל נאמן דאם איתא דלגירושין יהביה ניהליה לדידה הוה יהיב לה ניהלה ורב חסדא אמר שליש נאמן דהא הימניה

R. Hisda said the depository's word is to be taken, because we see that the husband trusted him.

מתיב ר' אבא הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי ושליש נאמן משניהם כיצד זה אומר כך וזה אומר כך שליש נאמן

R. Abba raised an objection against R. Huna from the following: 'The admission of the litigant is equivalent to the testimony of a hundred witnesses, and the depository is more credible than either litigant. If, for instance, one says one thing and one another, the depository's word is to be taken'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 65b; B.M. 3b. ');">²</span>

שאני ממון דאיתיהיב למחילה

— Money is different, because the claim to it can be waived.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by trusting the depository, we maintain that the claimant waived his claim to the money, since if he likes he can make a present of the money to whomsoever be wishes, but he cannot make a present of his wife to another man. ');">³</span>

והא תניא וכן לגיטין גיטי ממון והתניא וכן לשטרות

But it is taught [in the passage cited], 'And so with gittin'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which usually means bills of divorce, ');">⁴</span>

מידי גבי הדדי תניא

— This refers to money gittin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. s.v. Get, ');">⁵</span>

תנן האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי צריכה שתי כיתי עדים שנים שיאמרו בפנינו אמרה ושנים שיאמרו בפנינו קבל וקרע ואמאי ליהמניה לשליש

But it is taught [in the passage cited]: 'And so with shetaroth'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another word for documents', Since these must refer to money, it would seem that the gittin mentioned above do not refer to money. ');">⁶</span>

מי קא נפיק גיטא מתותי ידיה דליהמניה

— Were they both taught together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are separate Baraithas and the two words are used by two different authorities, but in the same sense. ');">⁷</span>

תינח אמרה קיבל למה לי אמר רבה הא מני ר"א היא דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי

We have learnt: A WOMAN WHO SAYS [TO AN AGENT] 'RECEIVE MY GET FOR ME' REQUIRES TWO SETS OF WITNESSES, TWO TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE SHE TOLD HIM, AND TWO TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE HE RECEIVED AND TORE IT. Why so? Cannot we take the word of the depository?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the agent. ');">⁸</span>

קרע למה לי אמר רב יהודה א"ר בשעת הגזירה שנו

— Does he produce the Get that we should take his word?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having torn the Get (v. infra) he is no longer in a position to deliver it to her and therefore his word is not to be taken. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבה ומודה רב הונא דאי אמרה איהי לדידי אמר לי שליש דלגירושין יהביה ניהליה מהימנא מי איכא מידי דשליש גופיה לא מהימן ואיהי מהימנא

This explains why witnesses are required for the telling. Why are they required for the receiving?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that he himself produces the Get in our presence. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אי אמרה קמאי דידי לגרושין יהביה ניהליה מהימנא מיגו דאי בעיא אמרה לדידה יהביה ניהליה בעל

Rabbah replied: Who is the authority for this? R. Eleazar, who held that the witnesses to the delivery [of the Get] make it effective. Why must he tear it? — R. Judah answered in the name of Rab: This was taught in the time of the persecution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the decree', forbidding the Jews to practise their religion. [V. Keth. IX. Jew's were deprived of the right to draft their own legal documents after the War 70, and also during the Hadrianic persecutions. V. Blau, L. Ehescheidung, II pp. 58ff.] ');">¹¹</span>

בעל אמר לגירושין ושליש אומר לגירושין והיא אומרת נתן לי ואבד אמר רבי יוחנן הוה דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים

Rabbah said: R. Huna admits that if the wife says, The depository told me that he gave it to him to divorce with, her word is to be taken. [How can this be?] Is there any statement which we would not accept from the depository himself and yet we would accept from her on his behalf? — What it should be is: If she said, in my presence he gave it to him to divorce me with, her word is taken, because if she liked she could have said that he gave it to her direct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the rule is that we believe a plea where a stronger one could equally well have been adduced without fear of contradiction. ');">¹²</span>

ואמאי וליהימניה לשליש מי קא נפיק גיטא מתותי ידיה דלהימניה

If the husband says [that he gave it to the depository] to divorce with, and the depository says [it was given] to divorce with, and the wife says, He gave it to me but it has been lost, R. Johanan says: This is a statement bearing on forbidden relationships, and a statement bearing on a forbidden relationship must be substantiated by not less than two witnesses. But why so? Why not believe the depository? — Is he able to produce the Get that we should believe him? Then let us believe the husband, in accordance with what R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Johanan: If a husband says, I have divorced my wife, his word can be taken? — Does he here say, I have divorced her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He appointed an agent to hand it over to her. ');">¹³</span>

ולהימניה לבעל דאמר רב חייא בר אבין א"ר יוחנן בעל שאמר גירשתי את אשתי נאמן מי קאמר גירשתי

Then let us say that the presumption is that the agent carries out his commission, since R. Isaac has said: If a man says to his agent, Go and betroth for me any woman you please,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'unspecified'. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולימא חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו דאמר רבי יצחק האומר לשלוחו צא וקדש לי אשה סתם ומת שלוחו אסור בכל הנשים שבעולם חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו

and the agent dies, the man is forbidden to marry any woman in the world,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest she should be of a prohibited degree of consanguinity with the woman whom the agent betrothed, v. Nazir 12a. ');">¹⁵</span> because the presumption is that the agent carries out his commission?