Gittin 142

והתנן שני אחין חרשין נשואין שתי אחיות פיקחות או שתי אחיות חרשות או שתי אחיות אחת פיקחת ואחת חרשת וכן שתי אחיות חרשות נשואות לשני אחין פיקחין או לשני אחין חרשין או לשני אחין אחד פיקח ואחד חרש הרי אלו פטורות מן החליצה ומן היבום

Have we not learnt, 'If two brothers, deaf-mutes, were married to two sisters who were not deaf-mutes or to two sisters who were deaf-mutes or to two sisters one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other not, and similarly if two sisters who were deaf-mutes were married to two brothers who were not deaf-mutes or to two brothers who were deaf-mutes or to two brothers one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other not, these sisters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of any of the brothers who died without issue. ');">¹</span>

ואם היו נכריות יכנסו ואם רצו להוציאן יוציאו

are free from the obligation of <i>halizah</i> or levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, although the marriage was contracted at least on one side by gesture only, it is sufficiently valid to release the wife's sister from the obligation of giving halizah to or to bar her from marrying the husband, v. Yeb. I, 1. ');">²</span>

אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא

If however, the women were not related to one another, they must contract the marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being able to give halizah because either he or she cannot recite the requisite formula. ');">³</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן חלוקין עליו חביריו על רשב"ג

and if [the second husband] desires to put her away<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after having Performed the levir marriage. ');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא נישטת לא יוציא נתחרש הוא או נשתטה לא יוציא עולמית מאי עולמית לאו אע"ג דיכול לדבר מתוך הכתב

he may do so'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yeb. 110b. Which shows that we do not forbid a deaf-mute to divorce the wife of his deceased brother who was also a deaf-mute. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב פפא אי לאו דאשמועינן ר' יוחנן הוה אמינא רשב"ג לפרושי טעמא דת"ק הוא דאתא ומאי עולמית אע"ג דחזינא ליה דחריף

— The truth is that the first answer is the best.

אי נמי לכדרבי יצחק דא"ר יצחק דבר תורה שוטה מתגרשת מידי דהוה אפיקחת בעל כרחה

R. Johanan said: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's colleagues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The representatives of the anonymous view mentioned in the Baraitha cited supra p. 338. ');">⁶</span>

ומה טעם אמרו אינה מתגרשת שלא ינהגו בה מנהג הפקר:

differed from him. Abaye said: We have also learnt to the same effect:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view of the Rabbis which R. Simeon opposes. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמרו לו נכתוב גט לאשתך ואמר להן כתובו אמרו לסופר וכתב ולעדים וחתמו אע"פ שכתבוהו וחתמוהו ונתנוהו לו וחזר ונתנו לה הרי הגט בטל עד שיאמר לסופר כתוב ולעדים חתומו:

If the wife became insane, he cannot put her away. If he became deaf and dumb or insane, he can never put her away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 110b. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דלא אמר תנו הא אמר תנו נותנין מני ר"מ היא דאמר מילי מימסרן לשליח

What is meant by never'? Surely it means, even if he can signify his intention in writing? — R. Papa said: But for the statement of R. Johanan, I would have said that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel intended only to explain the statement of the previous Tanna, and that 'never' means, 'even though we see that he is intelligent'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not, 'even though he can write', so that this Mishnah would not differ from R. Simeon. ');">⁹</span>

אימא סיפא עד שיאמר לסופר כתוב ולעדים חתומו אתאן לר' יוסי דאמר מילי לא מימסרן לשליח

Or, I might have said, the word 'never' indicates the lesson taught by R. Isaac. For R. Isaac said: According to the rule of the [written] Torah, an insane wife can be divorced, being on the same footing as a sound woman who is divorced without her own consent. Why then did the Rabbis lay down that she should not be divorced? In order that she should not be used for immoral purposes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The insertion of the word 'never' in the second clause is not intended to exclude the deaf-mute's divorce by writing, but is meant to indicate that the rule regarding the husband has the sanction of the Torah, whereas the one regarding the wife mentioned in the first clause has the sanction only of the Rabbis. ');">¹⁰</span>

רישא ר"מ וסיפא רבי יוסי אין רישא ר"מ וסיפא רבי יוסי

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THEY SAID TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE, AND HE SAID TO THEM, WRITE, AND IF THEY THEN TOLD A SCRIBE AND HE WROTE AND WITNESSES AND THEY SIGNED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN AND SIGNED IT AND GIVEN IT TO HIM AND HE IN TURN HAS GIVEN IT TO HER, THE GET IS VOID UNLESS HE HIMSELF HAS SAID TO THE SCRIBE 'WRITE' AND TO THE WITNESSES, 'SIGN'.

אביי אמר כולה רבי מאיר היא והכא במאי עסקינן דלא אמר תנו אי הכי עד שיאמר תנו מיבעי ליה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The reason [why it is invalid] is because he did not say 'give' [instead of 'write'].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Rashi a.l. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן דלא אמר לבי תלתא א"ה עד שיאמר לשלשה מיבעי ליה

We presume, therefore, that if he said 'give' they [may tell others to write and] give.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, if there were three of them, in which case the word 'give' constitutes them a Beth din to write and deliver the Get. ');">¹²</span>

אלא כולה רבי יוסי היא והכא במאי עסקינן דלא אמר אמרו

Whose view is this? R. Meir's, who said that verbal instructions can be entrusted to an agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the agent is at liberty to instruct someone else to carry out the instructions which were given to him, v. supra 29b. ');">¹³</span>

אי הכי עד שיאמר אמרו מיבעי ליה

Read now the later clause: UNLESS HE HAS SAID TO THE SCRIBE, 'WRITE' AND TO THE WITNESSES 'SIGN'. This brings us round to the view of R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be entrusted to an agent. Are we to say then that the first clause follows R. Meir and the second R. Jose? — Yes; the first follows R. Meir and the second R. Jose. Abaye, however, said: The whole follows R. Meir, and we are dealing here [in the last clause] with the case where he did not say 'give'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in such a case the Get is invalid unless he tells the scribe etc. ');">¹⁴</span>

ועוד מי מודה רבי יוסי באומר אמרו והתנן כתב סופר ועד כשר ואמר רבי ירמיה חתם סופר שנינו ואמר רב חסדא מתני' מני

If that is the case, it should say, 'he must say, Give'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'write'. And there is no need to mention the case of his telling the scribe personally. ');">¹⁵</span> — In fact the case here is one in which he did not tell three persons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he told only two, even if he used the word 'give', they would not be at liberty to tell a scribe. ');">¹⁶</span> If that is the case, it should say, 'He must tell three'? — Hence the whole follows R. Jose, and the case here is one in which he did not say, 'Tell'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., tell the scribe to write etc. ');">¹⁷</span> If that is the case, it should say, 'He must say, Tell'? And besides, does R. Jose admit that the Get is valid where he says 'tell'? Have We not learnt: 'If a scribe wrote and a witness signed, it is valid', and R. Jeremiah explained that what is meant is that the scribe [also] signed, and R. Hisda said, Whom does this Mishnah follow?