גיטין דף פו

לאפוקי מדבעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן – דאמר: ״היום אי את אשתי ולמחר את אשתי״.

was instituted to the exclusion of that which Rava asked Rav Naḥman, with regard to a case where the husband said to his wife while handing her the bill of divorce: Today you are not my wife and tomorrow you are my wife. Does this limitation take effect? Although the conclusion of that inquiry was that once the wife is divorced she is divorced forever, Rava instituted the addition of this expression in the text of the bill of divorce to remove any uncertainty with regard to such a case.

גופו של גט שחרור: ״הרי את (בת) [בן] חורין״; ״הרי את לעצמך״: אתקין רב יהודה בשטר זביני דעבדי: ״עבדא דנן מוצדק לעבדו; ופטיר ועטיר מן חרורי, ומן עלולי,

§ It is stated in the mishna: The basic element of a bill of manumission for a maidservant is: You are hereby a free woman, or: You are hereby your own. Rav Yehuda instituted the following formulation in a document of sale for slaves: This slave is justified, i.e., fit for slavery, and he is dismissed and removed from manumission and from accusations and from contests of the king and queen, meaning that he was not sentenced to death by the governmental court. And there is not a sign [reshum] of ownership of another person on him. And he is clean of any blemish and of boils that emerge on him for four [tatzhar] years, whether new or old.

ומן ערורי מלכא ומלכתא; ורשום דאיניש לא אית עלוהי, ומנוקה מכל מום, ומן שחין דנפיק עד טצהר חדת ועתיק״.

מאי אסותיה? אמר אביי: גינברא, ומרתכא, וכבריתא, וחלא דחמרא, ומשחא דזיתא, ונטפיק חיורא; ושייפי ליה בגדפא דאווזא.

The Gemara asks tangentially: What is the cure for boils? Abaye said: One takes ginger [ginebara], and slag from silver, and sulfur [kavrita], and wine vinegar, and olive oil, and white naphtha [natpik], and spreads it with a goose feather.

מתני׳ שלשה גיטין פסולין, ואם נשאת הוולד כשר –

MISHNA: Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman marries another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of the offspring from this marriage is unflawed. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child.

כתב בכתב ידו, ואין עליו עדים; יש עליו עדים, ואין בו זמן; יש בו זמן, ואין בו אלא עד אחד; הרי אלו שלשה גיטין פסולין,

These three bills are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it, but it contains only one witness. These are the three invalid bills of divorce with regard to which the Sages said: And if she marries, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

ואם נשאת – הולד כשר.

רבי אליעזר אומר: אף על פי שאין עליו עדים, אלא שנתנו לה בפני עדים – כשר, וגובה מנכסים משועבדים; שאין העדים חותמים על הגט אלא מפני תיקון העולם.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written for her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband can contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. Nevertheless, the witnesses’ signatures are not an essential part of a bill of divorce.

גמ׳ ותו ליכא?! והא איכא גט ישן! התם לא תצא, הכא תצא.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But are there no other invalid bills of divorce? But isn’t there an outdated bill of divorce, where the husband and wife were secluded after it was written and before it was handed to her? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the cases: There, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, if the woman remarries on the basis of that bill of divorce she need not leave her husband; here, she must leave him.

הניחא למאן דאמר: הכא תצא, אלא למאן דאמר: הכא לא תצא, מאי איכא למימר?

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, even though the lineage of their children is unflawed. But according to the one who says that here she need not leave, what is there to say? Why is an outdated bill of divorce not mentioned in the mishna?

התם תינשא לכתחלה, הכא דיעבד.

The Gemara answers: There is still a difference between the cases, as there, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, she may remarry ab initio; while here, it is only after the fact, if she remarried, that she need not leave her second husband.

והא איכא גט קרח! התם הוולד ממזר, הכא הולד כשר.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bare bill of divorce, i.e., one that is missing a signature, which is also invalid? The Gemara answers: There, if the woman remarries based on this bill of divorce the offspring of her second marriage is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

הניחא לרבי מאיר (דאמר: כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין, הולד ממזר). אלא לרבנן, מאי איכא למימר?

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that anyone who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce renders the offspring a mamzer. Therefore, a bare bill of divorce is completely invalid, and if the woman remarries the offspring is a mamzer. But according to the Rabbis, who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? Why is a bare bill of divorce not listed in the mishna?

התם תצא, הכא לא תצא.

The Gemara answers that there is still a distinction between the cases: There, if the woman remarries she must leave her husband, even according to the Rabbis who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer; here, she need not leave her husband.

הניחא למאן דאמר הכא לא תצא, אלא למאן דאמר הכא תצא, מאי איכא למימר? במקושר לא קא מיירי.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband; but according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Apparently the mishna is not speaking about a folded and tied bill of divorce, which requires a signature on every fold, but rather, an open bill of divorce. There are only three cases in which this type of a bill of divorce is invalid in a manner that obligates the woman, if she remarries, to leave her second husband, although the lineage of their children would be unflawed.

והא איכא שלום מלכות! התם תצא, הכא לא תצא.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bill of divorce that is invalid due to the need to maintain peaceful relations with the kingdom, as it mentions the year of the divorce according to the age of another kingdom? Why is this not mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara answers: There, she must leave her husband; here, she need not leave her husband.

הניחא למאן דאמר הכא לא תצא, אלא למאן דאמר תצא, מאי איכא למימר? (התם הולד ממזר, הכא הולד כשר.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband. But according to the one who says that she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, the offspring is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

הניחא לרבי מאיר, אלא לרבנן מאי איכא למימר?) מוקים לה כדרבי מאיר; והתם הולד ממזר, הכא הולד כשר.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir; but according to the Rabbis, who hold that in the case of a bill of divorce in which the date is written according to the age of another kingdom, the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The one who holds that in the cases in the mishna the woman must leave her husband establishes it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, according to whom there, the offspring is a mamzer. Here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

מנינא דרישא למעוטי מאי, ומנינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי?

The mishna emphasizes twice that there are three bills of divorce that are invalid. The Gemara asks: What does the quantity in the first clause serve to exclude? And what does the quantity in the latter clause serve to exclude?

מנינא דרישא – למעוטי הני דאמרן.

The Gemara answers: The quantity mentioned in the first clause serves to exclude those invalid bills of divorce that we previously mentioned, which are treated either more or less stringently than the cases in the mishna.

מנינא דסיפא – למעוטי הא דתניא: המביא גט ממדינת הים, נתנו לה ולא אמר לה: ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״ – יוציא והולד ממזר, דברי רבי מאיר.

The quantity mentioned in the latter clause serves to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce for a certain woman from a country overseas, and gives it to her but does not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and she remarries, her second husband must divorce her, and the offspring of their marriage is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים: אין הולד ממזר. כיצד יעשה? יטלנו הימנה, ויחזור ויתננו לה בפני שנים, ויאמר: ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״.

And the Rabbis say: The offspring of the second marriage is not a mamzer; rather, how should the agent act to rectify the situation? He should take the bill of divorce from her, and give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Since this problem can be corrected, it is not listed in the mishna as one of the invalid bills of divorce.

כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים. אמר רב: ״כתב ידו״ שנינו.

§ It is stated in the mishna: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting, but has no signatures of witnesses on it at all, is invalid; nevertheless, if the woman remarries, the lineage of the child born from her second husband is unflawed. Rav says: We learned that this is referring to his handwriting.

אהייא? אילימא ארישא – פשיטא! ״כתב ידו״ קתני!

The Gemara asks: With regard to which clause of the mishna is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the first clause, what Rav said is obvious, as the case of his handwriting is explicitly taught in that clause.

ואלא אמציעתא – הרי יש עליו עדים! אלא אסיפא: יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד –

And if it is rather referring to the middle clause, i.e., an undated bill of divorce, why does it matter whether it was written in the husband’s handwriting? Aren’t there signatures of witnesses on it? Rather, it must be referring to the latter clause in the mishna, i.e., a bill of divorce that has a date written on it but has only the signature of one witness.

ודוקא כתב ידו ועד; אבל כתב סופר ועד – לא.

And Rav is saying that specifically when the bill of divorce is written in his handwriting and has the signature of one witness, the woman’s child from her second husband is of unflawed lineage. But if it is written in a scribe’s handwriting, even if it includes the signature of one witness, the child’s lineage is not unflawed, but rather he is a mamzer, as the bill of divorce is completely invalid.

ושמואל אמר: אפילו כתב סופר ועד, שהרי שנינו: כתב סופר ועד – כשר.

And Shmuel says: Even where it is written in a scribe’s handwriting and it has the signature of a witness, the lineage of the child is unflawed, as we learned in a mishna (87b): In the case of a bill of divorce in which the scribe’s handwriting is recognizable and there is one witness signed, it is valid.

ורב – מי דמי?! התם תינשא לכתחילה, הכא דיעבד.

And Rav would respond: Is that case comparable? There, in that case, the mishna indicates that the woman may marry ab initio. Therefore, it must be a case where the scribe also signed as a second witness. But here, in the case of this mishna, the bill of divorce is invalid and the woman may not remarry; it is only if she remarried and had a child that his lineage is rendered unflawed after the fact. Therefore, it must be referring to a case where the husband wrote it.

ושמואל – לא קשיא; הא בספרא דמובהק, והא בספרא דלא מובהק.

And Shmuel, who holds that both cases are referring to a bill of divorce that was written by a scribe but not signed by the scribe as one of the witnesses, would respond that the contradiction is not difficult. That mishna, where the bill of divorce is rendered valid ab initio, is referring to the handwriting of an expert scribe, who can presumably be relied upon to have written the bill of divorce properly and only according to the husband’s instructions, and this mishna is referring to the handwriting of a scribe who is not expert. Since the bill of divorce was not signed by two witnesses, there is concern that the scribe did not write it properly.

וכן אמר רבי יוחנן: ״כתב ידו״ שנינו. אמר ליה רבי אלעזר: הרי יש עליו עדים! אמר ליה: אסיפא.

And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan says in accordance with the opinion of Rav: We learned that the mishna is referring to his handwriting. Rabbi Elazar, assuming that Rabbi Yoḥanan was explaining the middle clause, said to him: Aren’t there signatures of witnesses in the bill of divorce? Why is the husband’s handwriting necessary? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I was referring to the latter clause, in which there is only one witness.

זימנין אמר רב: תצא, זימנין אמר רב: לא תצא.

§ With regard to the three invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna, sometimes Rav said that if the woman remarries based on one of these bills of divorce she must leave her second husband, and sometimes Rav said that she need not leave.

הא כיצד? יש לה בנים – לא תצא, אין לה בנים – תצא.

How so? How can the contradiction between Rav’s statements be explained? If she already has children from her second husband then she need not leave him, as, if she is required to leave him there will be slander that their children are mamzerim. But if she does not have children from him, she must leave him.

מתיב מר זוטרא בר טוביה: וכולן, שהיו בהן ספק קידושין או ספק גירושין – הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתיבמות.

Mar Zutra bar Toviya raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a mishna (Yevamot 30b). With regard to a woman whose husband died childless [yevama] but who is prohibited from marrying her late husband’s brother [yavam] because he is a forbidden relative to her, not only is she herself exempt from levirate marriage, but she causes any rival wives of hers to be exempt as well, even if they are not forbidden relatives to the brother. The mishna lists fifteen examples of such forbidden relatives (Yevamot 2a). And if any of these fifteen women had undergone a betrothal or divorce whose status is uncertain with the deceased brother, those rival wives must perform the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza] and may not enter into levirate marriage, since they are possibly the rival wives of a forbidden relative.

כיצד ספק קידושין? זרק לה קידושין – ספק קרוב לה, ספק קרוב לו, זהו ספק קידושין.

How could there be a betrothal whose status is uncertain? If he threw her money or a document as betrothal in the public domain, and the item was possibly closer to her, whereby she could acquire the object and become betrothed, and possibly closer to him, preventing her from acquiring it, this is a case of a betrothal whose status is uncertain.

ספק גירושין – כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים, יש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן, יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד – הרי זה ספק גירושין.

How can there be a divorce whose status is uncertain? It is in the cases of invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna here: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it but it contains only one witness. In each of the three cases, this is considered a divorce whose status is uncertain.

ואי אמרת לא תצא, צרתה אתיא ליבומי!

And if you say that despite this woman’s problematic divorce she need not leave her second husband, her rival wife from her first marriage might come to enter into levirate marriage after the first husband’s death, assuming that she was already divorced. This would violate the ruling of the mishna in tractate Yevamot that she may not do so, as the status of the divorce is uncertain and therefore it is uncertain whether she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative.

תתיבם, ואין בכך כלום; חששא דרבנן היא.

The Gemara answers: She may enter into levirate marriage, and there is no problem with that, as the difficulty with the bill of divorce is merely a concern by rabbinic law. By Torah law it is a complete bill of divorce, and the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage.

לוי אמר: לעולם לא תצא. וכן אמר רבי יוחנן: לעולם לא תצא.

Contrary to Rav’s opinion that a woman who remarries based on one of these bills of divorce must leave her second husband unless they have children, Levi says that she is never required to leave him, whether or not they have children. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that she is never required to leave him.

וכן אמר להו רבי יוחנן לבני רבי חלפתא דמן הונא, הכי אמר אבוכון: לעולם לא תצא; וקרצית שבעמיר אינה פוסלת במי חטאת.

And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the sons of Rabbi Ḥalafta of Huna: Your father said the following two statements that I heard from him: That she is never required to leave him, and that a kartzit in the sheaf does not disqualify water of purification (see Numbers 19:17–19). Even if a kartzit drinks from this water, it may still be sprinkled on a person in order to purify him from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.

מאי קרצית? אמר אביי: דידבתא דביני כיפי.

The Gemara asks: What is a kartzit? Abaye said that it is a species of fly [didveta] that is found between the sheaves.

מתיב רב דניאל בר רב קטינא: כל העופות פוסלין במי חטאת, חוץ מן היונה – מפני שמוצצת. ואם איתא, ניתני: חוץ מיונה וקרצית!

Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina raises an objection to this ruling from the Mishna (Para 9:3): All birds disqualify water of purification by drinking from it, because some of the water spills from the bird’s beak back into the basin after being disqualified by having been in the bird’s mouth. This is the halakha with regard to all birds except for the pigeon, because it sucks the water, which prevents it from spilling back. And if it is so that a kartzit does not disqualify water of purification, let the mishna teach that all birds disqualify except for the pigeon and the kartzit.

לא פסיקא ליה, דגדולה לא פסלה, וקטנה פסלה. ועד כמה? אמר רבי ירמיה, ואיתימא רבי אמי: עד כזית.

The Gemara answers: The matter is not clear-cut, as, while a large kartzit does not disqualify the water, a small one does disqualify it. This ruling is not mentioned in the mishna, as it is not common to all species of kartzit. The Gemara asks: And how small must a kartzit be to disqualify water of purification? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ami who said: The size is up to an olive-bulk.

רבי אלעזר אומר: אף על פי וכו׳. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין. כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל, אמר: אף בשטרות.

§ It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Even if there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but rather he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. But when I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to monetary documents as well.

ורב סבר – בשטרות לא?! הא קתני: וגובה מנכסים משועבדים!

The Gemara asks: But does Rav hold that with regard to monetary documents the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar? Doesn’t Rabbi Elazar teach in the mishna that on the basis of this bill of divorce a woman can collect the amount written in her marriage contract even from liened property? Apparently, Rabbi Elazar’s ruling has monetary ramifications as well.

רבי אלעזר תרתי אמר; ורב סבר כוותיה בחדא, ופליג עליה בחדא.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar made two statements, i.e., his ruling was both with regard to divorce and with regard to monetary documents. And Rav holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to one issue, i.e., divorce, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one issue, monetary documents.

וכן אמר רבי יעקב בר אידי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין. ורבי ינאי אמר: אפילו ריח הגט אין בו.

And similarly, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yannai says: This does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

ורבי ינאי לית ליה דרבי אלעזר?! הכי קאמר: לרבנן – אפילו ריח הגט אין בו.

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yannai not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar at all, as opposed to the other amora’im? The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yannai is saying: According to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this bill of divorce does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

וכן אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר ריש לקיש: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין, ורבי יוחנן אמר: אפילו ריח הגט אין בו.

And similarly, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says that Reish Lakish says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

לימא רבי יוחנן לית ליה דרבי אלעזר?! הכי קאמר: לרבנן – אפילו ריח הגט אין בו.

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar at all. The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan is saying: According to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.

שלח ליה רבי אבא בר זבדא למרי בר מר, בעי מיניה מרב הונא: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין, או אין הלכה?

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent the following request to Marei bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce or whether the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

אדהכי נח נפשיה דרב הונא. אמר ליה רבה בריה, הכי אמר אבא משמיה דרבא: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין. ורבותינו הבקיאין בדבר הלכה, משום רבינו אמרו:

Meanwhile, before this request reached him, Rav Huna died. Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to Marei bar Mar: My father said in the name of Rava like this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And our teachers who are well-versed in matters of halakha also said in the name of our teacher that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, referred to as our teachers, says that our teacher Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין – דאמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין.

איכא דאמרי: וחברינו הבקיאין בדבר הלכה, ותלמידי רבינו, משום רבינו אמרו: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין – דאמר רב חסדא אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב:

There are those who say a different version of this statement: And our colleagues who are well versed in matters of halakha and the disciples of our teacher said in the name of our teacher that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav Ḥisda, Rabba bar Rav Huna’s colleague, said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, his teacher, said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין.

וכן כי אתא רבין, אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רב: הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין.

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Elazar, the amora, says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

מתני׳ שנים ששלחו שני גיטין שוין, ונתערבו; נותן שניהם לזו, ושניהם לזו. לפיכך, אבד אחד מהן – הרי השני בטל.

MISHNA: With regard to a case of two men who sent their wives two identical bills of divorce with an agent, as both their names and their wives’ names are identical, and the two bills of divorce were mixed up, the agent should hand both bills of divorce to this wife and both of them to that wife, so that each wife definitely receives her bill of divorce, although it is unclear which one is hers. Therefore, if one of the bills of divorce was lost before it was given to both women, the other is void, because it is unknown which bill of divorce was meant for which woman.

חמשה שכתבו כלל בתוך הגט – ״איש פלוני מגרש פלונית, ופלוני פלונית״, והעדים מלמטה; כולן כשרין, וינתן לכל אחת ואחת.

With regard to five husbands who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce, i.e., who wrote one common bill of divorce for their wives with a single formula, writing that so-and-so divorces his wife so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of these bills of divorce that were combined into one bill are valid; and the bill must be handed to each and every wife individually, so they will all be divorced by it.

היה כותב טופס לכל אחד ואחד, והעדים מלמטה; את שהעדים ניקרין עמו – כשר.

If the scribe was writing a separate formula in the bill of divorce for each and every couple, and the witnesses signed below, the formula with which the witnesses’ signatures are read is valid. In other words, the formula directly underneath which they signed is valid, and the others are not valid.

גמ׳ מאן תנא? אמר רבי ירמיה: דלא כרבי אלעזר. דאי רבי אלעזר, כיון דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי – הא לא ידעי בהי מינייהו קא מגרשה.

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that the two bills of divorce that were mixed up should be handed to both wives? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as had it been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, since he says that witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, handing both bills of divorce to both wives would not enable the divorce of each woman to take effect. This is because the witnesses do not know at the time of the transmission with which one of the bills of divorce she is being divorced.

אביי אמר: אפילו תימא רבי אלעזר – אימא דבעי רבי אלעזר כתיבה לשמה, נתינה לשמה מי בעי?!

Abaye said: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Say that although Rabbi Elazar requires the writing of the bill of divorce to be for her sake, i.e., with the specific woman and man for whom it is designated in mind, does he require giving it to her for her sake? Although the transmission of the bill of divorce is what causes it to take effect, it need not be done with the designated woman in mind. Therefore, the divorce here is valid, as the bill of divorce was definitely given to the wife for whom it was intended.

חמשה שכתבו כלל כו׳. היכי דמי כלל, היכי דמי טופס?

§ It is stated in the mishna: With regard to five husbands who wrote a general wording in a bill of divorce, all of them can divorce their wives with it. But if a separate formula was written for each, only the last one is valid. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case of the general wording, and what are the circumstances of the case of the separate formula that was written for each couple?

אמר רבי יוחנן: זמן אחד לכולן – זהו כלל. זמן לכל אחד ואחד – זהו טופס.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If there is one date and one formula written for all of them, such as: On such-and-such a date so-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so, that is a general wording. If a separate date and formula was written for each and every one of them, that is considered a separate formula.

וריש לקיש אמר:

And Reish Lakish says: