גיטין דף סו

דרא רבי אבינא לסילתיה, ואזל לגבי דרב הונא רביה – דאמר רב הונא: גיטו כמתנתו, מה מתנתו, אם עמד – חוזר, אף גיטו, אם עמד – חוזר.

Let Rabbi Avina lift his basket and go to Rav Huna his teacher, as in order to acquire the item he must rely on the opinion of his teacher, as Rav Huna said: The legal status of one’s bill of divorce is like that of his gift. Just as with regard to a gift given by one on his deathbed, if he recovered from his illness and arose from his deathbed, he revokes his gift, so too, with regard to his bill of divorce given by one on his deathbed, if he recovered from his illness and arose from his deathbed, he revokes the bill of divorce.

ומה גיטו, אף על גב דלא פריש, כיון דאמר ״כתבו״ – אף על גב דלא אמר ״תנו״; אף מתנתו, כיון דאמר ״תנו״ – אף על גב

And just as with regard to the bill of divorce of one on his deathbed, even though he did not specify, once he said: Write the bill of divorce, even though he did not say: Give it to my wife, they write and give it to his wife, as it was taught in the mishna. So too, with regard to a gift given by one on his deathbed, once he said: Give the gift, even though the recipients did not acquire the item from him by means of an act of acquisition, the one on his deathbed has given the gift. Based on the parallel drawn by Rav Huna between a bill of divorce and a gift, Rabbi Avina can go and collect the gift given him by Geneiva.

דלא קנו מיניה.

מתקיף לה רבי אבא: אי – מה מתנה ישנה לאחר מיתה, אף גט ישנו לאחר מיתה?! הכי השתא?! בשלמא מתנה – איתה לאחר מיתה,

Rabbi Abba objects to that conclusion. If that parallel is valid, extend it and say: Just as a gift is valid after death, so too, a bill of divorce is valid after death. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Granted, a gift is valid after death; however, is a bill of divorce valid after death? A bill of divorce severs the bond between husband and wife. After the husband dies, the bill of divorce is pointless. Therefore, the parallel certainly does not extend to after death.

אלא גט – לאחר מיתה מי איכא?!

אלא רבי אבא, הכי קא קשיא ליה: מתנת שכיב מרע במקצת היא, ומתנת שכיב מרע במקצת בעיא קנין! מכלל דרב הונא סבר לא בעיא קנין?!

Rather, this is what is difficult according to Rabbi Abba: Geneiva’s instruction is the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate, and the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate requires an act of acquisition. The Gemara asks: Is that to say, by inference, that Rav Huna, according to whose opinion Rabbi Avina acquired the gift, holds that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate does not require an act of acquisition? But don’t we maintain that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate requires an act of acquisition? The Gemara answers: It is different here, as this is not a standard case of the gift of a person on his deathbed. This is a case where one issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death. In that case, the principle: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the deceased, applies even if it is a gift of a portion of his estate.

והא קיימא לן דבעיא קנין! שאני הכא דמצוה מחמת מיתה הוא.

מכלל דרבי אבא סבר: מצוה מחמת מיתה בעיא קנין?! והא קיימא לן דלא בעי קנין!

The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Abba holds that one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death requires an act of acquisition? But don’t we maintain that one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death does not require an act of acquisition? What, then, is difficult for Rabbi Abba?

אלא רבי אבא, הכי קא קשיא ליה: ״חמרא״ – לא קאמר, ״דמי חמרא״ – לא קאמר, ״מחמרא״ קאמר! ואידך, ״מחמרא״ – כדי לייפות את כחו. שלחו מתם:

Rather, this is what is difficult according to Rabbi Abba: Geneiva did not say to give four hundred dinars of wine to Rabbi Avina, and he did not say: The monetary value of four hundred dinars of wine. He said: Four hundred dinars from wine. The question is: What did Geneiva seek to convey with that ambiguous expression? And the other amora, Rabbi Zeira, who does not find this difficult, holds that when Geneiva said: Four hundred dinars from wine, it was in order to enhance Rabbi Avina’s ability to collect the gift. Geneiva sought to give him a gift of value; in order to guarantee that Rabbi Avina would have access to his property and that the heirs would not be able to prevent him from receiving the gift with various claims, he specifically designated from which property Rabbi Avina could collect the gift. The Gemara notes: They sent a message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the term: From wine, is in order to enhance Rabbi Avina’s ability to collect the gift.

״מחמרא״ – כדי לייפות את כחו.

מתני׳ מי שהיה מושלך לבור, ואמר: כל השומע את קולו יכתוב גט לאשתו, הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו.

MISHNA: With regard to one who was thrown into a pit and thought that he would die there, and he said that anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife, and he specified his name, her name, and all relevant details, those who hear him should write this bill of divorce and give it to his wife, even though they do not see the man and do not know him.

גמ׳ וליחוש שמא שד הוא! אמר רב יהודה: כשראו לו דמות אדם.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a demon, as no one saw the person in the pit. Rav Yehuda says: It is referring to a case where they saw that the being in the pit has human form.

אינהו נמי אידמויי אידמו! דחזו ליה בבואה. אינהו נמי אית להו בבואה! דחזו ליה בבואה דבבואה. ודלמא אינהו נמי אית להו? אמר רבי חנינא: לימדני יונתן בני:

The Gemara objects: Demons too can appear in human form, and therefore the fact that the being looked human is not a proof that it is not a demon. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has a shadow [bavua]. The Gemara objects: Demons also have a shadow. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has the shadow of a shadow. The Gemara objects: And perhaps demons too have the shadow of a shadow? Rabbi Ḥanina says: Yonatan my son taught me that demons have a shadow but they do not have the shadow of a shadow.

בבואה אית להו, בבואה דבבואה לית להו.

ודלמא צרה היא! תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: בשעת הסכנה, כותבין ונותנין אף על פי שאין מכירין.

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a rival wife of the woman who is to be divorced. She seeks to cause her rival to receive a bill of divorce under false pretenses, leading her to believe that she is divorced. Based on that mistaken belief, she will remarry without a divorce and will then be forbidden to both her first and second husband. The Gemara answers: A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a time of danger, when there is the likelihood that the wife would assume deserted wife status, one writes and gives a bill of divorce even though the people instructed to do so are not familiar with the man who gave the instructions. Here too, when a voice is heard from a pit, one writes and gives the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of properly clarifying the issue.

מתני׳ הבריא שאמר: ״כתבו גט לאשתי״ – רצה לשחק בה.

MISHNA: A healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. Since he told them to write the bill of divorce and not to give it, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

מעשה בבריא אחד שאמר: ״כתבו גט לאשתי״, ועלה לראש הגג ונפל ומת; אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: אם מעצמו נפל, הרי זה גט,

The mishna relates: There was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and then ascended to the roof and fell, and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own initiative, taking his own life, it is a valid bill of divorce, as it is clear that he anticipated his death and instructed those listening to write the bill of divorce with the intent of giving it to her. However, if the wind forced him to fall, it is not a valid bill of divorce, as there was no clear intent to give her the bill of divorce.

אם הרוח דחתו – אינו גט.

גמ׳ מעשה לסתור?!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the halakha stated in the mishna? The halakha is that in a case where a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is not valid. From the incident it is clear that under certain circumstances when a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is valid.

חסורי מיחסרא, והכי קתני: אם הוכיח סופו על תחילתו – הרי זה גט; ומעשה נמי בבריא שאמר: ״כתבו גט לאשתי״, ועלה לראש הגג ונפל ומת,

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In the case of a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but he did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. However, if his ultimate actions prove the nature of his initial intent, that he seeks to give the bill of divorce because he is about to die, it is a valid bill of divorce. And there was an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and he then ascended to the roof and fell and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own initiative, it is a valid bill of divorce. However, if the wind forced him to fall, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

ואמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: אם מעצמו נפל – הרי זה גט, אם הרוח דחתו – אינו גט.

ההוא גברא דעל לבי כנישתא, אשכח מקרי ינוקא ובריה דיתבי, ויתיב איניש אחרינא גבייהו, אמר להו: בי תרי מינייכו נכתבו גיטא לדביתהו. לסוף שכיב מקרי ינוקא,

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who entered the synagogue and found a schoolteacher and his son who were sitting there, and another person also sat with them. The man said to them: Two of you should write a bill of divorce for my wife. Ultimately, the schoolteacher died. The Sages considered the following question: Do people designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father, even though the two of them could not serve together as witnesses because they are relatives, or not? As the man’s intent was to designate two people who could serve as witnesses, the schoolteacher and the other person, the question is whether the son of the schoolteacher and the other person are agents and eligible to write and give the bill of divorce.

מי משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא, או לא?

רב נחמן אמר: לא משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא; ורב פפי אמר: משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא. אמר רבא, הילכתא: משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא.

Rav Naḥman said: People do not designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father. And Rav Pappi said: People designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father. Rava said that the halakha is: People designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father.

מתני׳ אמר לשנים: ״תנו גט לאשתי״,

MISHNA: If a man said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife,

או לשלשה: ״כתבו גט, ותנו לאשתי״, הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו. אמר לשלשה: ״תנו גט לאשתי״, הרי אלו יאמרו לאחרים ויכתבו, מפני שעשאן בית דין; דברי רבי מאיר.

or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. If he said to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, these people should tell others, and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וזו הלכה העלה רבי חנינא איש אונו מבית האסורין: מקובל אני באומר לשלשה: ״תנו גט לאשתי״ – שיאמרו לאחרים ויכתבו, מפני שעשאן בית דין,

And it is that halakha that Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono brought up from prison in the name of Rabbi Akiva, who was incarcerated there: I received a tradition from my teachers that in a case where a man says to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that these people should tell others and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court.

אמר רבי יוסי, נומינו לשליח: אף אנו מקובלין, שאפילו אמר לבית דין הגדול שבירושלים: ״תנו גט לאשתי״ – שילמדו ויכתבו ויתנו.

Rabbi Yosei said: We said [nomeinu] to the agent, Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono: We too received a tradition. However, it is a different one, that even if a man said to the High Court [Sanhedrin] in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

אמר לעשרה: ״כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי״ – אחד כותב, ושנים חותמין. ״כולכם כתובו״ – אחד כותב, וכולם חותמין; לפיכך אם מת אחד מהן – הרי זה גט בטל.

If a man said to ten people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, one of the ten writes the bill of divorce and two sign it. If he said: All of you write the document, one of them writes the bill of divorce and all of them sign it. Therefore, if one of them died, then this is a bill of divorce that is null and void, as he directed all of them to participate in the process.

גמ׳ אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא: שלחו ליה מבי רב לשמואל: ילמדנו רבינו; אמר לשנים: ״כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי״, ואמרו לסופר וכתב, וחתמו הן, מהו? שלח להו: תצא,

GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: After Rav’s death, they sent a question from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: In a case where a man said to two people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they told the scribe and he wrote the bill of divorce and they signed it, what is the halakha? He sent this response to them: If the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, she should leave her second husband, and the matter requires study. It is necessary to clarify the halakha, as there is fundamental uncertainty with regard to this matter.

והדבר צריך תלמוד.

מאי ״הדבר צריך תלמוד״? אילימא משום דהוו להו מילי; ומספקא ליה מילי – אי מימסרן לשליח, אי לא מימסרן לשליח;

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The matter requires study? What aspect of this question requires study? If we say that the uncertainty arises due to the fact that these are verbal directives, as the husband merely gave them instructions and did not hand them anything tangible, and Shmuel is uncertain whether verbal directives, instructions given to one agent, are transferred to another agent or whether verbal directives are not transferred to another agent; this leads to the question of whether the agents designated by the husband to write the bill of divorce can designate the scribe to write it. That cannot be the question.

והאמר שמואל אמר רבי: הלכה כרבי יוסי, דאמר מילי לא מימסרן לשליח!

The Gemara explains why not: But didn’t Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Shmuel was not uncertain concerning this issue.

אלא לשמואל – הא קא מיבעיא ליה: האי ״כתובו״ – אי כתב ידן, אי כתב הגט?

Rather, this is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, the question is whether he was referring to their signatures, in which case they could designate the scribe to write the document, or whether he was referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce, in which case it would be incumbent upon them alone to write and sign the document.

ותיפשוט ליה ממתניתין: אמר לשנים: ״תנו גט לאשתי״, או לשלשה: ״כתבו גט ותנו לאשתי״ – הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו.

The Gemara asks: But let Shmuel resolve the dilemma from the mishna: If a man said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. Apparently, they must write the bill of divorce themselves.

היא גופא קא מיבעיא ליה, ״כתובו״ – כתב ידן הוא, או כתב הגט הוא? פשיטא דכתב הגט הוא, דקתני סיפא: אמר רבי יוסי, נומינו לשליח: אף אנו מקובלין,

The Gemara answers: The proper interpretation of the mishna itself is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, was he referring to their signatures, or was he referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce? The Gemara explains: It is obvious that it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: We said to the agent, Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono: We too received a tradition; that even if a man said to the High Court in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

שאפילו אמר לבית דין הגדול שבירושלים: ״תנו גט לאשתי״ – שילמדו ויכתבו ויתנו לה.

אי אמרת בשלמא כתב הגט הוא, שפיר; אלא אי אמרת כתב ידן הוא, מי איכא בי דינא דלא ידעי מחתם חתימת ידייהו?! אין, איכא בי דינא חדתא.

Granted, if you say it means the writing of the bill of divorce, that they must write the actual bill of divorce, this works out well, as a certain degree of expertise is necessary in order to write a bill of divorce correctly. However, if you say that it means their signatures, is there a court whose members do not know how to sign their signatures? The Gemara responds: Yes, there is a new court, whose members have not yet learned to sign a unique signature that will be recognizable to the public.

ואי סבירא לן דהאי ״כתובו״ – כתב ידן הוא; הא כתב הגט – כשר?! והאמר שמואל, אמר רבי: הלכה כרבי יוסי, דאמר מילי לא מימסרן לשליח!

The Gemara asks: But if we hold that this instruction: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, is the writing of the bill of divorce by a scribe valid? But didn’t Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent.

אמרי: אי סבירי לן ד״כתובו״ – כתב ידן הוא; כתב הגט – נעשה כאומר: ״אמרו״, ומודה רבי יוסי באומר ״אמרו״. ומי מודה רבי יוסי באומר: ״אמרו״?! והתנן:

The Sages say in response that if we hold that the phrase: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, the writing of the bill of divorce becomes as one who says to those agents: Tell another to write it. And Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, that the agent can designate another to write the document. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei concede in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (87b): If a bill of divorce has the writing of a scribe, and the scribe identifies his handwriting, and one witness verifies his signature, it is valid as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: We learned in the mishna that this is the halakha with regard to the scribe’s signature and not the scribe’s writing.

״כתב סופר ועד – כשר״, ואמר רבי ירמיה: ״חתם סופר״ שנינו;

ואמר רב חסדא: מתניתין מני – רבי יוסי היא, דאמר: מילי לא מימסרן לשליח.

And Rav Ḥisda said: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, and there is no concern that the scribe signed the document without the husband instructing him to do so.

ואי סלקא דעתך מודה רבי יוסי באומר ״אמרו״, נפיק מינה חורבה – דזימנין דאמר להו לשנים:

And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, a pitfall will result from it. As sometimes, it happens that one said to two people: