Gittin 19aגיטין י״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Gittin 19a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
19aי״ט א

כדאי הוא ר"ש לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק

Rabbi Shimon, who permitted using a bill of divorce that was written during the day and signed at night, is worthy of being relied upon in exigent circumstances. Therefore, once such a bill of divorce has been written and given, the woman is divorced.

והאמר ריש לקיש לא הכשיר ר"ש אלא לאלתר אבל מכאן ועד עשרה ימים לא בההיא כרבי יוחנן סבירא ליה

The Gemara challenges: But didn’t Reish Lakish say: Rabbi Shimon deemed such a bill of divorce valid only if it was signed immediately, but after a delay from now until ten days, no. The Gemara answers: With regard to that question, whether the others must sign immediately, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that they may sign after a delay.

והאמר ר' יוחנן שנים משום עדים וכולן משום תנאי בההיא כריש לקיש סבירא ליה:

The Gemara challenges: But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation? It is clear that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is concerned about the other witnesses and deems the bill of divorce valid only due to exigent circumstances. The Gemara answers: With regard to this, i.e., why the additional people must sign, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that all of them function as witnesses.

מתני׳ בכל כותבים בדיו בסם בסיקרא ובקומוס ובקנקנתום ובכל דבר שהוא של קיימא אין כותבין לא במשקין ולא במי פירות ולא בכל דבר שאינו מתקיים

MISHNA: One may write a bill of divorce with any material that can be used for writing: With deyo, with paint [sam], with sikra, with komos, with kankantom or with anything that produces permanent writing. However, one may not write with other liquids, nor with fruit juice, nor with anything that does not produce permanent writing.

על הכל כותבין על העלה של זית ועל הקרן של פרה ונותן לה את הפרה על יד של עבד ונותן לה את העבד רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר אין כותבין לא על דבר שיש בו רוח חיים ולא על האוכלים:

Similarly, with regard to the document itself, one may write on anything, even on an olive leaf, or on the horn of a cow. And the latter is valid if he gives her the entire cow. Likewise, one may write a bill of divorce on the hand of a slave, and that is valid if he gives her the slave. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagrees and says: One may not write a bill of divorce on any living thing, nor may it be written on food.

גמ׳ דיו דיותא סם סמא סיקרא אמר רבה בר בר חנה סקרתא שמה קומוס קומא קנקנתום אמר רבה בר [בר חנה אמר] שמואל חרתא דאושכפי:

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by explaining the terms used in the mishna: Deyo refers to what is called deyota, ink, in Aramaic. Sam refers to samma, arsenic. With regard to sikra, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Its name in Aramaic is sikreta, red dye, derived from minium, which is also known as red lead. Komos, tree resin, is known as kuma in Aramaic. With regard to kankantom, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Shmuel said: This is the black substance used by cobblers, iron sulfate.

ובכל דבר שהוא מתקיים וכו': לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתני ר' חנינא כתבו במי טריא ואפצא כשר תני ר' חייא כתבו באבר בשחור ובשיחור כשר

The mishna taught that one is allowed to write a bill of divorce with anything that produces permanent writing. The Gemara asks: This statement is meant to add what? The Gemara answers: To add what Rabbi Ḥanina taught: If he wrote it with mei teriya or water in which gallnuts [aftza] were soaked, then it is valid, as the writing is permanent. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: If he wrote it with lead, with coals, or with black paint then it is valid.

איתמר המעביר דיו על גבי סיקרא בשבת רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו חייב שתים אחת משום כותב ואחת משום מוחק דיו ע"ג דיו סיקרא על גבי סיקרא פטור סיקרא ע"ג דיו אמרי לה חייב ואמרי לה פטור

§ It was stated that there was a related discussion about different types of writing: In the case of one who passes ink over letters written in red dye on Shabbat, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings for this: One due to violating the prohibition against writing on Shabbat, because he is now writing letters in ink, and one due to violating the prohibition against erasing on Shabbat, because as he writes he erases what is written in red dye. They also agree in the case of ink written on top of ink, or red dye on top of red dye, that according to everyone he is exempt, because he changed nothing with his writing. However, if he wrote with red dye on top of ink, then some say that he is liable and some say that he is exempt.

אמרי לה חייב מוחק הוא אמרי לה פטור מקלקל הוא

The Gemara explains these opinions: Some say that he is liable because it is erasing, as he erases the higher-quality, original writing. Some say that he is exempt because he is destroying and one who acts destructively is exempt, as he has not performed planned, constructive labor on Shabbat.

בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר' יוחנן עדים שאין יודעים לחתום מהו שיכתבו להם בסיקרא ויחתמו כתב עליון כתב או אינו כתב א"ל אינו כתב

This dispute pertains to the halakhot of Shabbat. With regard to the signing of documents, Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If there are witnesses who do not know how to sign their names, what is the halakha: May their names be written for them with red dye, and afterward they will sign on top of it in ink? The question is: Is the upper writing, which was not directly on the document but on top of other ink, considered to be writing, or is it not writing? He said to him: It is not writing. Consequently, this may not be done for witnesses who do not know how to sign.

א"ל והלא לימדתנו רבינו כתב עליון כתב לענין שבת א"ל וכי מפני שאנו מדמין נעשה מעשה

Reish Lakish said to him: Didn’t our master, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, teach us that the upper writing is considered to be writing with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: And because we compare the halakhot pertaining to bills of divorce to the halakhot of Shabbat, shall we perform an action and teach that a bill of divorce may be written in this manner?

איתמר עדים שאין יודעים לחתום רב אמר מקרעין להם נייר חלק וממלאים את הקרעים דיו ושמואל אמר באבר

§ It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to the following question: What should be done for witnesses who do not know how to sign? Rav says: One tears blank paper for them, meaning that a stencil of their names is fashioned from blank paper and placed on the bill of divorce. The witnesses then fill in the gaps with ink so that their names appear on the document. And Shmuel says: One first writes their names on the document with lead, and the witnesses write over those letters.

באבר סלקא דעתך והתני רבי חייא כתבו באבר בשחור ובשיחור כשר לא קשיא הא באברא הא במיא דאברא

The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind to say that they actually write for them with lead? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: If he wrote it with lead, with coals, or with black paint, then it is valid? It can be seen from this baraita that writing with lead is considered to be a valid form of writing, and, as Rabbi Yoḥanan taught, if one writes on top of other writing then the second writing is not accepted for the signing of documents. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, that Shmuel allowed the witnesses to sign on top of lead writing, applies only when the first writing was done with lead itself, which is not considered to be writing on its own. That, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement that it is valid for writing a bill of divorce, applies only when the first writing was done using lead water, i.e., water colored black with lead.

רבי אבהו אמר במי מילין והתני רבי חנינא כתבו במי טריא ואפצא כשר

Rabbi Abbahu said: A solution would be to write the names for these witnesses with gall water [mei milin] and have them trace their names with ink. The Gemara challenges: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina teach that if he wrote a bill of divorce with mei teriya or water in which gallnuts were soaked it is valid? As this is so, any additional writing over the writing in gall water should not be accepted as a valid signature.

ל"ק הא דאפיץ הא דלא אפיץ שאין מי מילין ע"ג מי מילין

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This suggestion of Rabbi Abbahu, that the document be prepared with the names of the witnesses written with gall water, refers to a case where the parchment was processed with gallnuts. That statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, that gall water may be used on its own to write a bill of divorce, refers to a case where the parchment was not processed with gallnuts. The reason for the difference is because gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water, i.e., on parchment that was processed with gallnuts. Therefore, if the parchment was processed using gallnuts, the writing of the names of the witnesses, done with gall water, will not be permanent, and the witnesses may sign their names on top of that writing. When the baraita states that witnesses may sign their names with gall water, it is referring to a case where the parchment was not processed with gallnuts, so the gall water signature will be permanent.

רב פפא אמר ברוק וכן אורי ליה רב פפא לפפא תוראה ברוק וה"מ בגיטין אבל בשטרות לא

Rav Pappa said: A solution would be to write the names for these witnesses with saliva and have them trace their names with ink. And so Rav Pappa instructed Pappa the ox herder, who did not know how to sign his name, that the court should write his name with saliva and he should trace it with ink. The Gemara comments: This matter, the leniency to have the witnesses trace their names, applies only to bills of divorce, as there is a concern that witnesses will not be found, and the woman will be unable to remarry. However, for financial documents, the Sages did not allow this, and one must instead find witnesses who know how to sign their names.

דההוא דעבד עובדא בשאר שטרות ונגדיה רב כהנא

It is told that there was a certain person who performed an action and allowed witnesses to trace their names in a case of other documents, which were not bills of divorce, and Rav Kahana ordered that he be flogged for doing so.