Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 9, 2016 | 讻状讟 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 87

Can a number of people join聽together and write one get for all their wives. 聽If so, how must it be done so it fulfills all the halachic obligations? 聽 If 2 separate divorce documents are written side by side and witnesses are signed on the bottom, for which get are they valid? What if some witnesses sign in Hebrew and some in Greek? There are varying interpretations among the rishonim as to what it means to “sign in Greek.”

Study Guide Gittin 87


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗驻讬诇讜 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讟讜驻住 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻诇诇 讚讻转讘 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖谞讜 谞砖讜转讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬转

Even if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately. Rather, what are the circumstances of the case of a general wording? It is a case where one wrote: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讝讛讜 讻诇诇 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讞转诪讜 住讛讚讬 讗讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬诇转 砖诇讜诐 讘讙讟 驻住讜诇 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注诇 砖讗讬诇转 砖诇讜诐 讞转诪讜

Rabbi Abba objects to this: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that when there is one date written for all of them that is a general wording, we should be concerned that perhaps when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce they intended to sign for only the last couple. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:9) that if witnesses are signed on a greeting that was written in a bill of divorce, i.e., after the formulation of the bill of divorce the scribe extended greetings to someone and the witnesses signed underneath, it is invalid, as we are concerned that perhaps they signed the greeting and not the bill of divorce?

诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诇讜 驻住讜诇 讜砖讗诇讜 讻砖专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this baraita that Rabbi Abbahu says: It was explained to me by Rabbi Yo岣nan that if the wording of the greeting is: Ask about the well-being of so-and-so, it is invalid, as perhaps the witnesses intended to witness only the greeting. But if the wording is: And ask about the well-being of so-and-so, with the conjunctive prefix vav, thereby making it appear as a continuation of the previous matter, it is valid, as the witnesses presumably signed the bill of divorce as well. Here too, it should be explained that this is a bill of divorce in which it is written: So-and-so has divorced his wife so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, as the conjunctive prefix indicates continuation.

讜转讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 讟讜驻住 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜驻住 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讻转讘 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诐 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara raises another challenge: And furthermore, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that when there is a separate date written for each couple, that is considered a separate formula, why is it rendered invalid specifically due to it being considered a separate formula? Derive that it is invalid because it is like a bill of divorce that was written during the day and signed at night, which is invalid because it was signed on a different calendar date than it was written. Here too, since a different date was written for each couple, and the witnesses signed only after the last formula, they clearly signed only on that date, and with regard to the previous couples it is therefore an invalid bill of divorce.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: We say the following explanation of the case in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: It is a case where it is written in the respective formulations: On Sunday, on Sunday. In other words, the date written in each bill of divorce is the same, as they were all written on the same date.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 讟讜驻住 讛讜讬 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻诇诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖谞讜 谞砖讜转讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬转 谞诪爪讗讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 诪转讙专砖讜转 讘讙讟 讗讞讚 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讻转讘 诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讛 讜诇讞讘专转讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to Reish Lakish, who says that if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately, then even if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula, and he explains that what are the circumstances of the case of a general wording; a case where the following wording is written in the bill of divorce: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so. Accordingly, two women are found being divorced with one bill of divorce. All of these women are divorced with the same bill of divorce that contains a list of several couples. And the Torah said: 鈥淎nd he writes her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it is derived from this phrase that he cannot write it both for her and for another woman. Rather, each woman requires a separate bill of divorce.

讚讛讚专 讻转讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转

The Gemara answers: It is valid because he then wrote after the general formulation: So-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇砖谞讬 注讘讚讬讜 拽谞讜 讜诪砖讞专专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And in what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who writes a document granting all of his property to his two slaves, they both acquire the property and must emancipate each other? Since the slaves are included in the property, by acquiring the property together they each have ownership over half of the other slave. Consequently, they must emancipate each other. Since the halakhot of emancipation of slaves are compared to the halakhot of divorce, it can be proven from here that one bill of divorce can be written for two wives.

讜诇讗讜 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转

The Gemara answers: But didn鈥檛 we establish that that baraita is referring to a case where the master wrote two documents, one for each slave, stating that he is giving him all of his property, and he gave them to them simultaneously? Certainly each slave needs his own bill of emancipation.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and similarly it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诪砖讛 砖讻转讘讜 讘转讜讱 讛讙讟 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讙专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讬诐 讜转谞转谉 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan as follows: With regard to five men who wrote in the bill of divorce: So-and-so hereby divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and wrote one date for all of them, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of them are valid; and this document must be handed to each and every one of the women mentioned in it.

讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讗讬诐 注诪讜 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讝诪谉 诪驻住讬拽谉

Nevertheless, if a separate date is written for each and every one and the witnesses signed below, the bill of divorce with which the witnesses鈥 signatures are read is valid. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If there is space between them it is invalid, as the witnesses鈥 signatures appear to be referring only to the last couple. But if there is not a space it is valid, as the date written for each couple does not separate between them. Rather, they are still considered the same bill of divorce with regard to the witnesses鈥 signatures.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞诪砖讛 砖讻转讘讜 讻诇诇 讘转讜讱 讛讙讟 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖谞讜 谞砖讜转讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜转谞转谉 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: With regard to five men who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so; so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and they wrote one date for all of them, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of them are valid; and it must be handed to each and every woman.

讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜专讬讜讞 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻砖专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇 砖讛讝诪谉 诪驻住讬拽谉

If a separate date was written for each and every one, and there is a space for each and every one, and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the witnesses鈥 signatures are read is valid; the others are not. Rabbi Meir says: Even if there is no space between them, the upper ones are invalid, as the date separates them.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讗 讗诪专 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 讟讜驻住 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, why is the baraita referring specifically to a case in which a separate date was written for each and every one? Didn鈥檛 he say that if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注专讘讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚注专讘讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬 驻诇讬讙 诇讛讜 讝诪谉 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This matter applies where he did not merge them at the outset but instead wrote the divorce of each couple separately. But here, he merged them at the outset, writing: So-and-so and so-and-so have hereby divorced their wives so-and-so and so-and-so. Therefore, if the date separates them they are considered to be separate bills of divorce, and if not, then they are not considered separate bills of divorce.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 砖讻转讘谉 讝讛 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 注讘专讬诐 讘讗讬诐 诪转讞转 讝讛 诇转讞转 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讬讜谞讬诐 讘讗讬诐 诪转讞转 讝讛 诇转讞转 讝讛 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 谞拽专讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻砖专

MISHNA: With regard to two bills of divorce that a scribe wrote on the same paper one next to the other, and the signatures of two Hebrew witnesses, i.e., witnesses who signed in Hebrew from right to left, extend from underneath this bill of divorce on the right to underneath that bill of divorce on the left, and the signatures of two Greek witnesses, i.e., who signed in Greek from left to right, extend from underneath that bill of divorce on the left to underneath this bill of divorce on the right, the bill of divorce with which the names of the first two witnesses are read [nikra鈥檌n] is valid. The other bill of divorce is invalid, as it is not considered signed by these witnesses.

注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讘讗讬谉 诪转讞转 讝讛 诇转讞转 讝讛 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉

If one witness signed in Hebrew from right to left, and one witness signed beneath him in Greek from left to right, and underneath that signature one witness signed in Hebrew, and beneath him one witness signed in Greek, with the signatures extending from underneath this bill of divorce to underneath that bill of divorce, both bills of divorce are invalid.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘专讗讜讘谉 讜讛讗讬 讘讘谉 讬注拽讘 注讚 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

GEMARA: It is stated in the first case of the mishna that the bill of divorce under which the names of the first two witnesses appear is valid and the other is not, even though the signatures extend to that bill of divorce as well. The Gemara says: But let this bill of divorce be validated by the name Reuven alone, and let that bill of divorce be validated by the continuation: Son of Ya鈥檃kov, witness, which can be considered a separate signature. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a subsequent mishna (87b) that a signature that reads: Son of so-and-so, witness, is valid?

讚讻转讘 专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讗拽诪讗 讜讬注拽讘 注讚 讗讘转专讗

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the words: Reuven, son of, are written on the side of the first bill of divorce, and the words: Ya鈥檃kov, witness, are written on the side of the latter bill of divorce, indicating that it is one signature.

讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘讬注拽讘 注讚 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

The Gemara says: But let this bill of divorce, on the first, left-hand, side, be validated by the words: Reuven, son of, and let that bill of divorce on the other, right-hand, side be validated by the words: Ya鈥檃kov, witness. Didn鈥檛 we learn in the same mishna that a signature that reads: So-and-so, witness, without the father鈥檚 name, is valid?

讚诇讗 讻转讘 注讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讻转讘 注讚 讜讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讞转讬诪讛 讚诇讗讜 讚讬注拽讘 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the word witness is not written. The latter side includes only a name, which is not sufficient. And if you wish, say: Actually, it is a case where the expression: Ya鈥檃kov, witness, is written underneath the second bill of divorce; but it is a case where we know that this signature is not Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚. Evidently it is part of the signature of Reuven, son of Ya鈥檃kov, and cannot serve as a separate signature for the second bill of divorce.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘砖诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讞转讬诐 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 砖诪讬讛 讜讞转讬诐 砖诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛

The Gemara asks: But perhaps Reuven signed both bills of divorce, and he signed the second one with his father鈥檚 name? The Gemara answers: One does not leave out his own name and instead sign in the name of his father.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讗 砖讜讬讬讛 讚讛讗 专讘 爪讬讬专 讻讜讜专讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞专讜转讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 住诪讱 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 注讬谉 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪讬讬专 诪讻讜转讗

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he made his father鈥檚 name a symbol for his own signature? As Rav would draw a fish instead of signing his name, Rabbi 岣nina would draw a date palm, Rav 岣sda would write a samekh, Rav Hoshaya would write an ayin, and Rabba bar Rav Huna would draw a sail.

诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇砖讜讬讬 诇砖诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛 住讬诪谞讗

The Gemara answers: A person would not be so brazen as to make his father鈥檚 name a symbol. Therefore, it is assumed that the word Ya鈥檃kov is a continuation of Reuven鈥檚 signature on the first bill of divorce, not a separate signature on the second bill of divorce.

讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 注讘专讬诐 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讬讜谞讬诐 讚转谞谉 讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜注讚讬讜 讬讜谞讬转 讬讜谞讬转 讜注讚讬讜 注讘专讬转 讻砖专

The Gemara raises a different question: But let this bill of divorce be validated by the two Hebrew witnesses, and let that bill of divorce be validated by the two Greek witnesses, as we learned in the subsequent mishna that a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, is valid.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讜驻诇讙 讘砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪诇讗讛讜 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讻砖专

And if you would say that since the signatures of the witnesses of the second bill of divorce are two lines away from the bill of divorce itself, it is not valid, as that is the halakha with regard to a document that has a gap between the text and the signatures, but didn鈥檛 岣zkiyya say that if the gap was filled, even with the signatures of relatives who are disqualified from serving as witnesses, it is valid?

讛讗 转谞讬 讝注讬专讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚诇诪讗 讙讜谞讚诇讬转 讞转讬诐 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬

The Gemara comments: Ze鈥檈iri in fact teaches that both of the two bills of divorce are valid, not only the one beneath which the names of the first two witnesses appear. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the tanna of our mishna, who does not agree with this ruling? The Gemara answers: He is concerned that perhaps the bottom two witnesses signed in reverse [gundalit]. For example, if the top two signatures are in Hebrew, perhaps the witnesses who signed in Greek reversed the word order of their signatures, imitating the Hebrew style, and in actuality all of the witnesses signed one bill of divorce.

注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讜讛讗讬 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讻砖专

搂 It is stated in the mishna that if one witness signed in Hebrew and then one witness signed in Greek, and then one more witness signed in Hebrew and one in Greek, both bills of divorce are invalid. The Gemara asks: But let this bill of divorce be validated by one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness, and that bill of divorce be validated by the other pair composed of one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness. Didn鈥檛 we learn in the subsequent mishna that a bill of divorce that was signed by one witness in Hebrew and one witness in Greek is valid?

讛讗 转谞讬 讝注讬专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬诐 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚诇诪讗 讙讜谞讚诇讬转 讞转讬诐 讜转诇转讗 讗讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讞讚

The Gemara answers: Ze鈥檈iri in fact teaches that both of them are valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the tanna of our mishna? The Gemara answers: He is concerned that perhaps they signed in reverse, i.e., perhaps one of the witnesses who signed in Greek reversed the word order of his signature, and in actuality he signed the other bill of divorce. Consequently, three witnesses signed one bill of divorce and only one witness signed the other one. Therefore, they are both rendered invalid.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讬讬专 诪拽爪转 讛讙讟 讜讻转讘讜 讘讚祝 讛砖谞讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讻砖专 讞转诪讜 注讚讬诐 讘专讗砖 讛讚祝 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗讜 诪讗讞专讬讜 讘讙讟 驻砖讜讟 驻住讜诇

MISHNA: If a scribe left out part of the bill of divorce and wrote it in the second column, i.e., the bill of divorce is written in two columns on one paper, and the signatures of the witnesses are beneath the second column, it is a valid bill of divorce. If the witnesses signed at the top of the column, on the side, or on the back of an ordinary, non-folded bill of divorce, it is invalid.

讛拽讬祝 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讬谉 注诪讜 讻砖专 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讬谉 讘住讜驻讜 讻砖专

If the scribe placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the top of that bill of divorce so that both are written in the same column but with the text in opposite directions, and the witnesses signed in the middle, between the bills of divorce, both bills of divorce are invalid. If he placed the end of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle between them, the bill of divorce with which the witnesses鈥 signatures are read, i.e., the bill that is written in the same direction as the signatures, is valid. If he placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle, the bill of divorce at the end of which the witnesses are read, i.e., the upper bill of divorce, is valid.

讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜注讚讬讜 讬讜讜谞讬转 讬讜讜谞讬转 讜注讚讬讜 注讘专讬转 注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜讜谞讬 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讜注讚 讻砖专

With regard to a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, or in which one witness signed in Hebrew and one witness signed in Greek, or 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.

讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注讚 讻砖专 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 谞拽讬讬 讛讚注转 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻转讘 讞谞讬讻转讜 讜讞谞讬讻转讛 讻砖专

As for the wording of the signature, if a witness signed: So-and-so, witness, without mentioning his father鈥檚 name, it is valid. Similarly, if he did not write his name and instead wrote: Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. If he wrote: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, but did not write the word witness, it is valid. And this is what the scrupulous people of Jerusalem would do, i.e., they would sign without the word witness. As for the names of the husband and wife, if the scribe wrote his surname [岣nikhato] or nickname and her surname or nickname, it is valid.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转专讬 讙讬讟讬 讛讜讜 讜讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝诪谉 讚拽诪讗 讜注讚讬诐 讚讘转专讗 讜讙讝讬讬讛 诇讝诪谉 讚讘转专讗 讜注讚讬诐 讚拽诪讗

GEMARA: With regard to a bill of divorce that is written in two columns, let us be concerned that perhaps these were two adjacent bills of divorce, the second one higher up on the page than the first, and the date written at the top of the first bill of divorce and the signatures of the witnesses written at the bottom of the latter bill of divorce happened to be written next to each other, and someone cut out the date of the latter bill of divorce and the signatures of the witnesses of the first so that it appears to be a single bill of divorce written in two columns.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖讬砖 专讬讜讞 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讝诪谉 讚讘转专讗 诪讬讙讝 讙讝讬讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖讬砖 专讬讜讞 诪诇诪讟讛

Rav Abba says that Rav says: It is a case where there is space on the paper below the first bill of divorce, so it is clear that nothing was cut out. The Gemara asks: And perhaps he cut out the date of the latter bill of divorce, making it look like a continuation of the first one, which was actually never finished? The Gemara answers: Just as Rabbi Abba says that Rav says that it is a case where there is space below the first bill of divorce,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 87

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 87

讗驻讬诇讜 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讟讜驻住 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻诇诇 讚讻转讘 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖谞讜 谞砖讜转讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬转

Even if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately. Rather, what are the circumstances of the case of a general wording? It is a case where one wrote: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讝讛讜 讻诇诇 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讞转诪讜 住讛讚讬 讗讘转专讗 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬诇转 砖诇讜诐 讘讙讟 驻住讜诇 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注诇 砖讗讬诇转 砖诇讜诐 讞转诪讜

Rabbi Abba objects to this: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that when there is one date written for all of them that is a general wording, we should be concerned that perhaps when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce they intended to sign for only the last couple. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:9) that if witnesses are signed on a greeting that was written in a bill of divorce, i.e., after the formulation of the bill of divorce the scribe extended greetings to someone and the witnesses signed underneath, it is invalid, as we are concerned that perhaps they signed the greeting and not the bill of divorce?

诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诇讜 驻住讜诇 讜砖讗诇讜 讻砖专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this baraita that Rabbi Abbahu says: It was explained to me by Rabbi Yo岣nan that if the wording of the greeting is: Ask about the well-being of so-and-so, it is invalid, as perhaps the witnesses intended to witness only the greeting. But if the wording is: And ask about the well-being of so-and-so, with the conjunctive prefix vav, thereby making it appear as a continuation of the previous matter, it is valid, as the witnesses presumably signed the bill of divorce as well. Here too, it should be explained that this is a bill of divorce in which it is written: So-and-so has divorced his wife so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, as the conjunctive prefix indicates continuation.

讜转讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 讟讜驻住 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜驻住 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讻转讘 讘讬讜诐 讜谞讞转诐 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara raises another challenge: And furthermore, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that when there is a separate date written for each couple, that is considered a separate formula, why is it rendered invalid specifically due to it being considered a separate formula? Derive that it is invalid because it is like a bill of divorce that was written during the day and signed at night, which is invalid because it was signed on a different calendar date than it was written. Here too, since a different date was written for each couple, and the witnesses signed only after the last formula, they clearly signed only on that date, and with regard to the previous couples it is therefore an invalid bill of divorce.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: We say the following explanation of the case in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: It is a case where it is written in the respective formulations: On Sunday, on Sunday. In other words, the date written in each bill of divorce is the same, as they were all written on the same date.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 讟讜驻住 讛讜讬 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻诇诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖谞讜 谞砖讜转讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬转 谞诪爪讗讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 诪转讙专砖讜转 讘讙讟 讗讞讚 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讻转讘 诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讛 讜诇讞讘专转讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to Reish Lakish, who says that if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately, then even if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula, and he explains that what are the circumstances of the case of a general wording; a case where the following wording is written in the bill of divorce: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so. Accordingly, two women are found being divorced with one bill of divorce. All of these women are divorced with the same bill of divorce that contains a list of several couples. And the Torah said: 鈥淎nd he writes her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it is derived from this phrase that he cannot write it both for her and for another woman. Rather, each woman requires a separate bill of divorce.

讚讛讚专 讻转讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转

The Gemara answers: It is valid because he then wrote after the general formulation: So-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇砖谞讬 注讘讚讬讜 拽谞讜 讜诪砖讞专专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And in what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who writes a document granting all of his property to his two slaves, they both acquire the property and must emancipate each other? Since the slaves are included in the property, by acquiring the property together they each have ownership over half of the other slave. Consequently, they must emancipate each other. Since the halakhot of emancipation of slaves are compared to the halakhot of divorce, it can be proven from here that one bill of divorce can be written for two wives.

讜诇讗讜 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转

The Gemara answers: But didn鈥檛 we establish that that baraita is referring to a case where the master wrote two documents, one for each slave, stating that he is giving him all of his property, and he gave them to them simultaneously? Certainly each slave needs his own bill of emancipation.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and similarly it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诪砖讛 砖讻转讘讜 讘转讜讱 讛讙讟 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讙专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讬诐 讜转谞转谉 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan as follows: With regard to five men who wrote in the bill of divorce: So-and-so hereby divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and wrote one date for all of them, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of them are valid; and this document must be handed to each and every one of the women mentioned in it.

讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讗讬诐 注诪讜 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讝诪谉 诪驻住讬拽谉

Nevertheless, if a separate date is written for each and every one and the witnesses signed below, the bill of divorce with which the witnesses鈥 signatures are read is valid. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If there is space between them it is invalid, as the witnesses鈥 signatures appear to be referring only to the last couple. But if there is not a space it is valid, as the date written for each couple does not separate between them. Rather, they are still considered the same bill of divorce with regard to the witnesses鈥 signatures.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞诪砖讛 砖讻转讘讜 讻诇诇 讘转讜讱 讛讙讟 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖谞讜 谞砖讜转讬谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讙讬专砖 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜转谞转谉 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: With regard to five men who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so; so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and they wrote one date for all of them, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of them are valid; and it must be handed to each and every woman.

讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜专讬讜讞 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻砖专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇 砖讛讝诪谉 诪驻住讬拽谉

If a separate date was written for each and every one, and there is a space for each and every one, and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the witnesses鈥 signatures are read is valid; the others are not. Rabbi Meir says: Even if there is no space between them, the upper ones are invalid, as the date separates them.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讝诪谉 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讗 讗诪专 讝诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 讟讜驻住 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, why is the baraita referring specifically to a case in which a separate date was written for each and every one? Didn鈥檛 he say that if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注专讘讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚注专讘讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬 驻诇讬讙 诇讛讜 讝诪谉 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This matter applies where he did not merge them at the outset but instead wrote the divorce of each couple separately. But here, he merged them at the outset, writing: So-and-so and so-and-so have hereby divorced their wives so-and-so and so-and-so. Therefore, if the date separates them they are considered to be separate bills of divorce, and if not, then they are not considered separate bills of divorce.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 砖讻转讘谉 讝讛 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 注讘专讬诐 讘讗讬诐 诪转讞转 讝讛 诇转讞转 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讬讜谞讬诐 讘讗讬诐 诪转讞转 讝讛 诇转讞转 讝讛 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 谞拽专讗讬谉 注诪讜 讻砖专

MISHNA: With regard to two bills of divorce that a scribe wrote on the same paper one next to the other, and the signatures of two Hebrew witnesses, i.e., witnesses who signed in Hebrew from right to left, extend from underneath this bill of divorce on the right to underneath that bill of divorce on the left, and the signatures of two Greek witnesses, i.e., who signed in Greek from left to right, extend from underneath that bill of divorce on the left to underneath this bill of divorce on the right, the bill of divorce with which the names of the first two witnesses are read [nikra鈥檌n] is valid. The other bill of divorce is invalid, as it is not considered signed by these witnesses.

注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讘讗讬谉 诪转讞转 讝讛 诇转讞转 讝讛 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉

If one witness signed in Hebrew from right to left, and one witness signed beneath him in Greek from left to right, and underneath that signature one witness signed in Hebrew, and beneath him one witness signed in Greek, with the signatures extending from underneath this bill of divorce to underneath that bill of divorce, both bills of divorce are invalid.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘专讗讜讘谉 讜讛讗讬 讘讘谉 讬注拽讘 注讚 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

GEMARA: It is stated in the first case of the mishna that the bill of divorce under which the names of the first two witnesses appear is valid and the other is not, even though the signatures extend to that bill of divorce as well. The Gemara says: But let this bill of divorce be validated by the name Reuven alone, and let that bill of divorce be validated by the continuation: Son of Ya鈥檃kov, witness, which can be considered a separate signature. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a subsequent mishna (87b) that a signature that reads: Son of so-and-so, witness, is valid?

讚讻转讘 专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讗拽诪讗 讜讬注拽讘 注讚 讗讘转专讗

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the words: Reuven, son of, are written on the side of the first bill of divorce, and the words: Ya鈥檃kov, witness, are written on the side of the latter bill of divorce, indicating that it is one signature.

讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘讬注拽讘 注讚 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

The Gemara says: But let this bill of divorce, on the first, left-hand, side, be validated by the words: Reuven, son of, and let that bill of divorce on the other, right-hand, side be validated by the words: Ya鈥檃kov, witness. Didn鈥檛 we learn in the same mishna that a signature that reads: So-and-so, witness, without the father鈥檚 name, is valid?

讚诇讗 讻转讘 注讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讻转讘 注讚 讜讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讞转讬诪讛 讚诇讗讜 讚讬注拽讘 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the word witness is not written. The latter side includes only a name, which is not sufficient. And if you wish, say: Actually, it is a case where the expression: Ya鈥檃kov, witness, is written underneath the second bill of divorce; but it is a case where we know that this signature is not Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚. Evidently it is part of the signature of Reuven, son of Ya鈥檃kov, and cannot serve as a separate signature for the second bill of divorce.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘砖诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讞转讬诐 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 砖诪讬讛 讜讞转讬诐 砖诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛

The Gemara asks: But perhaps Reuven signed both bills of divorce, and he signed the second one with his father鈥檚 name? The Gemara answers: One does not leave out his own name and instead sign in the name of his father.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讗 砖讜讬讬讛 讚讛讗 专讘 爪讬讬专 讻讜讜专讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞专讜转讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 住诪讱 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 注讬谉 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪讬讬专 诪讻讜转讗

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he made his father鈥檚 name a symbol for his own signature? As Rav would draw a fish instead of signing his name, Rabbi 岣nina would draw a date palm, Rav 岣sda would write a samekh, Rav Hoshaya would write an ayin, and Rabba bar Rav Huna would draw a sail.

诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇砖讜讬讬 诇砖诪讗 讚讗讘讜讛 住讬诪谞讗

The Gemara answers: A person would not be so brazen as to make his father鈥檚 name a symbol. Therefore, it is assumed that the word Ya鈥檃kov is a continuation of Reuven鈥檚 signature on the first bill of divorce, not a separate signature on the second bill of divorce.

讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 注讘专讬诐 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讬讜谞讬诐 讚转谞谉 讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜注讚讬讜 讬讜谞讬转 讬讜谞讬转 讜注讚讬讜 注讘专讬转 讻砖专

The Gemara raises a different question: But let this bill of divorce be validated by the two Hebrew witnesses, and let that bill of divorce be validated by the two Greek witnesses, as we learned in the subsequent mishna that a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, is valid.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讜驻诇讙 讘砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪诇讗讛讜 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讻砖专

And if you would say that since the signatures of the witnesses of the second bill of divorce are two lines away from the bill of divorce itself, it is not valid, as that is the halakha with regard to a document that has a gap between the text and the signatures, but didn鈥檛 岣zkiyya say that if the gap was filled, even with the signatures of relatives who are disqualified from serving as witnesses, it is valid?

讛讗 转谞讬 讝注讬专讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚诇诪讗 讙讜谞讚诇讬转 讞转讬诐 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬

The Gemara comments: Ze鈥檈iri in fact teaches that both of the two bills of divorce are valid, not only the one beneath which the names of the first two witnesses appear. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the tanna of our mishna, who does not agree with this ruling? The Gemara answers: He is concerned that perhaps the bottom two witnesses signed in reverse [gundalit]. For example, if the top two signatures are in Hebrew, perhaps the witnesses who signed in Greek reversed the word order of their signatures, imitating the Hebrew style, and in actuality all of the witnesses signed one bill of divorce.

注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讜诇讬转讻砖专 讛讗讬 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讜讛讗讬 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜谞讬 讻砖专

搂 It is stated in the mishna that if one witness signed in Hebrew and then one witness signed in Greek, and then one more witness signed in Hebrew and one in Greek, both bills of divorce are invalid. The Gemara asks: But let this bill of divorce be validated by one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness, and that bill of divorce be validated by the other pair composed of one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness. Didn鈥檛 we learn in the subsequent mishna that a bill of divorce that was signed by one witness in Hebrew and one witness in Greek is valid?

讛讗 转谞讬 讝注讬专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬诐 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚诇诪讗 讙讜谞讚诇讬转 讞转讬诐 讜转诇转讗 讗讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讞讚

The Gemara answers: Ze鈥檈iri in fact teaches that both of them are valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the tanna of our mishna? The Gemara answers: He is concerned that perhaps they signed in reverse, i.e., perhaps one of the witnesses who signed in Greek reversed the word order of his signature, and in actuality he signed the other bill of divorce. Consequently, three witnesses signed one bill of divorce and only one witness signed the other one. Therefore, they are both rendered invalid.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讬讬专 诪拽爪转 讛讙讟 讜讻转讘讜 讘讚祝 讛砖谞讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讻砖专 讞转诪讜 注讚讬诐 讘专讗砖 讛讚祝 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗讜 诪讗讞专讬讜 讘讙讟 驻砖讜讟 驻住讜诇

MISHNA: If a scribe left out part of the bill of divorce and wrote it in the second column, i.e., the bill of divorce is written in two columns on one paper, and the signatures of the witnesses are beneath the second column, it is a valid bill of divorce. If the witnesses signed at the top of the column, on the side, or on the back of an ordinary, non-folded bill of divorce, it is invalid.

讛拽讬祝 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 砖谞讬讛诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讬谉 注诪讜 讻砖专 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 住讜驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗转 砖讛注讚讬诐 谞拽专讬谉 讘住讜驻讜 讻砖专

If the scribe placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the top of that bill of divorce so that both are written in the same column but with the text in opposite directions, and the witnesses signed in the middle, between the bills of divorce, both bills of divorce are invalid. If he placed the end of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle between them, the bill of divorce with which the witnesses鈥 signatures are read, i.e., the bill that is written in the same direction as the signatures, is valid. If he placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle, the bill of divorce at the end of which the witnesses are read, i.e., the upper bill of divorce, is valid.

讙讟 砖讻转讘讜 注讘专讬转 讜注讚讬讜 讬讜讜谞讬转 讬讜讜谞讬转 讜注讚讬讜 注讘专讬转 注讚 讗讞讚 注讘专讬 讜注讚 讗讞讚 讬讜讜谞讬 讻转讘 住讜驻专 讜注讚 讻砖专

With regard to a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, or in which one witness signed in Hebrew and one witness signed in Greek, or 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.

讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注讚 讻砖专 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 谞拽讬讬 讛讚注转 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻转讘 讞谞讬讻转讜 讜讞谞讬讻转讛 讻砖专

As for the wording of the signature, if a witness signed: So-and-so, witness, without mentioning his father鈥檚 name, it is valid. Similarly, if he did not write his name and instead wrote: Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. If he wrote: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, but did not write the word witness, it is valid. And this is what the scrupulous people of Jerusalem would do, i.e., they would sign without the word witness. As for the names of the husband and wife, if the scribe wrote his surname [岣nikhato] or nickname and her surname or nickname, it is valid.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转专讬 讙讬讟讬 讛讜讜 讜讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝诪谉 讚拽诪讗 讜注讚讬诐 讚讘转专讗 讜讙讝讬讬讛 诇讝诪谉 讚讘转专讗 讜注讚讬诐 讚拽诪讗

GEMARA: With regard to a bill of divorce that is written in two columns, let us be concerned that perhaps these were two adjacent bills of divorce, the second one higher up on the page than the first, and the date written at the top of the first bill of divorce and the signatures of the witnesses written at the bottom of the latter bill of divorce happened to be written next to each other, and someone cut out the date of the latter bill of divorce and the signatures of the witnesses of the first so that it appears to be a single bill of divorce written in two columns.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖讬砖 专讬讜讞 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讝诪谉 讚讘转专讗 诪讬讙讝 讙讝讬讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖讬砖 专讬讜讞 诪诇诪讟讛

Rav Abba says that Rav says: It is a case where there is space on the paper below the first bill of divorce, so it is clear that nothing was cut out. The Gemara asks: And perhaps he cut out the date of the latter bill of divorce, making it look like a continuation of the first one, which was actually never finished? The Gemara answers: Just as Rabbi Abba says that Rav says that it is a case where there is space below the first bill of divorce,

Scroll To Top