Gittin 24a:1-15גיטין כ״ד א:א׳-ט״ו
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Gittin 24a:1-15"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
24aכ״ד א

וממקום שבאת מה להלן צריכות שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם אף היא צריכה שתאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם

And from the place that you came, i.e., from this inference itself, one establishes: Just as there, those who bring the bill of divorce must say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, so too, she herself must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. This baraita must be referring to a case in which the wife brought the bill of divorce from outside of Eretz Yisrael, as it is only then that she must state that it was written and signed in her presence. Therefore, the baraita supports the opinion of Abaye.

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני האשה עצמה מביאה גיטה ובלבד שתהא צריכה לומר כו' ש"מ

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated in a way that supports Abaye’s opinion, as it teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Learn from the mishna that it is referring to a case outside of Eretz Yisrael, as Abaye explained.

ורב יוסף רישא וסיפא בחוצה לארץ מציעתא בארץ אין רישא וסיפא בחו"ל מציעתא בארץ

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Yosef, is it possible to say that the first clause of the mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce, and the last clause of the mishna (23b): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the middle clause: Even the women who are not deemed credible, discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: Yes, the first clause and the last clause discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, but the middle clause discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael.

ממאי מדקתני מה בין גט למיתה שהכתב מוכיח ולא קתני שהכתב ופה מוכיח:

The Gemara explains: From where does Rav Yosef infer this? From the fact that it teaches in the mishna: What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death, that certain women are deemed credible to testify about one but not the other? With regard to a bill of divorce, it is so that the writing proves that the husband is divorcing his wife. The mishna does not teach that the writing and statement prove this. Consequently, the statement of: It was written in my presence, is not needed. This indicates that the mishna is discussing a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael.

האשה עצמה מביאה וכו': אשה מכי מטי גיטה לידה איגרשה לה אמר רב הונא באומר לא תתגרשי בו אלא בפני ב"ד פלוני סוף סוף כי מטיא התם איגרשה בה

§ The mishna teaches that the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce and state that it was written and signed in her presence. The Gemara asks: Why does she need to bring it and testify that it was written and signed in her presence? With regard to this woman, once her bill of divorce reaches her hand, she is divorced. Rav Huna says: This mishna is referring to one who says to his wife: You will be divorced through it only in the presence of such and such court, and the divorce does not take effect when she receives the bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, once she arrives there, to that court, she is immediately divorced through it, as she has fulfilled the condition set forth by her husband. Why, then, is it necessary for her to bring the bill of divorce and to testify?

אלא אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אחא בריה דרב איקא דאמר לה כי מטית התם אתנחיה אארעא ושקליה

Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: This mishna is referring to a case where he said to her: When you arrive there, place the bill of divorce on the ground and take it. Consequently, the divorce does not take effect immediately upon her arrival.

אי הכי הוה ליה טלי גיטך מעל גבי קרקע ואמר רבא טלי גיטך מעל גבי קרקע לא אמר כלום

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, isn’t it like the case where he said to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from off the ground, and Rava says: If a husband says to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from off the ground, then it is as though he said nothing. He is not considered to have given her a bill of divorce; rather, she has taken it on her own.

אלא דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם הוי שליח לקבלה וקבלי את גיטך

Rather, the mishna should be explained as follows: This is referring to a case where he said to his wife: Be my agent for delivery of the bill of divorce until you arrive there. And when you arrive there, be your own agent for receipt, and receive your bill of divorce as an agent.

והא לא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם שוי שליח לקבלה

The Gemara challenges: But the agency has not returned to the husband. In other words, the first agency, where she acted as the agent for delivery, has not ended, because an agent must have the ability to complete his involvement in the act, return to the person who appointed him, and inform him that the agency has been carried out. In this case, once she arrives at the court, her agency ends when she assumes the role of the recipient of the bill of divorce, and her involvement does not end. Therefore, the appointment of the agent itself is deficient, and the divorce should not take effect. Rather, the mishna should be explained that he said to her: Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint an agent for receipt on your behalf and give him the bill of divorce.

הניחא למ"ד אשה עושה שליח לקבל גיטה מיד שליח בעלה אלא למ"ד אין האשה עושה שליח לקבל גיטה מיד שליח בעלה מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of the agent of her husband, and it is not required that she receive the bill of divorce herself. However, according to the one who says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of the agent of her husband, what can be said?

טעמא מאי משום דאיכא בזיון דבעל והכא בעל לא קפיד

The Gemara answers: What is the reason of the one who said that the woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the agent of her husband? Because there is degradation of the husband in doing this, as he wishes to give the bill of divorce directly to the woman and not to an agent. And here the husband is not particular about the matter, as he instructed her to do so.

הניחא למ"ד משום בזיון דבעל אלא למ"ד משום חצרה הבאה לאחר מיכן מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara clarifies: This works out well according to the one who said: The reason for this halakha is due to the concern about the degradation of the husband. But according to the one who says that this halakha is a decree due to the case of her courtyard that comes afterward, what can be said? Some say that the reason for the halakha that the woman cannot appoint an agent to receive the bill of divorce from the agent of her husband is that there was a concern that if she were able to do so, then the courts may eventually allow her to be divorced by purchasing a courtyard into which her husband had placed the bill of divorce. In the latter case, the divorce does not take effect. The courtyard needs to be an extension of the hand of the woman, into which the husband places the bill of divorce, but it does not act as her agent. In any event, according to this opinion, the fact that the husband is not particular does not prevent this halakha from applying, as it does not depend on him.

דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם שוי שליח להולכה וקבלי את גיטך מיניה

The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, the mishna should be explained as discussing a case when he said to her: Be an agent for delivery of this bill of divorce until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint another agent for delivery, and receive your bill of divorce from him.

ואיבעית אימא דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם אימר קמי בי דינא בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ומשוי בי דינא שליח וליתבוה ניהליך:

And if you wish, say that he said to her: Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, say before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and you should then appoint the court as an agent, and they will give the bill of divorce to you.



הדרן עלך המביא גט:

מתני׳ כל גט שנכתב שלא לשום אשה פסול כיצד היה עובר בשוק ושמע קול סופרים מקרין איש פלוני מגרש את פלונית ממקום פלוני ואמר זה שמי וזה שם אשתי פסול לגרש בו

MISHNA: Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. How so? In a case of a man who was passing through the marketplace and heard the sound of scribes who write bills of divorce dictating the text to their students: The man so-and-so divorces so-and-so from the place of such and such; and the man said: This is my name and that is the name of my wife, and he wishes to use this bill for his divorce, this bill is unfit for him to divorce his wife with it, as it was not written for the sake of any woman.

יתר מיכן כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך מצאו בן עירו ואמר לו שמי כשמך ושם אשתי כשם אשתך פסול לגרש בו

Moreover, if one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife’s name is the same as your wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce and I will use it; the bill of divorce is unfit for the second man to divorce his wife with it.