גיטין יח

גיטין יח

וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּכִיסְתֵּיהּ – דְּאִי מִפַּיְּיסָהּ תִּיפַּיַּיס, מַאי?

and puts it in his pocket without giving it to her, as he thought that if she appeases [mippayyesa] him he will be appeased, what is the halakha when he then does give it to her? Since the date on the document is incorrect, did the Sages institute an ordinance that such a bill of divorce should not be used?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מַקְדֵּים אִינָשׁ פּוּרְעָנוּתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

Rava said to him: A person does not hasten a calamity on himself and will not ordinarily prepare a bill of divorce in advance. Rather, he will wait until he is ready to divorce his wife. Since this scenario is unlikely, the Sages did not see a need to institute an ordinance pertaining to it.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: גִּיטִּין הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, דְּמִיכַּתְבִי בְּנִיסָן וְלָא מָטוּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי – מָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָם? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנְהוּ, קָלָא אִית לְהוּ.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: When there are bills of divorce that come from a country overseas which are written, for example, in the month of Nisan, and they do not reach the woman until the month of Tishrei, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance to date the bill of divorce? All of the concerns about an undated bill of divorce still apply. He said to him: Concerning these bills of divorce from overseas, it is public knowledge that they do not take effect from the date on which they were written. Therefore, if there is a conflict over produce the husband has sold, the woman must bring witnesses to testify as to when she received her bill of divorce.

אִיתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לַגֵּט? רַב אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.

§ The Sages decreed that it is prohibited for a woman to remarry within three months of her divorce or her becoming a widow, in order to prevent a situation of doubt concerning the paternity of a child. It was stated: From when does one begin counting the three months with regard to a bill of divorce? Rav says: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and Shmuel says: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יֹאמְרוּ: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּחָצֵר אַחַת – זוֹ אֲסוּרָה וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: זוֹ זְמַן גִּיטָּהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ, וְזוֹ זְמַן גִּיטָּהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ.

Rav Natan bar Hoshaya objects to this: According to the statement of Shmuel, now people will say: If two women who live in one courtyard received their bills of divorce at the same time, but the first document was written at the time of the divorce and the second one was written earlier, then this woman is still prohibited from remarrying, as three months have not yet passed from when her bill of divorce was written; and that woman is already permitted to remarry. This does not seem reasonable. Abaye said to him: This is not difficult. With regard to this woman, the date of her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may not remarry yet; and with regard to that woman, the date on her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may remarry already.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְנִשְׁתַּהָה שָׁלִיחַ בַּדֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the three-month count begins from when the bill of divorce is given: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife, and the agent tarries on the way for three months, once the bill of divorce reaches her hand she must wait three months before remarrying. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, i.e., that the husband and wife were secluded after it was written, rendering the bill of divorce invalid, because he was not secluded with her during the time the bill of divorce was being delivered.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּשְׁלִישׁ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, מִשֶּׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ – מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that the count begins from the time of the writing: In the case of one who is about to travel and deposits a bill of divorce for his wife with a trustee and says to him: Give it to her only after three months, once he gives it to her, she is permitted to marry immediately and is not required to wait an additional three months. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, as he was not secluded with her in the interim.

רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב פַּפֵּי וְרַב אָשֵׁי – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה, רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.

It is told that Rav Kahana and Rav Pappi and Rav Ashi would in practice count three months from the time of the writing, but Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would in practice count these three months from the time of the giving. And the halakha is that the counting begins from the time of the writing.

אִיתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי כְּתוּבָּה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת?

§ The Gemara discusses another dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to documents. According to the terms of a marriage contract, a widow is entitled to payment of its value upon the death of her husband. By Torah law, all outstanding debts are canceled at the close of the Sabbatical Year. A woman need not take her marriage settlement as soon as her husband dies. The issue at hand is at what point the marriage contract generates a concrete debt that will be canceled by the Sabbatical Year. It was stated: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled in the Sabbatical Year?

רַב אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתִּפְגּוֹם – וְתִזְקוֹף. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: פָּגְמָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא זָקְפָה, זָקְפָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּגְמָה.

Rav says: The marriage contract becomes like a debt and will be canceled in the Sabbatical Year from the time when the woman collects partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. And Shmuel says: This occurs when she either collects partial payment although she did not establish it as debt, or she established the entire value of the marriage contract as a debt in court although she did not collect partial payment.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: מֵאֵימָתַי כְּתוּבָּה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת? מִשֶּׁתִּפְגּוֹם וְתִזְקוֹף. פָּגְמָה וְלֹא זָקְפָה, זָקְפָה וְלֹא פָּגְמָה – אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת, עַד שֶׁתִּפְגּוֹם וְתִזְקוֹף.

With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled? From when she accepts partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. However, if she accepted partial payment but did not establish the debt, or established the debt but did not accept partial payment, then it is not canceled until she accepts partial payment and establishes the debt.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אוֹנֶס, וּקְנָס, וּפִיתּוּי, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה – שֶׁזְּקָפָן בְּמִלְוָה, מְשַׁמְּטִין; וְאִם לָאו – אֵין מְשַׁמְּטִין. מֵאֵימָתַי נִזְקָפִים בְּמִלְוָה? מִשְּׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If the fine and damages paid by one who commits rape; or the fine paid by one who falsely claims his wife was not a virgin at the time of their wedding; or the fine paid for seduction; or the debt established by a woman’s marriage contract was established as a loan, then the Sabbatical Year cancels it. And if one did not establish these payments as loans, then the Sabbatical Year does not cancel them. From when is it considered that these payments have been established as a loan? From the time of standing trial, because the abstract obligation to pay becomes a debt once the court ruled that one is required to pay.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּתוּבָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמְיָא – מָה מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין נִכְתָּבִין בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתָּמִין בַּלַּיְלָה, אַף כְּתוּבָּה נִכְתֶּבֶת בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתֶּמֶת בַּלַּיְלָה. כְּתוּבְּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אִיכְּתוּב בַּיּוֹם וְאִיחֲתוּם בַּלַּיְלָה; הֲוָה רַב הָתָם וְלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.

