Gittin 20

Chapter 20

א דאי לאו דכותי חבר הוה לא מחתים ליה מקמיה אי הכי אפילו שאר שטרות נמי
1 for we assume in that case that if the Cuthean were not a Haber,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. In which case R. Eleazar's objection does not apply. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אלא אמרינן רווחא שבק למאן דקשיש מיניה הכא נמי רווחא שבק למאן דקשיש מיניה
2 the Israelite would not let him sign before him. In that case, why are not other documents also valid? Consequently the truth is that we say, 'he left room for someone senior to himself.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Jew signed first below thinking that another Jew would sign above, but the lender got the signature of a Samaritan instead. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג א"ר פפא זאת אומרת עדי הגט אין חותמין זה בלא זה
3 But if that be so cannot we say here too that he left room for someone senior to himself? — Said R. Papa: This proves that the witnesses to a Get do not sign save in one another's presence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is impossible for us to say that the husband brought a Samaritan to sign without the knowledge of the Jewish witness. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד מאי טעמא אמר רב אשי גזירה משום כולכם
4 What is the reason for this? — R. Ashi says that it is to prevent any infringement of the rule concerning 'all of you'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if he said to ten persons, 'All of you write', one writes and all the rest sign in one another's presence, otherwise the Get is not valid; infra, 66b. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה גופא אמר רבי אלעזר לא הכשירו בו אלא עד אחד כותי בלבד מאי קמ"ל תנינא כל גט שיש עליו עד כותי פסול כו'
5 The text above [states]: 'R. Eleazar said [that a Get of this kind] has been declared valid only if there is not more than one Cuthean signature to it.' What does he teach us by this statement? Has not the Mishnah already told us that NO DOCUMENT ATTESTED BY THE SIGNATURE OF A SAMARITAN etc.? — If I had only the Mishnah to go by, I should say that even with two [Cuthean signatures the Get is valid], and that the reason why one [only is mentioned] is to show that other documents are rendered invalid even by one Samaritan signature; hence [R. Eleazar's statement] is necessary. But [is a Get] with two [Cuthean signatures] invalid? Does not the Mishnah say: IT IS RELATED THAT A WRIT OF DIVORCE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE RABBAN GAMALIEL [AT KEFAR 'UTHNAI] AND ITS WITNESSES WERE CUTHEANS, AND HE DECLARED IT VALID? — Abaye says: Read 'its witness Raba says: It is quite correct that there were two, and the fact is that Rabban Gamaliel differs [from the first authority], and there is an omission [in the Mishnah, which should] read as follows: 'Rabban Gamaliel declares [a Get] valid with two [Cuthean signatures], and it is actually related that a Get was brought before Rabban Gamaliel at Kefar 'Uthnai and its witnesses were Cutheans and he declared it valid.'
ו אי ממתניתין הוה אמינא אפי' תרי נמי והאי דקתני חד משום דבשטרות אפי' חד נמי לא קמ"ל
6 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ACCEPTED IN HEATHEN COURTS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], [G], 'office' 'registry'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז ותרי לא והא קתני מעשה והביאו לפני רבן גמליאל לכפר עותנאי גט אשה והיו עדיו עדי כותים והכשיר אמר אביי תני עדו
7 EVEN IF THEY THAT SIGNED THEM WERE GENTILES, ARE VALID [FOR JEWISH COURTS] EXCEPT WRITS OF DIVORCE AND OF EMANCIPATION. R. SIMEON SAYS: THESE ALSO ARE VALID; THEY WERE ONLY PRONOUNCED [TO BE INVALID] WHEN DRAWN UP BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS.
ח רבא אמר לעולם תרי ורבן גמליאל מיפלג פליג וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ורבן גמליאל מכשיר בשנים ומעשה נמי שהביאו לפני רבן גמליאל לכפר עותנאי גט אשה והיו עדיו עדי כותים והכשיר:
8 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [Our Mishnah] lays down a comprehensive rule in which no distinction is made between a sale and a gift. We can understand that the rule should apply to a sale, because the purchaser acquires the object of sale from the moment when he hands over the money in their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The non-Jewish judges'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל השטרות העולים בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים אע"פ שחותמיהם עובדי כוכבים כשירים חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים ר"ש אומר אף אלו כשירין לא הוזכרו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט:
9 presence, and the document is a mere corroboration; for if he did not hand over the money in their presence, they would not take the risk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'do injury to themselves (to their reputation)'. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> קא פסיק ותני לא שנא מכר ל"ש מתנה
10 of drawing up a document of sale for him. But with a gift [it is different]. Through what [does the recipient] obtain possession? Through this document, [is it not]? And this document is a mere piece of clay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assuming a deed originating in a non-Jewish court does not constitute an instrument of acquisition, why should the deed be deemed valid? ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יא בשלמא מכר מכי יהיב זוזי קמייהו הוא דקנה ושטרא ראיה בעלמא הוא דאי לא יהיב זוזי קמייהו לא הוו מרעי נפשייהו וכתבין ליה שטרא
11 — Said Samuel: The law of the Government is law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 222, n. 6. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב אלא מתנה במאי קא קני לאו בהאי שטרא והאי שטרא חספא בעלמא הוא אמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא
12 Or if you prefer, I can reply: Instead of 'except writs of divorce' in the Mishnah, read, 'except [documents] like writs of divorce.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all which in themselves make the transaction effective, such as the record of a gift. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יג ואב"א תני חוץ מכגיטי נשים:
13 R. SIMEON SAYS: THESE ALSO ARE VALID etc. How can this be, seeing that to heathens the act of 'severance'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cutting', Deut. XXIV, 1. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד רבי שמעון אומר אף אלו כשירין וכו': והא לאו בני כריתות נינהו
14 is not applicable? — Said R. Zera: R. Simeon here accepts the view of R. Eleazar, who said that the separation is actually effected by the witnesses to the delivery [of the document]. But has not R. Abba said that R. Eleazar used to admit [that a Get] which in itself contained a flaw was invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the signature of witnesses who are not competent to sign would be counted by R. Eleazar as a flaw because it might give the impression that these were competent as witnesses to the delivery. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו אמר רבי זירא ירד ר' שמעון לשיטתו של רבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי
15 — We are dealing here
טז והאמר ר' אבא מודה ר' אלעזר במזויף מתוכו שפסול הכא במאי עסקינן
16 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter