Gittin 38

תניא כוותיה דרב עדים שאין יודעין לחתום מקרעין להן נייר חלק וממלאים את הקרעים דיו

It has been taught in accordance with Rab: If witnesses are unable to sign their names, incisions are made for them on the sheet which they fill in with ink. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: This applies only to writs of divorce; but in the case of writs of emancipation and other documents, if the witnesses are able to read and to sign, they sign, and if not they do not sign. How does 'reading' come in here? — There is an omission which is to be supplied as follows: 'If the witnesses are unable to read, the document is read to them and they sign, and if they are unable to sign etc.' Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: 'This refers only to writs of divorce; but in the case of writs of emancipation and other documents, if they are able to read and sign, they sign, and if not, they do not sign.' Said R. Eleazar: What is the reason of R. Simeon [for ruling so]? In order that the daughters of Israel may not become 'deserted'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Agunah, v. Glos. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בד"א בגיטי נשים אבל בשחרורי עבדים ושאר כל השטרות אם יודעין לקרות ולחתום חותמין ואם לאו אין חותמין

wives. Raba said: The <i>halachah</i> is according to the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. R. Gamda, however, said in the name of Raba that the <i>halachah</i> is not according to his ruling. According to whose ruling then is it? According to that of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who allow all documents to be signed by witnesses who cannot write. ');">²</span>

קרייה מאן דכר שמה חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני עדים שאין יודעין לקרות קורין לפניהם וחותמים ושאין יודעין לחתום כו' אמר ר"ש בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים בגיטי נשים אבל שחרורי עבדים ושאר כל השטרות אם יודעין לקרות ולחתום חותמין ואם לאו אין חותמין

Was not a man who actually followed this course with regard to another document ordered to be flogged by R. Kahana? — Explain [that as referring to the rule] about reading,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That provided they can sign their names, though they cannot read, they may still act as witnesses if the document is read to them. ');">³</span>

א"ר אלעזר מ"ט דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל שלא יהו בנות ישראל עגונות

Rab Judah used to exert himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being nearly blind, owing to old age. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא הלכה כרשב"ג ורב גמדא משמיה דרבא אמר אין הלכה ואלא כמאן כרבנן

so as to read [a document submitted to him] and [only then] sign. Said 'Ulla to him: This is not necessary, for R. Eleazar, the Master of the Land of Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nid. 20a. ');">⁵</span>

והא ההוא דעבד עובדא בשאר שטרות ונגדיה רב כהנא תרגמא אקריאה

used to have the document read to him and then sign. R. Nahman also had [the document] read to him by the scribes of the court judges and then signed. This procedure was correct for R. Nahman and the scribes of the court judges, because they were afraid [of him]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore could be relied upon to read correctly. R. Nahman was himself the chief judge in Nehardea, having been appointed by the Exilarch, who was his father-in-law, v. infra 67b. ');">⁶</span>

רב יהודה מיצטער קרי וחתים א"ל עולא לא צריכת דהא ר' אלעזר מרא דארץ ישראל קרו קמיה וחתים ורב נחמן קרו קמיה ספרי דייני וחתים ודווקא רב נחמן וספרי דייני דאית להו אימתא אבל רב נחמן וספרי אחריני ספרי דייני ואיניש אחרינא לא

but it would not be with R. Nahman and any other scribes, or with the scribes of the court judges and any other person.

רב פפא כי הוה אתי לקמיה שטרא פרסאה דעביד בערכאות של כותים מקרי להו לשני כותים זה שלא בפני זה במסיח לפי תומו ומגבי ביה ממשעבדי

When R. Papa was called upon to deal with a Persian document drawn up in a heathen registry, he used to give it to two heathens to read, one without the other, without telling them what it was for,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'talking, in his simplicity'. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב אשי אמר לי רב הונא בר נתן הכי אמר אמימר האי שטרא פרסאה דחתימי עליה סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה ממשעבדי

and [if they agreed] he would recover on [the strength of] it even from mortgaged property. R. Ashi said: R. Huna b. Nathan has told me that Amemar has laid down that a Persian document signed by Israelite witnesses is sufficient warrant for recovering even from mortgaged property. But they are not able to read it? — [We speak of the case] where they are able. But the writing has to be such that it cannot be altered [without leaving a mark], and here it is not so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this was not insisted on in the Persian courts. ');">⁸</span>

והא לא ידעי למיקרי בדידעי והא בעינן כתב שאינו יכול להזדייף וליכא בדאפיצן והא בעינן צריך לחזור מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה וליכא בדמהדר

— [We speak of a sheet which has been treated] with gall-nuts. But the rule is that the gist of the document has to be repeated in the last line, and that is not the case here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 11a. ');">⁹</span>

ואלא מאי קמ"ל דכל לשון כשר תנינא גט שכתבו עברית ועדיו יונית יונית ועדיו עברית כשר

— [We speak of the case where] it is repeated. But when all is said and done, what does this statement teach us? That [a document] may be written in any language? This we have already learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 87b. ');">¹⁰</span>

אי מההיא הוה אמינא הני מילי בגיטין אבל בשאר שטרות לא קמ"ל

If a Get is written in Hebrew and signed in Greek,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in Greek script. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר שמואל נתן לה נייר חלק ואמר לה ה"ז גיטיך מגורשת חיישינן שמא במי מילין כתבו

or written in Greek and signed in Hebrew, it is valid. — If I had only that to go by, I should say that this is the case only with writs of divorce, but not with other documents. Now I know [that this applies to other documents also].

מיתיבי הרי זה גיטך ונטלתו וזרקתו לים או לאור או לכל דבר האבד וחזר ואמר שטר פסים הוא שטר אמנה הוא מגורשת ולא כל הימנו לאוסרה

Samuel said: If a man gives his wife a blank sheet and says to her, 'This is thy Get', she is divorced, because we consider it possible that he may have written it with gall-nut water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the writing has faded. ');">¹²</span>

טעמא דאיכא כתב הא ליכא כתב לא כי קאמר שמואל דבדקינן ליה במיא דנרא אי פליט פליט ואי לא פליט לאו כלום הוא

An objection was raised [from the following]: [If a man said to his wife], 'Here is your Get', and she took it and threw it into the sea or the fire or destroyed it in any other way, and if he then in turn said that it was a sham promissory note<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'persuasion', [H] (Cf. [G]). A bond which A gives B merely that the latter may make a show with it. ');">¹³</span>

וכי פליט מאי הוי השתא הוא דפליט שמואל נמי חיישינן קאמר

or an amanah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bond given for money which has not yet been borrowed but may be borrowed later, v. Keth. 19b. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רבינא אמר לי אמימר הכי אמר מרימר משמיה דרב דימי הני בי תרי דיהיב גיטא קמייהו צריכי למיקרייה מיתיבי ה"ז גיטך ונטלתו וזרקתו לים או לאור או לכל דבר האבד וחזר ואמר שטר פסים הוא שטר אמנה הוא מגורשת ולא כל הימנו לאוסרה ואי אמרת צריכי למיקרייה בתר דקריוה מי מצי אמר לה הכי

she is none the less divorced, and he has no power to prevent her from remarrying.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Git. VI. ');">¹⁵</span>

לא צריכא דבתר דקריוה עייליה לבי ידיה ואפקיה מהו דתימא חלופי חלפיה קמ"ל

[Is not] the reason for this that there was some writing on the sheet, so that if there was no writing [she was] not [divorced]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As otherwise it would have been stated above, 'If he said that there was no writing on it'. This refutes Samuel. ');">¹⁶</span>

ההוא גברא דזרק לה גיטא לדביתהו לביני דני אשתכח מזוזתא אמר רב נחמן מזוזתא ביני דני לא שכיחא

— When Samuel said she is divorced, he meant, only after we have tested [the sheet] with violet water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], decoction of the bark of the pomegranate tree. V. Jast. s.v [H]. ');">¹⁷</span>

וה"מ דאשתכח חדא אבל ב' ג' מדהא הואי הא נמי הואי וגיטא אימור עכברים שקלוה

If the letters come to light, then obviously there was writing, and if not, then there is nothing in it. And if the letters do come to light, what of it? It is only now that they come to light?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And when she was divorced there was no writing. ');">¹⁸</span>

ההוא גברא דעל לבי כנישתא שקל ספר תורה יהיב לה לדביתהו ואמר לה הא גיטך אמר רב יוסף למאי ליחוש לה אי משום מי מילין אין מי מילין על גבי מי מילין

Samuel also only said, 'we consider it possible.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the divorce is only a doubtful one, sufficient to prohibit her to a priest, but not to allow her to remarry. ');">¹⁹</span> Rabina said: Amemar has told me that Meremar has laid down in the name of R. Dimi that the two persons in whose presence the Get is delivered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 5b. ');">²⁰</span> must read it. An objection was raised [from the following passage]: [If a man said to his wife] 'Here is your Get', and she took it and threw it into the sea or the fire or destroyed it in some other way, and if he then in turn said that it was a sham promissory note or an amanah, she is [none the less] divorced and he has no power to prevent her from remarrying. Now if you say that they [the witnesses to the delivery] are required to read it, can he possibly say this after they have read it? — The ruling is still necessary for the case in which after the witnesses have read it he takes it from them and puts it under his coat and takes it out again. It might be argued in that case that he has changed it [for some other document], but now I know [that this argument is of no avail]. A certain man threw a document to his wife and it fell between the jars. Afterwards a <i>mezuzah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²¹</span> was found there. Said R. Nahman: A <i>mezuzah</i> is not usually found among the jars.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we presume that what he threw was a mezuzah and not a Get. ');">²²</span> This reasoning holds good if only one was found, but if there were two or three we say that just as mezuzahs got there so a Get may have got there, and that the Get itself was removed by mice. A certain man went to the synagogue and took a scroll of the Law and gave it to his wife saying. 'Here is thy Get'. Said R. Joseph: Why should we take any notice of it? Shall we say that the Get was written in gall-nut water [on the outside of the scroll]? Gall-nut water does not make any mark on [a sheet treated with] gall-nut