Gittin 65

פלוני ופלוני הדיינין שבמקום פלוני

So-and-so and So-and-so the judges in such-and-such a place.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. X, 14, v. infra 36a in connection with the prosbul. ');">¹</span>

ורב ששת אטו תנא כי רוכלא ליחשיב וליזיל

And R. Shesheth? — [He may rejoin:] Is the Tanna to reckon them out like a pedlar selling his wares?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fact that he says twice 'So-and-so' is of no significance. ');">²</span>

אמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה דתנן הדיינים חותמין למטה או העדים מאי לאו דיינים דומיא דעדים מה עדים שנים אף דיינים נמי שנים ורב ששת מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

Said R. Nahman [again]: What is my ground for saying so? Because we have learnt: 'And the judges sign below or the witnesses.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">³</span>

ל"ל למיתנא דיינים ל"ל למיתנא עדים הא קמ"ל דלא שנא כתוב בלשון דיינים וחתמי עדים ולא שנא כתוב בלשון עדים וחתמי דיינים:

Are not the judges here placed on a par with the witnesses, so that just as two witnesses suffice, So two judges suffice? And R. Shesheth? — [He can reply:] Is this an argument? Judges and witnesses each follow their own rule. [And if you ask] why [the Mishnah] mentions both witnesses and judges, it is to teach us that it makes no difference if they word the document as judges<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'We, So-and-so, acting as a Beth din. ' ');">⁴</span>

מפני תיקון העולם: מאי מפני תיקון העולם ר' יוחנן אמר מפני תקנת ממזרים ריש לקיש אמר מפני תקנת עגונות

and then sign as witnesses or if they word the document as witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'This is a record of the testimony given before us&nbsp;…' ');">⁵</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר מפני תקנת ממזרים סבר לה כרב נחמן דאמר בפני שנים ובי תרי לית להו קלא והיא לא שמעה ולא ידעה ואזלה ומינסבא ואיכא ממזרים

and then sign as judges.

וריש לקיש אמר מפני תקנת עגונות סבר לה כרב ששת דאמר בפני ג' ובי תלתא אית להו קלא ושמעה וידעה ולא מינסבא ותקנת עגונות הוא דאיכא

TO PREVENT ABUSES, What is referred to? — R. Johanan said: To prevent illegitimacy. Resh Lakish said: To prevent wife-desertion. 'R. Johanan said to prevent illegitimacy,' for he held with R. Nahman who said [that the Get could be cancelled] before [a <i>Beth din</i> of] two: [the proceedings] of two are not generally known, so she, not having heard and not knowing [that the Get is cancelled] might go and marry again, and bear illegitimate children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Mamzerim, v. Glos. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ר בטלו מבוטל דברי רבי רשב"ג אומר אינו יכול לא לבטלו ולא להוסיף על תנאו שא"כ מה כח ב"ד יפה

'Resh Lakish said to prevent wife-desertion,' for he again held with R. Shesheth who said [that he has to cancel it] before [a <i>Beth din</i> of] three. The proceedings of three are generally known, so she hearing and knowing [that the Get was cancelled] would remain unmarried, and we have therefore to save her from being a deserted wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the enactment of R. Gamaliel the Elder. ');">⁷</span>

ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא בטל גיטא ומשום מה כח ב"ד יפה שרינן אשת איש לעלמא אין כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה

Our Rabbis have taught: If [the husband] did cancel [the Get before a <i>Beth din</i>] it is cancelled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the regulation of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תינח דקדיש בכספא קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות:

This is the ruling of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that he can neither cancel it nor add any additional conditions, since if so, what becomes of the authority of the <i>Beth din</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how is the power of the Beth din (left) unimpaired.' The Beth din of Rabban Gamaliel which made the regulation. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ר אמר לעשרה כתבו גט לאשתי יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה דברי רבי רשב"ג אומר אינו יכול לבטל אלא זה בפני זה

And is it possible then, that where a Get is according to the Written Law cancelled we should, to save the authority of the <i>Beth din</i>, [declare it valid and] so allow a married woman to marry another? — Yes. When a man betroths a woman, he does so under the conditions laid down by the Rabbis, and in this case the Rabbis annul his betrothal. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: This is quite right if the husband had originally betrothed his wife with money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the Beth din can declare the money he gave her as kiddushin, public property (hefker,) v. infra 36b. ');">¹⁰</span>

במאי קמיפלגי בעדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה קמיפלגי רבי סבר עדות שבטלה מקצתה

But if he had betrothed her by the act of marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 2a. ');">¹¹</span> what can we say? — The Rabbis declared the act of marriage to be retrospectively nonmarital. Our Rabbis have taught: 'If a man said to ten persons, Write a Get for my wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case one writes and two sign. Infra 66b. ');">¹²</span> he can countermand the order to each of them separately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the regulation of Rabban Gamaliel. ');">¹³</span> This is the ruling of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that he can only countermand the order when they are together.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to do otherwise would be to disregard the regulation. ');">¹⁴</span> What is the point at issue between them? — The point at issue is whether if part of an evidence has been nullified the whole of it is nullified. Rabbi was of opinion that if part of an evidence has been nullified