§ The Gemara discusses other aspects of the marriage contract. Shmuel said: A marriage contract is considered to be like a court enactment. Just as court enactments may be written during the day and then signed at night, and the fact that the writing and signing were not performed on the same day does not present a problem, so too, a marriage contract may be written during the day and then signed at night. It is told: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav’s marriage contract was written during the day and then signed at night, and Rav was there and he did not say anything to the people who wrote and signed it. This indicates that Rav agrees with the ruling of Shmuel.

לֵימָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן הֲווֹ. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק: לֹא שָׁנוּ, אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁאֵין עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן, אֲבָל עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן – כָּשֵׁר.

The Gemara asks: Shall we say he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be proven from here because the scribe and witnesses were continuously engaged in that matter of writing the marriage contract, from when it was written in the day until they signed it at night, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok said: The Sages taught that a document written during the day and signed at night is invalid only when the scribe and witnesses were not continuously engaged in that matter, but if they were continuously engaged in that matter until nightfall, then it is valid.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר: אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? קָסָבַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, שׁוּב אֵין לוֹ פֵּירוֹת.

§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce written during the day and signed at night. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? He holds that once the husband has decided to divorce her, he no longer has the rights to the produce from his wife’s property, and it is clear that he has decided to divorce her when he writes a bill of divorce. Consequently, the woman obtains the rights to the produce from the moment the bill of divorce was written, regardless of when it was signed.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא לְאַלְתַּר, אֲבָל מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים – לֹא;

Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon deems such a bill of divorce valid only if it is signed immediately, when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce during the night after it was written. However, if the delay in signing was from now, i.e., when the bill of divorce was written, until ten days have elapsed, i.e., when there is an extended delay, he does not deem it valid.

חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים; אִם אִיתָא דְּפַיֵּיס – קָלָא אִית לַיהּ לְמִילְּתָא.

Why not? Because we are concerned that perhaps he appeased his wife and engaged in sexual intercourse with her, thereby invalidating the bill of divorce. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the delay in signing was from now until ten days later Rabbi Shimon deems it valid. There is no concern that he appeased her because if it is so that he appeased her, then the matter becomes public knowledge, and all would hear of it.

אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנַיִם מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים, וְכוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים.

§ It was stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagreed with regard to the following case: If the husband says to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He means that all of them should sign the bill of divorce. Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation that the husband had stated. He made the bill of divorce dependent upon all of them signing, but he did not mean that ten men need to actually function as witnesses. And Reish Lakish says: All of them function as witnesses.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״כּוּלְּכֶם״; וְהָא תְּנַן, אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב וּשְׁנַיִם חוֹתְמִין! אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״כּוּלְּכֶם״.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which all of them have to sign? If we say that he did not say to them: All of you, but just said to them: You should write a bill of divorce for my wife, didn’t we learn in a mishna (66b) that if one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then one would write, and two would sign, and not all ten of them are required to sign. Rather, the case of their dispute is when he said to them: All of you write a bill of divorce for my wife, and in this instance is was taught later on in that mishna that one person writes the bill of divorce and everyone else must sign it.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – דַּחֲתוּם בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ בְּיוֹמֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי – כָּשֵׁר; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים – פָּסוּל.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish; what is the difference if the rest of the men function as witnesses or just in order to fulfill the man’s stipulation? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where two of them signed on that day and the rest signed not on the day it was written but from now until ten days later. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, the bill of divorce is valid, because two witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the same day that it was written, and the stipulation was also fulfilled. And according to the one who says that all these people sign due to his wish that they all function as witnesses, it is invalid because not all the witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the day it was written.

אִי נָמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי – כָּשֵׁר; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים – פָּסוּל.

Alternatively, there is another difference between them, in a case where one of these ten people is found to be a relative of the husband or wife, or is otherwise found to be disqualified to serve as a witness. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, this bill of divorce is valid because the disqualified person did not serve as a witness. He just signed the bill of divorce in order to fulfill the stipulation, and the bill of divorce has the signature of two qualified witnesses. According to the one who says that all these people sign due to the man’s wish that they all function as witnesses, the bill of divorce would be invalid, as is the case whenever one member of a group of witnesses is disqualified.

אִי חֲתִים בִּתְחִילָּה קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל; אָמְרִי לָהּ כָּשֵׁר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פָּסוּל. אָמְרִי לָהּ כָּשֵׁר – תְּנַאי הוּא; אָמְרִי לַהּ פָּסוּל – אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בִּשְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.

The Gemara adds another point of dispute: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the other witnesses sign due to the husband’s stipulation, if a relative or other disqualified witness signed at the beginning, before two valid witnesses had signed, then some say the bill of divorce is valid and some say that it is invalid. Some say that it is valid because the request for ten signatures is a stipulation. Since these ten people are not meant to serve as witnesses and are meant only to fulfill the stipulation, it makes no difference if they signed at the beginning or at the end. Some say that it is invalid because there is a concern that the courts will come to confuse it with typical documents, and they will rely on disqualified witnesses in those cases.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; חֲתוּם בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ בְּיוֹמֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ – מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ:

It is told: There was a certain person who said to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Two of them signed that day and the others signed after a delay from now until ten days later. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to ask what the halakha is with regard to such a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: