Gittin 17

חברא שקלה לשרגא מקמייהו אמר רחמנא או בטולך או בטולא דבר עשו

Persian priest [ḥabbara] and took the lamp [sheragga] from before them. It was a Persian holiday on which the Persians prohibited the public from maintaining light outside their temple. Rabba, who was from Eretz Yisrael, said: Merciful One! Let us live either in Your shadow or in the shadow of the descendants of Esau, the Romans.

למימרא דרומאי מעלו מפרסאי והתני רבי חייא מאי דכתיב אלהים הבין דרכה והוא ידע את מקומה יודע הקדוש ברוך הוא בישראל שאין יכולין לקבל גזירת רומיים עמד והגלה אותם לבבל

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the Romans are preferable to the Persians? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: What is the meaning of that which is written: “God understands its way and He knows its place” (Job 28:23)? This means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows with regard to the Jewish people that they are unable to accept and live under Roman decrees, and therefore He arose and exiled them to Babylonia. This indicates that living under Babylonian rule is preferable to living under Roman rule.

לא קשיא הא מקמי דניתו חברי לבבל הא לבתר דאתו חברי לבבל

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as this interpretation of Rabbi Ḥiyya refers to the period before the Persians reached Babylonia, when life there was very comfortable. That statement of Rabba was issued after the Persians reached Babylonia, when the situation changed and living there became more difficult.

אחד אומר בפני נכתב ושנים אומרים בפנינו נחתם כשר אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שהגט יוצא מתחת יד עד כתיבה דנעשו כשנים על זה וכשנים על זה אבל מתחת ידי עדי חתימה פסול

§ The mishna taught that if one person says: It was written in my presence, and two say: It was signed in our presence, it is valid. Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught that the document is valid only when the bill of divorce is produced by the witness to the writing, i.e., the one who observed the writing is the agent of the bill of divorce, as they become as two witnesses for this act, the writing, and two for that act, the signing. The agent for the bill of divorce is considered like two witnesses when he testifies with regard to the writing. However, if the bill of divorce was produced by the signatory witnesses it is invalid. This is because only one witness, who is not an agent for the bill of divorce, testifies with regard to its writing.

אלמא קסבר שנים שהביאו גט ממדינת הים צריכין שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם אמר ליה רבי אסי אלא מעתה רישא דקתני שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול ורבי יהודה מכשיר ואפילו גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם פסלי רבנן אמר ליה אין

The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas are required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, and if they do not state this declaration the bill of divorce is invalid. Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so, how do you explain the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, then it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid? But do the Rabbis invalidate the document even when the bill of divorce is produced by both of them? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes.

זימנין אשכחיה דיתיב וקאמר דאפילו גט יוצא מתחת ידי עדי חתימה כשר אלמא קסבר שנים שהביאו גט ממדינת הים אין צריכין שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם

The Gemara relates: Another time Rabbi Asi found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying that even if the bill of divorce is produced by the signatory witnesses it is valid. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan, in whose name Rabbi Ami stated this halakha, holds that in the case of two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, they are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.

אמר ליה רבי אסי אלא מעתה רישא דקתני שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול ורבי יהודה מכשיר טעמא דאין הגט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם הא גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם מכשרי רבנן

Rabbi Asi said to him: However, if that is so, how do you explain the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid? The Gemara elaborates: The reason it is invalid is that the bill of divorce is not produced by both of them, from which it may be inferred that if the bill of divorce is produced by both of them the Sages would deem it valid.

אמר ליה אין והא זמנין לא אמרת לן הכי אמר ליה יתד היא שלא תמוט

Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes. Rabbi Asi replied: But the other time you did not say this to us. You issued a ruling that indicated the opposite conclusion, and when I asked if that was the correct inference you affirmed that my reasoning was correct. Rabbi Ami said to him: What I am now telling you is a spike that will not move; you can rely on this ruling, and I retract my previous statement.

מתני׳ נכתב ביום ונחתם ביום בלילה ונחתם בלילה בלילה ונחתם ביום כשר ביום ונחתם בלילה פסול רבי שמעון מכשיר

MISHNA: If a bill of divorce was written during the day and signed on the same day; or if it was written at night and signed on that same night; or if it was written at night and signed on the following day, then it is valid. The new calendar day begins at night, so that in all of these cases the writing and the signing were performed on the same date. However, if it was written during the day and signed on that same night, it is invalid, as the writing and the signing were not on the same calendar day. Rabbi Shimon deems the bill of divorce valid.

שהיה רבי שמעון אומר כל הגיטין שנכתבו ביום ונחתמו בלילה פסולין חוץ מגיטי נשים

The mishna explains the ruling of Rabbi Shimon: As Rabbi Shimon would say: All documents that were written during the day and signed at night are invalid because the date recorded in the document is a day prior to the day the document takes effect, except for women’s bills of divorce. Since a bill of divorce is not used to collect money, it is of no concern if the date that appears on it is before the time when it was signed.

גמ׳ איתמר מפני מה תיקנו זמן בגיטין רבי יוחנן אמר משום בת אחותו

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the following question: For what reason did the Sages institute the writing of a date on bills of divorce? Why must the date be written if this document is not intended to be used to collect money? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Due to the daughter of his sister. The Sages were concerned that a man may claim that his divorce occurred earlier than it actually did. For example, if one was married to his niece, and she committed adultery, he may nevertheless desire to protect her judicial sanction and claim that they were already divorced at the time of her infidelity. In order to prevent this from happening, the Sages instituted an ordinance that bills of divorce must be dated.

ריש לקיש אמר משום פירות

Reish Lakish says: The ordinance was instituted due to the produce of her usufruct property. A husband owns the produce of the fields belonging to his wife up to the moment the divorce takes effect. The Sages instituted an ordinance that bills of divorce must be dated because she needs to be able to establish the time of the divorce in case the husband sold or consumed the produce of fields that belong to her after the divorce. If there is no date on the bill of divorce, he will be able to claim that the produce was sold or consumed before the divorce took place.

ריש לקיש מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי יוחנן אמר לך

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Reish Lakish did not say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you:

זנות לא שכיחא

Adultery is infrequent, and the Sages would not institute the dating of a bill of divorce to avoid an infrequent problem.

ורבי יוחנן מאי טעמא לא אמר כריש לקיש קסבר יש לבעל פירות עד שעת נתינה

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say in accordance with the reason of Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers that he holds the produce belongs to the husband until the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and only afterward does the woman have the rights to the produce of her property. If she attempts to collect the value of the produce sold after her divorce, she will be asked to prove when she received the bill of divorce. Therefore, in terms of assisting her to collect these monies, the dating of the bill of divorce does not serve any purpose.

בשלמא לריש לקיש משום הכי קא מכשיר רבי שמעון אלא לרבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון דמכשיר

The Gemara continues and asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, due to that reason Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce that was signed on the day after it was written, because he holds that the rights to the produce of usufruct property revert to the woman the moment the bill of divorce is written. She is therefore within her rights to collect these monies from the date written in the bill of divorce, even if it was given at a later date. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the reason for writing the date is to prevent the husband from shielding his wife from punishment for her infidelity, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems it valid? There is still a concern that he will have the bill of divorce written and dated earlier in order to protect her.

אמר לך רבי יוחנן אליבא דרבי שמעון לא קאמינא כי קאמינא אליבא דרבנן

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: I am not speaking in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he clearly is not concerned with the husband’s shielding his wife from punishment. When I speak, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that if the bill of divorce was signed on the night following its writing, it is invalid.

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן היינו דאיכא בין רבי שמעון לרבנן אלא לריש לקיש מאי איכא בין רבי שמעון לרבנן

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and the opinion of the Rabbis. However, according to Reish Lakish, what difference is there between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis?

פירי דמשעת כתיבה ועד שעת חתימה איכא בינייהו

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them pertains to the produce of the wife’s property from the time of the writing until the time of the signing. According to the Rabbis, the rights to the produce revert to the wife only once the bill of divorce is signed, and the bill of divorce must be dated then. According to Rabbi Shimon, the woman’s rights to the produce go into effect the moment the bill of divorce is written, and the date on which it was signed is irrelevant.

והא איפכא שמעינן להו דאתמר מאימתי מוציאין לפירות רבי יוחנן אמר משעת כתיבה וריש לקיש אמר משעת נתינה

The Gemara challenges the explanation as to why Rabbi Yoḥanan does not agree with Reish Lakish: But didn’t we hear Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish say the opposite of this? As it is stated that they had a dispute with regard to the question: From when does the court remove the property from the possession of the husband, i.e., when does he lose his right to the produce? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce, and Reish Lakish said: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce. This does not accord with what was stated above, that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the husband retains the rights to the produce until the bill of divorce is given and Reish Lakish holds that the wife regains the rights beforehand. Here, their opinions are the opposite of the way the Gemara explained earlier.

איפוך

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in this final dispute so that it is Reish Lakish who holds that the rights to the produce revert to the woman at the time of writing and it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who holds that it is at the time of giving the divorce.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף שלשה גיטין פסולים ואם ניסת הולד כשר מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתן אהנו דלכתחילה לא תינשא

§ The Gemara records a series of questions with regard to the parameters of the ordinance that bills of divorce should be dated. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It was taught in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid, but if a woman married after she received one of these bills of divorce then the offspring is of unflawed lineage, meaning that the husband and wife are divorced after the fact. One of the three bills of divorce listed is a bill of divorce that does not have a date. Abaye asks: Being that the divorce does take effect, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring that the date appear on a bill of divorce? Either way the bill of divorce is valid after the fact without a date. The Gemara answers: It is effective in that she may not marry ab initio as a result of receiving this bill of divorce, which consequently limits the usage of such a bill of divorce.

גזייה לזמן דידיה ויהביה ניהלה מאי אמר ליה לרמאי לא חיישינן

Abaye continued to ask of Rav Yosef: If the husband cut out its date after the dated bill of divorce was written and gave it to her, what is the halakha? May the bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: We are not concerned about a deceiver. The ordinance requiring that the bill of divorce be dated does not apply in this case, as it was dated when it was written.

כתוב בו שבוע שנה חדש שבת מאי אמר ליה כשר ומה הועילו חכמים בתקנתן

Abaye continued and asked: If the date written in the bill of divorce made reference only to the seven-year Sabbatical cycle in which it was written, or only to the year, or only to the month, or only to the week, but the precise date was not recorded, then what is the halakha? May such a bill of divorce be used ab initio? He said to him: It is valid to be used ab initio. Abaye asked him: If so, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance requiring the dating of the bill of divorce? Regardless of the reason for recording the date, such vague dating will not ameliorate the problem.

אהנו לשבוע דקמיה ולשבוע דבתריה דאי לא תימא הכי יומא גופיה מי ידעינן אי מצפרא אי מפניא אלא ליומא דקמיה וליומא דבתריה הכא נמי אהני לשבוע דקמיה ולשבוע דבתריה

Rav Yosef answered: It helps for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it. If witnesses testify that the woman committed adultery before this seven-year period, then she is liable; if the husband sells produce after this seven-year period, then the woman can recover it. The reason for this is because if you do not say so, i.e., that a limited benefit is enough to justify the ordinance, then on that day itself, do we know if it was written in the morning or in the evening? All of the issues that were mentioned before could apply also to that day itself. Rather, the date is effective for the day before it and the day after it. Here also, writing the seven-year period is effective for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it.

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא כתביה

Ravina said to Rava: If he writes the bill of divorce,