Gittin 33

חברא שקלה לשרגא מקמייהו אמר רחמנא או בטולך או בטולא דבר עשו

and took away their lamp;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it was some Gueber festival on which the lighting of fire was forbidden. ');">¹</span>

למימרא דארומאי מעלו מפרסאי והתני רבי חייא מאי דכתיב (איוב כח, כג) אלהים הבין דרכה והוא ידע את מקומה יודע הקב"ה בישראל שאין יכולין לקבל גזירת ארומיים עמד והגלה אותם לבבל

whereupon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah ejaculated: 'O All Merciful One! either in Thy shadow or in the shadow of the son of Esau!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Roman Empire. ');">²</span>

לא קשיא הא מקמי דניתו חברי לבבל הא לבתר דאתו חברי לבבל:

This is as much as to say, [is it not,] that the Romans are better than the Persians? How does this square with what R. Hiyyah taught: 'What is the point of the verse, God understood her way and he knew her place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXVIII, 23. ');">³</span>

אחד אומר בפני נכתב ושנים אומרים בפנינו נחתם כשר: אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שהגט יוצא מתחת יד עד כתיבה דנעשו כשנים על זה וכשנים על זה אבל מתחת ידי עדי חתימה פסול

It means that the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that Israel would not be able to endure the persecution of the Romans, so he drove them to Babylon'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently this refers to the larger number of Jews inhabiting Babylon as compared with Palestine in the day of R. Hiyya. ');">⁴</span>

אלמא קסבר שנים שהביאו גט ממדינת הים צריכין שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם אמר ליה רבי אסי אלא מעתה רישא דקתני שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול ור' יהודה מכשיר ואפילו גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם פסלי רבנן אמר ליה אין

— There is no contradiction. One dictum refers to the period before the Guebers came to Babylon, the other to the period subsequent to their coming.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [After 226 when Ardashir I, having defeated the last of the Parthian kings. Artaban V, established the Sassanid dynasty that held sway over Babylon for several centuries. The Sassanides, whose original home was Haber near Shiraz, S. Persia, (hence the name [H], Gueber) were ardent and zealous supporters of the Zoroastrian faith and very intolerant of the other faiths their antipathy to which found expression in persecution; v. Keth. 63b and Kid. 73a, Obermeyer op. cit. p. 262, and B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 699. n. 2 (where the date should be 226) and n. 3.] ');">⁵</span>

זימנין אשכחיה דיתיב וקאמר דאפילו גט יוצא מתחת ידי עדי חתימה כשר אלמא קסבר שנים שהביאו גט ממ"ה אין צריכין שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם

IF ONE SAYS, IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND TWO SAY IT WAS SIGNED IN OUR PRESENCE, IT IS VALID. R. Ammi said in the name of Johanan: This applies only to the case in which the Get is produced by the witness to the writing [as bearer]. since in that case there is the equivalent of two witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the bearer who makes the declaration is regarded as equivalent to two witnesses. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רבי אסי אלא מעתה רישא דקתני שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול ורבי יהודה מכשיר טעמא דאין הגט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם הא גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם מכשרי רבנן

to the writing and two to the signing. If, however, it is produced by the witnesses to the signing [as bearers], [the Get] is invalid. This would show, [would it not,] that he is of opinion that if two [bearers] bring a Get from 'foreign parts', they are required to declare, 'It was written in our presence and signed in our presence'? Said R. Assi to him: Accepting this view, look at the preceding clause: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE' AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID: R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. Do the Rabbis declare it invalid even if the Get is produced by both [as bearers]? — He replied: That is so. At another time R. Assi found R. Ammi poring [over the Mishnah] and saying that even if the Get [is produced] by the witnesses to the signing [as bearers],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not the witness to the writing. ');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה אין והא זמנין לא אמרת לן הכי אמר ליה יתד היא שלא תמוט:

it is valid. This seemed to show that he was of opinion that if two [bearers jointly] brought a Get from foreign parts, they are not required to declare, 'It was written in our presence and signed in our presence'. Said R. Assi to him: If that is so, what of the preceding clause: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE' AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', THE GET IS INVALID; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. The reason why the Rabbis declare it invalid is because the Get is not produced by both [as bearers]. If then it is produced by both [as bearers], do the Rabbis declare it valid? — He replied: That is so. But, said R. Assi, at another time you told me differently? — He said: This is a peg which cannot be dislodged.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you may take this as fixed and certain. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נכתב ביום ונחתם ביום בלילה ונחתם בלילה בלילה ונחתם ביום כשר ביום ונחתם בלילה פסול רבי שמעון מכשיר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF [A GET WAS] WRITTEN BY DAY AND SIGNED ON THE [SAME] DAY, WRITTEN BY NIGHT AND SIGNED ON THE [SAME] NIGHT, WRITTEN BY NIGHT AND SIGNED ON THE DAY [FOLLOWING],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is still the same date, the Jewish day being from evening to evening. ');">⁹</span>

שהיה רבי שמעון אומר כל הגיטין שנכתבו ביום ונחתמו בלילה פסולין חוץ מגיטי נשים:

IT IS VALID. IF IT WAS WRITTEN BY DAY AND SIGNED ON THE NIGHT [FOLLOWING],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a different date. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר מפני מה תיקנו זמן בגיטין רבי יוחנן אמר משום בת אחותו

IT IS INVALID. R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID, SINCE R. SIMEON USED TO SAY THAT ALL DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY DAY AND SIGNED ON THE [FOLLOWING] NIGHT ARE INVALID EXCEPT BILLS OF DIVORCE.

ריש לקיש אמר משום פירות

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been stated: Why did [the Rabbis] ordain that bills of divorce should be dated? — R. Johanan says: Lest [the husband] might shield his sister's daughter:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is his wife. If she misconducted herself, he might, out of affection for his sister, say that it was after he had given her the divorce. ');">¹¹</span>

ריש לקיש מ"ט לא אמר כרבי יוחנן אמר לך

Resh Lakish said: So that he should not sell the increment of his wife's property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of the usufruct'. The so-called 'property of sucking' (mulug) which was settled on the wife at the time of marriage but of which the husband was to have the usufruct so long as they were married. (V. Glos. and B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 206, n. 7). If the Get was undated, he might wrongfully assert that he had sold the increment before the divorce. ');">¹²</span> Why did Resh Lakish not give the reason that R. Johanan gave? — He might argue