Gittin 34

זנות לא שכיחא

that adultery is exceptional.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it was unnecessary to make a special regulation dealing with it. ');">¹</span>

ורבי יוחנן מאי טעמא לא אמר כריש לקיש קסבר יש לבעל פירות עד שעת נתינה

And why did R. Johanan not give the reason that Resh Lakish gave? — He was of opinion that the increment of the wife's property belongs to the husband until the Get is actually delivered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence dating the Get would not help the wife to recover the increment from the purchasers as long as the woman could not produce evidence when she received the Get. ');">²</span>

בשלמא לריש לקיש משום הכי קא מכשיר ר"ש אלא לרבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דר"ש דמכשיר

On the theory of Resh Lakish we can understand why R. Simeon should declare valid [a Get signed on the following night].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because according to R. Simeon he loses his title to the increment when he decides to divorce her; v. infra 18b. ');">³</span>

אמר לך רבי יוחנן אליבא דר"ש לא קאמינא כי קאמינא אליבא דרבנן

But on the theory of R. Johanan, what is R. Simeon's reason for declaring such a Get valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that it gives him an improper opportunity of shielding his sister's daughter. ');">⁴</span>

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן היינו דאיכא בין רבי שמעון לרבנן אלא לריש לקיש מאי איכא בין רבי שמעון לרבנן

— R. Johanan might answer that his theory is not meant to square with the view of R. Simeon but with the view of the Rabbis. On the theory of R. Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Rabbis required the Get to be dated so that the husband should not shield the wife and R. Simeon so that he should not draw the increment. ');">⁵</span>

פירי דמשעת כתיבה ועד שעת חתימה איכא בינייהו

we understand why R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the question of a Get signed on the following night. ');">⁶</span>

והא איפכא שמעינן להו דאתמר מאימתי מוציאין לפירות רבי יוחנן אמר משעת כתיבה וריש לקיש אמר משעת נתינה

but on the theory of Resh Lakish, why should there be any difference between them? — They differ with regard to the increment that accrues between the time of writing [the Get] and the time of signing it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis holding that the husband is entitled to it till the time of signing. Hence if it is dated the previous day he loses a day, and therefore the Get is invalid. For R. Simeon, however, who holds that the husband loses his title from the time he decided to divorce her, this objection does not apply. ');">⁷</span>

איפוך

But have we not been told just the opposite [with regard to R. Johanan and Resh Lakish]? For it has been stated: 'From what point of time can the divorced woman begin to draw the increment? R. Johanan says: From the time [when the Get] is written; Resh Lakish says: From the time when it is delivered'? — Reverse the names.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף ג' גיטין פסולים ואם ניסת הולד כשר מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתן אהנו דלכתחילה לא תינשא

Said Abaye to R. Joseph: [We have learnt that] three kinds of Get are invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of them being an undated Get; infra 86a. ');">⁸</span>

גזייה לזמן דידיה ויהביה ניהלה מאי אמר ליה לרמאי לא חיישינן

but if a woman marries again on the strength of them [and bears a child], the child is legitimate. This being so, what good have the Rabbis done with their regulation [that the Get should be dated]? — They at least raise an initial bar against her marrying again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the scribes will be unwilling to write and the witnesses to sign a Get without a date. ');">⁹</span>

כתוב בו שבוע שנה חדש שבת מאי אמר ליה כשר ומה הועילו חכמים בתקנתן

Suppose the husband cut off the date and gave it to her? — He replied: We do not take precautions against a fraud [of this kind]. Suppose it is dated only by the septennate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seven-year period between one Sabbatical year and the next. ');">¹⁰</span>

אהנו לשבוע דקמיה ולשבוע דבתריה דאי לא תימא הכי יומא גופיה מי ידעי' אי מצפרא אי מפניא אלא ליומא דקמיה וליומא דבתריה הכא נמי אהני לשבוע דקמיה ולשבוע דבתריה

by the year, by the month, by the week? — He replied: It is valid. What good then have the Rabbis done with their regulation? — It is of value [where a question arises] about the septennate before or the septennate after.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the alleged unchastity took place in the septennate before, or if the husband continued to draw the increment in the septennate after. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא כתביה

For if you say this is of no value, [I might retort,] even when the day is specified, do we know whether the morning or the evening is meant? What [it does is] to distinguish it from the day before and the day after. So here, [by specifying the septennate] we are enabled to distinguish it from the septennate before and the septennate after [should a question arise about them]. Rabina said to Raba: If a man writes a Get