Gittin 171

Chapter 171

א לאפוקי מדבעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן דאמר היום אי את אשתי ולמחר את אשתי:
1 are to rule out the formula about which Raba questioned R. Nahman, viz., if he said, 'To-day you are not my wife but to-morrow you will be my wife'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 83b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב גופו של גט שחרור הרי את בת חורין הרי את לעצמך: אתקין רב יהודה בשטר זביני דעבדי עבדא דנן מוצדק לעבדו ופטיר ועטיר מן חרורי ומן עלולי ומן ערורי מלכא ומלכתא ורשום דאיניש לא אית עלוהי ומנוק' מכל מום ומן שחין דנפיק עד טצהר חדת ועתיק
2 THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF. Rab Judah laid down the following formula for the deed of sale of a slave: 'This slave is legally adjudicated to bondage, and is absolved and dissociated from all freedom and claims and demands of the King and the Queen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an offender against the law, v. B.M. 80a. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג מאי אסותיה אמר אביי גינברא ומרתכא וכבריתא וחלא דחמרא ומשחא דזיתא ונטפיק חיורא ושייפי ליה בגדפא דאווזא:
3 and there is no mark of any [other] man upon him, and he is clear of all blemishes and from any boil that may come out within two years,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi; others; four years. Jastrow, however, translates 'any boil, even up to a white spot'. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שלשה גיטין פסולין ואם נשאת הוולד כשר
4 whether new or old.' What is the remedy for such a boil? — Abaye said: [A mixture of] ginger and silver dross and sulphur and vinegar of wine and olive oil and white naphtha laid on with a goose's quill.
ה כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים יש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד הרי אלו שלשה גיטין פסולין ואם נשאת הולד כשר
5 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE FOLLOWING THREE BILLS OF DIVORCE ARE INVALID BUT IF A WOMAN MARRIES ON THE STRENGTH OF THEM THE CHILD [BORN OF SUCH MARRIAGE] IS LEGITIMATE: [ONE.] IF THE HUSBAND WROTE IT WITH HIS OWN HAND BUT IT WAS ATTESTED BY NO WITNESSES; [A SECOND]. IF THERE ARE WITNESSES TO IT BUT NO DATE; [A THIRD,] IF IT HAS A DATE BUT THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE WITNESS. THESE THREE BILLS OF DIVORCE ARE INVALID, BUT IF SHE MARRIES THE CHILD IS LEGITIMATE. R. ELEAZAR, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT ATTESTED BY WITNESSES AT ALL, SO LONG AS HE GAVE IT TO HER IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES IT IS VALID,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar holding that the witnesses to delivery make the Get effective. V. supra 17b. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו רבי אליעזר אומר אע"פ שאין עליו עדים אלא שנתנו לה בפני עדים כשר וגובה מנכסים משועבדים שאין העדים חותמים על הגט אלא מפני תיקון העולם:
6 AND ON THE STRENGTH OF IT SHE MAY RECOVER HER <i>KETHUBAH</i> FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY, SINCE SIGNATURES OF WITNESSES ARE REQUIRED ON THE GET ONLY AS A SAFEGUARD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for the good order of the world', In case the witnesses die and the husband challenges the validity of the Get. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ותו ליכא והא איכא גט ישן התם לא תצא הכא תצא
7 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Are these all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bills of divorce which are invalid without however rendering the offspring of the subsequent marriage illegitimate. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח הניחא למ"ד הכא תצא אלא למ"ד הכא לא תצא מאי איכא למימר
8 Is there not also the 'old' Get?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 79b. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט התם תינשא לכתחלה הכא דיעבד
9 — With an 'old' Get she need not part [from her second husband], with one of these she must. This is a good answer for one who holds that with one of these she must part, but to one who holds that she need not part,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion infra. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י והא איכא גט קרח התם הוולד ממזר הכא הולד כשר
10 what can we reply? — With an 'old' Get her marriage is permitted in the first instance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא הניחא לרבי מאיר (דאמר כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין הולד ממזר) אלא לרבנן מאי איכא למימר
11 with one of these only retrospectively. But there is a 'bald' Get?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 81b. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב התם תצא הכא לא תצא
12 — With such a Get the child born is a bastard, but here the child is legitimate. This answer is satisfactory if we adopt the view of R. Meir, (who said that wherever any alteration is made in the form prescribed by the Sages for bills of divorce, the child is a bastard).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words in brackets are omitted in some texts, but they seem to be requisite for the argument. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג הניחא למ"ד הכא לא תצא אלא למ"ד הכא תצא מאי איכא למימר במקושר לא קא מיירי
13 but if we accept the view of the Rabbis what reply can be made? — With a 'bald' Get she must part [from the second husband], here she need not. This is a satisfactory answer if we accept the view that here she need not part, but if we adopt the view that here also she must part, what reply can be given? — The Mishnah is not dealing with a folded Get.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 81b. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד והא איכא שלום מלכות התם תצא הכא לא תצא
14 But there is the Get with an improper reign inserted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the rule regarding the peace of the government'. V. supra 79b. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו הניחא למ"ד הכא לא תצא אלא למ"ד תצא מאי איכא למימר (התם הולד ממזר הכא הולד כשר
15 — There she must leave the husband, here she need not leave him. This is a good enough reason for one who holds that here she need not part, but to one who holds that she must part what answer can be made? — (There the child is a bastard, here the child is legitimate. This accords well enough with the view of R. Meir, but if we adopt the view of the Rabbis what can be said?).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words in brackets are omitted in some texts, and appear to be superfluous. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טז הניחא לר' מאיר אלא לרבנן מאי איכא למימר) מוקים לה כדרבי מאיר והתם הולד ממזר הכא הולד כשר
16 — We must suppose that the Mishnah follows R. Meir, so that there the child is a bastard but here it is legitimate.
יז מנינא דרישא למעוטי מאי ומנינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי
17 [Which kinds of Get] are excluded by the specific number mentioned at the beginning of the ruling, and which by the specific number mentioned at the end? — The first number excludes those we have mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah adopting the view of R. Meir that in these cases the child is a bastard. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יח מנינא דרישא למעוטי הני דאמרן
18 The second number excludes the one regarding which it has been taught: 'If a man brings a Get from abroad and gives it to the wife without saying, In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'. [the second husband] must put her away and the child is a bastard. This is the opinion of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah here too adopting the view of R. Meir. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יט מנינא דסיפא למעוטי הא דתניא המביא גט ממדינת הים נתנו לה ולא אמר (לה) בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם יוציא והולד ממזר דברי רבי מאיר
19 The Sages, however, say that the child is not a bastard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the Get is up to this point ineffective. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כ וחכ"א אין הולד ממזר כיצד יעשה יטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה בפני שנים ויאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם:
20 What should the man do? He should take it from her and give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and say, In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. 5b. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כא כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים: אמר רב כתב ידו שנינו
21 IF THE HUSBAND WROTE WITH HIS OWN HAND BUT IT WAS ATTESTED BY NO WITNESSES. Rab said: It is definitely stated here, WITH HIS OWN HAND. To what [was Rab referring]? Shall I say to the first clause of the ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the case where there are no witnesses. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
כב אהייא אילימא ארישא פשיטא כתב ידו קתני
22 Then what has he told us? It says distinctly, WITH HIS OWN HAND? [Shall I say] to the middle clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is no date. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
כג ואלא אמצעיתא הרי יש עליו עדים אלא אסיפא יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד
23 [In this case it can hardly matter],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether he wrote it with his own hand or not. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> since it is attested by witnesses? — He must refer then to the last clause, IF IT HAS A DATE BUT THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE WITNESS.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter