Gittin 40

הא בעינא מכתב וליכא כדינרי זהב ולא כדינרי זהב כדינרי זהב דבולט ולא כדינרי זהב דאילו התם מגואי והכא מאבראי

it does not write, and [for the plate] 'writing' was required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVIII, 30. ');">¹</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן כתב לה גט על טס של זהב ואמר לה התקבלי גיטך והתקבלי כתובתך מהו אמר ליה נתקבלה גיטה ונתקבלה כתובתה

— It was like [the inscription on] gold <i>denarii</i> and yet not like it. It was like it in the fact that it stood out, but not like it in the fact that there [in a coin] the pressure is applied on the same side [as the inscription], but here [in the plate] it was from the other side.

איתיביה התקבלי גיטך והשאר לכתובתך נתקבלה גיטה והשאר לכתובתה

Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a man writes a Get on a plate of gold and says to his wife, 'Receive herewith your Get and receive herewith your kethubah', what is the ruling? — He replied: Both her Get and her <i>kethubah</i> have been legally received by her. [Raba] thereupon raised an objection. [We have been taught,] If a man says, 'Receive herewith your Get and the rest can go to your kethubah', the Get has been legally received by her and the rest goes to the <i>kethubah</i>. Now the reason is that there is something over, but otherwise not? — No. The same rule applies even if there is nothing over, and what this [statement] teaches us is that even if there is something over, if he tells her [to take that in payment of her <i>kethubah</i>] she takes it, but if not, not. For what reason? — Because [in that case the rest] is [reckoned merely as] the margin of the Get.

טעמא דאיכא שאר הא ליכא שאר לא

Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says to his wife.] 'Here is your Get, but the sheet belongs to me', she is not divorced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he has to 'give' her the writ, and here there is no giving. ');">²</span>

הוא הדין אע"ג דליכא שאר והא קמ"ל דאע"ג דאיכא שאר אי אמר לה אין אי לא לא

[but if he said.] On condition that you return the sheet to me, she is divorced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a gift which is made conditionally on its being returned is still counted a gift. ');">³</span>

מאי טעמא אוירא דמגילתא הוא

R. Papa inquired: Suppose he says, [On condition that] the space between the lines, or between the words [is to belong to me], what is the ruling? — This question was left over. But cannot the question be decided from the fact that the Divine Law said 'a writ', that is to say one writ, and not two or three?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in this case he makes it into several. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ר הרי זה גיטך והנייר שלי אינה מגורשת על מנת שתחזירי לי את הנייר הרי זו מגורשת

— The difficulty still remains in the case where it is all linked together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by long letters like the final nun, which obliterate the spaces between the lines. ');">⁵</span>

בעי רב פפא בין שיטה לשיטה ובין תיבה לתיבה מאי תיקו

Rami b. Hama propounded: Suppose a slave [is brought into court] who is known to have belonged to the husband, and a Get is written on his hand and he comes before us as the slave of the wife, how are we to decide? Do we presume that the husband transferred the slave to the wife [along with the Get],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah 19a. ');">⁶</span>

ותיפוק ליה (דברים כד, ג) דספר אחד אמר רחמנא ולא שנים ושלשה ספרים לא צריכא דמעורה

or do we argue that perhaps he went to her of his own accord? — Said Raba: Cannot the question be decided on the ground that the writing is such as to admit of falsification?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is no Get. ');">⁷</span>

בעי רמי בר חמא היו מוחזקים בעבד שהוא שלו וגט כתוב על ידו והרי הוא יוצא מתחת ידה מהו

But does not Raba's difficulty apply also to our Mishnah which says that a Get may be written ON THE HAND OF A SLAVE? — We understand that the Mishnah presents no difficulty to Raba. [The Mishnah was speaking of a case] where [the Get was] delivered before witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who read it, and who could testify in case of falsification. ');">⁸</span>

מי אמרינן אקנויי אקני לה או דלמא הוא מנפשיה עייל

in accordance with the ruling of R. Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that the witnesses to delivery make the Get effective. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבא ותיפוק ליה דכתב שיכול להזדייף הוא ולרבא קשיא מתניתין על היד של עבד

The difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which Raba put to him. ');">¹⁰</span>

בשלמא מתני' לרבא לא קשיא בעדי מסירה ורבי אלעזר היא אלא לרמי בר חמא קשיא

however, arises on [the question of] Rami b. Hama!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he was speaking of the case where there were no witnesses to delivery. ');">¹¹</span>

לרמי בר חמא נמי לא קשיא בכתובת קעקע השתא דאתית להכי מתניתין (לרבא) נמי לא תיקשי בכתובת קעקע

— According to Rami b. Hama there is no difficulty, as he is speaking of the case [where the Get was] tattooed [on the slave's hand].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so could not be effaced. ');">¹²</span>

מאי הוי עלה תא שמע דאמר ריש לקיש הגודרות אין להן חזקה

If you take that line, you can say that the Mishnah also presents<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Var. lec., cur. edd., read 'to Raba'.] ');">¹³</span>

בעי רמי בר חמא היו מוחזקין בטבלא שהיא שלה וגט כתוב עליה והרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו מהו מי אמרינן אקנויי אקניתא ליה או דלמא (אשה) לא ידעה לאקנויי

no difficulty, as it was speaking of tattooing. What then is the answer [to Rami b. Hama's question]? — Come and hear: Resh Lakish has laid down that there is no presumptive title to living creatures.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'those kept in folds', because they are liable to stray; hence their being found in a certain man's possession is not presumptive evidence that he is the owner, and the same applies to a slave, v. B.B. 36a. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר אביי ת"ש אף הוא העיד על כפר קטן שהיה בצד ירושלים והיה בו זקן אחד והיה מלוה לכל בני הכפר וכותב בכתב ידו ואחרים חותמים ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והכשירוהו ואמאי הא בעינא (ירמיהו לב, יא) ספר מקנה וליכא

Rami b. Hama inquired: If a tablet was known to have belonged to the wife, and a Get is written on it, and it is produced by the husband, what do we decide? Do we say that she made it over to him, or do we argue that a woman does not know how to make over things [temporarily]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of such a nature where the transfer is a mere legal fiction designed to place the tablet in the temporary ownership of the husband to enable him to write the Get on it. Consequently the Get is not valid since it must be written on material belonging to the husband. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא לאו משום דאמרינן אקנויי מקנה להו

— Said Abaye: Come and hear: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah b. Baba. V. 'Ed. II, 3. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רבא ומאי קושיא דילמא

also testified regarding a small village adjoining Jerusalem in which lived an old man who used to lend money to all the people of the village, and he used to write the bond and others signed it, and the case was brought before the Sages and they declared the bonds valid. Now how could they do this, seeing that there must be a 'writ of transfer'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (Jer. XXXII, 10). which is taken to mean 'a document written by the transferor'. V. Kid. 26a. ');">¹⁷</span> Obviously the reason is that we say that he made over the bonds to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they returned them to him. So here we may say that even if the wife does not intend to leave the tablet in the husband's hands permanently, yet for the time being she has given it to him, and he can therefore 'give' it to her as a Get. ');">¹⁸</span> Said Raba: What is the difficulty? Perhaps