Gittin 17
חַבְרָא, שְׁקַלָה לִשְׁרָגָא מִקַּמַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר: רַחֲמָנָא! אוֹ בְּטוּלָּךְ, אוֹ בְּטוּלָּא דְּבַר עֵשָׂו.
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.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּרוֹמָאֵי מְעַלּוּ מִפָּרְסָאֵי?! וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱלֹהִים הֵבִין דַּרְכָּהּ וְהוּא יָדַע אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ״? יוֹדֵעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לְקַבֵּל גְּזֵירַת רוֹמִיִּים, עָמַד וְהִגְלָה אוֹתָם לְבָבֶל.
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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּנֵיתוֹ חַבָּרֵי לְבָבֶל, הָא לְבָתַר דַּאֲתוֹ חַבָּרֵי לְבָבֶל.
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.
אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״ – כָּשֵׁר: אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יַד עֵד כְּתִיבָה, דְּנַעֲשׂוּ כִּשְׁנַיִם עַל זֶה וְכִשְׁנַיִם עַל זֶה; אֲבָל מִתַּחַת יְדֵי עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה – פָּסוּל.
§ 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.
אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר; וַאֲפִילּוּ גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם – פָּסְלִי רַבָּנַן?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
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.
זִימְנִין אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה – כָּשֵׁר. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, אֵין צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר; טַעְמָא דְּאֵין הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, הָא גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מַכְשְׁרִי רַבָּנַן?!
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. וְהָא זִמְנִין לָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן הָכִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָתֵד הִיא שֶׁלֹּא תָּמוּט.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם; בַּלַּיְלָה וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה; בַּלַּיְלָה וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם – כָּשֵׁר. בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה – פָּסוּל; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.
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.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַגִּיטִּין שֶׁנִּכְתְּבוּ בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתְּמוּ בַּלַּיְלָה – פְּסוּלִין; חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה תִּיקְּנוּ זְמַן בְּגִיטִּין? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ.
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.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם פֵּירוֹת.
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.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר לָךְ:
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:
זְנוּת לָא שְׁכִיחָא.
Adultery is infrequent, and the Sages would not institute the dating of a bill of divorce to avoid an infrequent problem.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? קָסָבַר: יֵשׁ לְבַעַל פֵּירוֹת עַד שְׁעַת נְתִינָה.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא מַכְשַׁיר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – דְּמַכְשַׁיר?
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.
אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא קָאָמֵינָא, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן; אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן?
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?
פֵּירֵי דְּמִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה וְעַד שְׁעַת חֲתִימָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
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.
וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ! דְּאִתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹצִיאִין לְפֵירוֹת? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה!
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.
אֵיפוֹךְ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִים, וְאִם נִיסַּת – הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר; מָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָן? אַהֲנוֹ דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא תִּינָּשֵׂא.
§ 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.
גַּזְיֵיהּ לִזְמַן דִּידֵיהּ, וְיַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְרַמַּאי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
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.
כָּתוּב בּוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, שָׁנָה, חֹדֶשׁ, שַׁבָּת, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּשֵׁר. וּמָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָן?
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.
אַהְנוֹ לְשָׁבוּעַ דְּקַמֵּיהּ וּלְשָׁבוּעַ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, יוֹמָא גּוּפֵיהּ – מִי יָדְעִינַן אִי מִצַּפְרָא אִי מִפַּנְיָא?! אֶלָּא לְיוֹמָא דְּקַמֵּיהּ וּלְיוֹמָא דְּבָתְרֵיהּ; הָכָא נָמֵי, אַהְנִי לְשָׁבוּעַ דְּקַמֵּיהּ וּלְשָׁבוּעַ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: כַּתְבֵיהּ
Ravina said to Rava: If he writes the bill of divorce,
