Gittin 18

Chapter 18

א העולים בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים אע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשירין חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים וכדברי ר"מ בארבעה האומר תן גט זה לאשתי ושטר שחרור זה לעבדי רצה לחזור בשניהם יחזור דברי ר"מ
1 entered in heathen courts, even if the signatures in them are those of heathens, are valid, except writs of divorce and of emancipation. According to R. Meir there are four points [the fourth being this]: If a man says, Give this Get to my wife and this writ of emancipation to my slave, he is at liberty, if he wishes, to retract from both. So says R. Meir'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 11b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב בשלמא לרבנן מנינא למעוטי הא דרבי מאיר אלא לר' מאיר מנינא למעוטי מאי
2 We can understand the Rabbis [specifying the number] three, [because they desired] to except the point stated by R. Meir. But what did R. Meir desire to except by specifying the number [four]? — [He desired] to except the following case which has been taught: If the witnesses are not able to sign their names, we make dents on the sheet and they fill them in with ink. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: This applies only to writs of divorce. With writs of emancipation and all other documents, if the witnesses are able to read and to sign their names, they sign, and if not, they do not sign. How does 'reading' come in here? — There is something omitted, and the passage should run thus: 'If the witnesses cannot read, the document is read to them and they then sign, and if they are unable to sign, dents are made for them.'
ג למעוטי הא דתניא עדים שאין יודעים לחתום מקרעין להם נייר חלק וממלאים את הקרעים דיו
3 Are there no more points [of resemblance]? Is there not [for example this one]: 'If a man says, Give this Get to my wife and this writ of emancipation to my slave and he dies [before they were given], they should not be given after his death. If, however, he said, Give a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, it should be given after his death'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 13a. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד אמר רשב"ג במה דברים אמורים בגיטי נשים אבל שחרורי עבדים ושאר כל השטרות אם יודעין לקרות ולחתום חותמין ואם לאו אין חותמין
4 — [The passage above was] dealing only with points which do not apply to documents in general,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the points of resemblance are limited to writs of divorce or emancipation. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה קרייה מאן דכר שמיה חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני עדים שאין יודעין לקרות קורין לפניהם וחותמין ושאין יודעין לחתום מקרעין להם:
5 not with such as apply to all documents. [And this is such a point;] for Rabin sent [the following message] in the name of R. Abbahu: 'Be it known to you that R. Eleazar sent to the Diaspora<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Heb. Golah denoting, at that time, Nehardea; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 571, n. 7.] ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו ותו ליכא והאיכא האומר תנו גט זה לאשתי ושטר שחרור זה לעבדי ומת לא יתנו לאחר מיתה תנו מנה לפלוני ומת יתנו לאחר מיתה
6 in the name of Our Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז כי קתני מילתא דליתיה בשטרות מילתא דאיתיה בשטרות לא קתני
7 the following instruction: If a dying man said, Write down and give a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, and then died, his words are not committed to writing nor is the gift made, since perhaps he intended only to make the gift through the instrumentality of the document, and a document does not confer possession after the death [of the author].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 152a. Just as in the case of writs of divorce and emancipation. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח דשלח רבין משמיה דר' אבהו הוו יודעין ששלח ר"א לגולה משום רבינו שכיב מרע שאמר כתבו ותנו מנה לפלוני ומת אין כותבין ונותנין
8 But is there not the point of 'special intention' [in which writs of divorce and of emancipation are on a par]? For Rabbah, indeed, this raises no difficulty, since it is identical with the point of bringing to and from [Eretz Israel],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to Rabbah the declaration was required only because of the general ignorance of the rule regarding 'special intention'. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט שמא לא גמר להקנותו אלא בשטר ואין שטר לאחר מיתה
9 but for Raba it does raise a difficulty. And again, whether we accept Rabbah's view or Raba's, there is the law of mehubar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'attached (to the soil)', viz., that both the writ of emancipation and the writ of divorce must be written on something not attached to the soil. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י והאיכא לשמה
10 — [The passage above] reckoned only the flaws laid down by the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The requirement of the declaration 'in my presence it was written etc.' is Rabbinical and so is the disqualification of a Samaritan for evidence purposes in case of other documents likewise only Rabbinical.] ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא בשלמא לרבה היינו מוליך ומביא אלא לרבא קשיא
11 [on their own authority], not those deriving from the Torah. But [the fact of originating in] a Gentile court is a flaw [in the Get] according to the Torah, and yet this point is also reckoned above? — [We are dealing there with the case where there are] witnesses to the delivery [of the document], and the passage follows the opinion of R. Eleazar, who said that it is the witnesses to the delivery [of the Get] who really make it effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who cut asunder'. And therefore the fact of its originating in a heathen court is a flaw only according to the Rabbis and, not the Torah. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב ותו בין לרבה בין לרבא האיכא מחובר כי קתני פסולא דרבנן דאורייתא לא קתני
12 [Is that so?] It says later in the passage:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah dealing with documents drawn up in heathen courts, infra 10b. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג והא ערכאות של עובדי כוכבים דפסולא דאורייתא הוא וקתני בעדי מסירה וכרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי
13 R. Simeon says that these also [writs of divorce signed by non-Jews] are valid; and [commenting on this] R. Zera said that R. Simeon was here following the view of R. Eleazar, who said that the witnesses to the delivery [of the Get] make it effective; from which we gather that the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that Mishnah who says that these are not valid. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד והא מדקתני סיפא ר' שמעון אומר אף אלו כשירין וא"ר זירא ירד רבי שמעון לשיטתו של ר"א דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי מכלל דתנא קמא סבר לא
14 was not [of this opinion]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the witnesses to delivery make the Get effective, and therefore a non-Jewish signature is a flaw according to the Torah. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>