Gittin 172

Chapter 172

א ודוקא כתב ידו ועד אבל כתב סופר ועד לא
1 [Rab tells us that in this case the child is legitimate only] if [the Get is] written with his own hand, but if the scribe has written it and there is only one witness, the child is not [legitimate]. Samuel, however, said that even if the scribe had written it and there was [the signature of only] one witness, [the child is] legitimate, since we have learnt, If the scribe wrote and there was the signature of a witness, the Get is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 66b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ושמואל אמר אפי' כתב סופר ועד שהרי שנינו כתב סופר ועד כשר
2 And Rab? — [He might rejoin:] Is there any comparison? There her marriage is permitted in the first instance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so we suppose that the scribe not only wrote but also signed. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ורב מי דמי התם תינשא לכתחילה הכא דיעבד
3 but here only retrospectively.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he wrote himself, and therefore if the scribe wrote without signing, the child is not legitimate. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד ושמואל לא קשיא הא בספרא דמובהק והא בספרא דלא מובהק
4 And Samuel? — [He can rejoin:] There is no difficulty;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if we assume in each case that the scribe wrote without signing. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה וכן אמר ר' יוחנן (כתב ידו שנינו) אמר ליה רבי אלעזר הרי יש עליו עדים אמר ליה אסיפא
5 there we assume that the scribe is fully competent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And knows that he is not to write save on definite instruction from the husband. V. supra. 71b-72a. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו זימנין אמר רב תצא זימנין אמר רב לא תצא
6 here that he is not so competent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he might have written on the instruction of a third party, in which case the Get is invalid. V. supra ibid. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז הא כיצד יש לה בנים לא תצא אין לה בנים תצא
7 So too R. Johanan said: The Mishnah definitely stated, WITH HIS OWN HAND. Said R. Eleazar to him, But it is attested by the signature of witnesses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar thought he referred to the middle clause. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח מתיב מר זוטרא בר טוביה וכולן שהיו בהן ספק קידושין או ספק גירושין הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתיבמות
8 — He replied: [I refer] to the last clause.
ט כיצד ספק קידושין זרק לה קידושין ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו זהו ספק קידושין
9 Rab sometimes ruled [in such cases] that [the woman] should leave [the second husband] and sometimes that she need not leave him. How was this? If she had children [he ruled that] she need not leave,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as not to cast a slur on the children. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י ספק גירושין כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים יש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד הרי זה ספק גירושין
10 if she had no children she must leave. Mar Zutra b. Tobia raised an objection [from the following]: 'If any of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Women within the fifteen forbidden degrees of consanguinity to the deceased husband's brother, v. Yeb. 30b and supra p. 383. n. 5. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא ואי אמרת לא תצא צרתה אתיא ליבומי
11 had been doubtfully betrothed or doubtfully divorced, they must give <i>halizah</i> but cannot marry the brother-in-law'. What is meant by 'doubtfully' betrothed? If, for instance, he had thrown to her the betrothal token, and it was doubtful whether it landed nearer to him or nearer to her, this is a doubtful betrothal. A doubtful divorce is where he wrote [the Get] with his own hand but it was not attested with the signature of witnesses, or if it was attested but had no date, or if it had a date but the signature of only one witness; this is a doubtful divorce. Now if you say that [a woman so divorced] should not leave [her second husband],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the divorce is regarded as valid. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב תתיבם ואין בכך כלום חששא דרבנן היא
12 then her co-wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the co-wife of one of those women of forbidden degrees of consanguinity who was divorced with such a Get. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג לוי אמר לעולם לא תצא וכן אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם לא תצא
13 on the strength of such a one might come to marry the brother-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she is no longer regarded as a co-wife of a woman forbidden to the brother-in-law. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד וכן אמר להו ר' יוחנן לבני ר' חלפתא דמן הונא הכי אמר אבוכון לעולם לא תצא וקרצית שבעמיר אינה פוסלת במי חטאת
14 — [He replied]: Let her marry him; it is of no consequence, since the only danger is of breaking a rule of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Biblically the Get is valid, ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו מאי קרצית אמר אביי דידבתא דביני כיפי
15 Levi said: In neither case need she leave [the second husband]. So too said R. Johanan: In neither case need she leave the second husband. So too R. Johanan said to the sons of R. Halafta of Huna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with var. lec. Haifa.] ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טז מתיב רב דניאל בר רב קטינא כל העופות פוסלין במי חטאת חוץ מן היונה מפני שמוצצת ואם איתא ניתני חוץ מיונה וקרצית
16 Thus said your father, In neither case need she leave, and the karzith in the stacked corn does not spoil the water of purification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By drinking from it; v. Num. XIX. For explanation, v. infra. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יז לא פסיקא ליה דגדולה לא פסלה וקטנה פסלה ועד כמה אמר ר' ירמיה ואיתימא ר' אמי עד כזית:
17 What is a karzith? — Abaye explained: The large fly found among the stacks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Rashi. It is not clear what species of insect is referred to; v. Lewysohn, Zoologie p. 315.] ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יח ר' אלעזר אומר אף על פי וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כר' אלעזר בגיטין כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר אף בשטרות
18 R. Daniel the son of R. Kattina raised an objection against this [from the following]: 'All birds spoil the water of purification [by drinking of it] except the pigeon, because it swallows the water completely.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas others let some drip back from their beaks, and so spoil the water. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יט ורב סבר בשטרות לא הא קתני וגובה מנכסים משועבדים
19 Now if what has been said is correct, it should say, 'except the pigeon and the karzith?' — The authority could not speak definitely, as the big one does not spoil but the small one does spoil. Up to what size [is it reckoned small]? — R. Jeremiah (or it may have been R. Ammi) said, Up to the size of an olive.
כ רבי אלעזר תרתי אמר ורב סבר כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא
20 R. ELEAZAR SAYS THAT EVEN THOUGH etc. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the witnesses to delivery render them effective. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כא וכן אמר ר' יעקב בר אידי אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי הלכה כר' אלעזר בגיטין ורבי ינאי אמר אפילו ריח הגט אין בו
21 When [he continued] I stated this in the presence of Samuel, he said, In the matter of [commercial] documents also. Rab however, said, Not in the matter of documents. But it is stated [in the Mishnah]: SHE MAY RECOVER HER <i>KETHUBAH</i> FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would seem to show that the rule applies to commercial documents also. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
כב ורבי ינאי לית ליה דר' אלעזר הכי קאמר לרבנן אפילו ריח הגט אין בו
22 — R. Eleazar gave two rulings. and Rab concurred with him in one but differed from him in regard to the other. So too R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in bills of divorce. R. Jannai, however, said that such a document has not even a tincture of a Get in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not disqualify the woman from marrying a priest on her husband's death, much less does it enable her to marry again. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
כג וכן אמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא אמר ריש לקיש הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו ריח הגט אין בו
23 Does not R. Jannai accept the ruling of R. Eleazar? — What he meant was, According to the Rabbis, such a document has not even a tincture of a Get. So too R. Jose son of R. Haninah said in the name of Resh Lakish: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. R. Johanan, however, said that such a document has not even a tincture of a Get. Are we to say that R. Johanan does not accept the ruling of R. Eleazar? — What he meant was, According to the Rabbis such a document has not even the tincture of a Get.
כד לימא ר' יוחנן לית ליה דר' אלעזר הכי קאמר לרבנן אפילו ריח הגט אין בו
24 R. Abba b. Zabda sent to Mari b. Mar saying, Inquire of R. Huna whether the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce or not. Before he could do so, R. Huna died, but Rabbah his son said to him, Thus said my father in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. Moreover our teachers who are well versed in the <i>halachah</i> said in the name of our Master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
כה שלח ליה ר' אבא בר זבדא למרי בר מר בעי מיניה מרב הונא הלכה כר' אלעזר בגיטין או אין הלכה
25 The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce, since R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rab, The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. According to another version: And our Colleagues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda being one of them. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
כו אדהכי נח נפשיה דרב הונא אמר ליה רבה בריה הכי אמר אבא משמיה דרבא הלכה כר' אלעזר בגיטין ורבותינו הבקיאין בדבר הלכה משום רבינו אמרו הלכה כר' אלעזר בגיטין דאמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלכה כר' אלעזר בגיטין
26 that are well versed in the <i>halachah</i> and the disciples of our Teacher [Rab] said that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. For R. Hisda said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria in the name of Rab that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. So too when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said, R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Amora of that name. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
כז איכא דאמרי וחברינו הבקיאין בדבר הלכה ותלמידי רבינו משום רבינו אמרו הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין דאמר רב חסדא אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין
27 says that the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce.
כח וכן כי אתא רבין אמר ר' אלעזר אמר רב הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין:
28 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF TWO MEN SENT [TO THEIR WIVES] TWO BILLS OF DIVORCE WITH THE SAME NAMES AND THEY BECAME MIXED UP [THE BEARER] MUST GIVE BOTH OF THEM TO EACH OF THE WOMEN. CONSEQUENTLY, IF ONE OF THEM WAS LOST THE OTHER BECOMES VOID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we do not know for which it was meant. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
כט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שנים ששלחו שני גיטין שוין ונתערבו נותן שניהם לזו ושניהם לזו לפיכך אבד אחד מהן הרי השני בטל
29 IF FIVE MEN WROTE JOINTLY IN THE SAME DOCUMENT, SO-AND-SO DIVORCES SO-AND-SO AND SO-AND-SO SO-AND-SO, AND IF THE WITNESSES DULY SIGNED BELOW, ALL ARE VALID AND THE GET IS TO BE GIVEN TO EACH OF THE WOMEN. IF THE SCRIBE WROTE OUT THE FORMULA<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G], V. infra in the Gemara. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
ל חמשה שכתבו כלל בתוך הגט איש פלוני מגרש פלונית ופלוני פלונית והעדים מלמטה כולן כשרין וינתן לכל אחת ואחת
30 FOR EACH ONE AND THE WITNESSES SIGNED BELOW, THE ONE TO WHICH THE SIGNATURES ARE ATTACHED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with which the witnesses are read'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
לא היה כותב טופס לכל אחד ואחד והעדים מלמטה את שהעדים ניקרין עמו כשר:
31 IS [ALONE] VALID.
לב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאן תנא אמר ר' ירמיה דלא כר' אלעזר דאי ר' אלעזר כיון דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי הא לא ידעי בהי מינייהו קא מגרשה
32 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is the authority [for this rule]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the matter may be rectified by giving both documents to each woman. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
לג אביי אמר אפי' תימא ר' אלעזר אימא דבעי ר' אלעזר כתיבה לשמה נתינה לשמה מי בעי:
33 — R. Jeremiah said: It is not R. Eleazar. For if we were to follow R. Eleazar, since he holds that it is the witnesses to delivery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the delivery by the bearer to the woman. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
לד חמשה שכתבו כלל כו': היכי דמי כלל היכי דמי טופס
34 that make [the Get] effective, [they could not do so in this case] since they do not know with which [Get] either of the women is divorced. Abaye said: It is possible to ascribe this ruling to R. Eleazar also, since I may say, Granting that R. Eleazar requires the Get to be written in the name of that particular woman, does he also require it to be given in the name of that particular woman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Once the Get has been written in the name of the woman there is no need for such a special intention to accompany the delivery of the Get.] ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
לה אמר רבי יוחנן זמן אחד לכולן זהו כלל זמן לכל אחד ואחד זהו טופס
35 IF FIVE WROTE JOINTLY etc, What is meant by JOINTLY and what is meant by FORMULA? — R. Johanan said: If there is one date for all it is a 'joint' [Get], if there is a separate date for each it is a formula [Get]. Resh Lakish, however, said
לו וריש לקיש אמר
36 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter