Gittin 67aגיטין ס״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Gittin 67a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
67aס״ז א

אמרו לסופר ויכתוב ולפלוני ופלוני ויחתמו ומשום כיסופא דסופר חיישי ומחתמי חד מהנך סהדי וסופר בהדייהו ובעל לא אמר הכי

Tell a scribe and he will write the document and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they will sign it. And due to the shame of the scribe, who asks: Don’t you consider me a sufficiently upright person to sign the document as a witness, the agents are concerned to avoid that disgrace and have one of those witnesses and the scribe sign together with him, and the husband did not say to do so. The bill of divorce is invalid because it was signed contrary to the husband’s instructions, and the agents will mistakenly think it is valid.

כיון דאמר מר כשר ולא תעשה כן בישראל לא שכיח

The Gemara answers: Since the Master said, as cited later, that such a bill of divorce is valid, however, it shall not be done in Israel, as the husband himself should appoint the scribe and the witnesses, it is an uncommon case for the husband to appoint an agent to arrange the bill of divorce, and the Sages do not issue a decree for cases that are uncommon.

וליחוש דילמא אמר להו לבי תרי אמרו לסופר ויכתוב ואתם חתומו ואזלי הנך משום כיסופא דסופר ומחתמי ליה לסופר בהדי חד מינייהו ובעל לא אמר הכי אמרי הא נמי כשר ולא תעשה הוא

The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned lest the husband say to two people: Tell the scribe and he will write the document and you sign it, and these two, due to the shame of the scribe, go and have the scribe sign the document together with one of them, and the husband did not say to do so. The Sages say: In this case too, it is valid; however, it shall not be done. This too is uncommon, and there is neither concern nor a decree.

הניחא למ"ד כשר ולא תעשה אלא למ"ד כשר ותעשה מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara responds: This works out well according to the one who said in this case as well: It is valid; however, it shall not be done. But according to the one who said: It is valid and it may be done, i.e., it is permitted ab initio, what is there to say?

אלא רבי יוסי תרתי אמר ושמואל סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

Rather, this is the explanation. Rabbi Yosei stated two halakhot: The first is that verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent. The second is that even when the husband said: Tell another to write the document, this agency cannot be transferred to another person. And Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in one case, i.e., that verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, and he disagrees with him in one case, as Shmuel holds that if the husband explicitly said: Tell another to write the document, this agency can be transferred.

גופא אמר שמואל אמר רבי הלכה כרבי יוסי דאמר מילי לא מימסרן לשליח אמר לפניו ר"ש ברבי מאחר שר"מ וחנינא איש אונו חולקין על רבי יוסי מה ראה רבי לומר הלכה כר' יוסי

§ With regard to the previously cited matter itself, Shmuel says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said before his father: Since Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono, who hold that verbal directives can be delegated to an agent, disagree with Rabbi Yosei, what led Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

אמר לו שתוק בני שתוק לא ראית את ר' יוסי אילמלי ראיתו נמוקו עמו

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Be silent, my son; be silent. You did not see Rabbi Yosei, as, if you had seen him, you would know that his reasoning [nimmuko] accompanies his statements. Therefore, I deem his opinion most reliable.

דתניא איסי בן יהודה היה מונה שבחן של חכמים ר"מ חכם וסופר ר' יהודה חכם לכשירצה ר' טרפון גל של אגוזין ר' ישמעאל חנות מיוזנת ר"ע אוצר בלום ר' יוחנן בן נורי קופת הרוכלים רבי אלעזר בן עזריה קופה של בשמים משנת ר' אליעזר בן יעקב קב ונקי ר' יוסי נמוקו עמו רבי שמעון טוחן הרבה ומוציא קימעא

This is as it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda would recount the praise of the Sages by characterizing each of them: Rabbi Meir, a scholar and scribe; Rabbi Yehuda, a scholar when he chooses to be one; Rabbi Tarfon, a pile of nuts, as, just as when one removes a nut from a pile all the other nuts fall, so too, when a student would ask Rabbi Tarfon with regard to one matter, he would cite sources from all the disciplines of the Torah; Rabbi Yishmael, a well-stocked store; Rabbi Akiva, a full storehouse; Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, a peddler’s basket, in which there is a small amount of each product; Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a basket of fragrant spices, as everything he says is reasonable; the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is measured [kav] and immaculate; Rabbi Yosei, his reasoning accompanies his statements; Rabbi Shimon grinds much and removes little.

תנא משכח קימעא ומה שמוציא אינו מוציא אלא סובין וכן אמר ר"ש לתלמידיו בניי שנו מדותי שמדותי תרומות מתרומות מידותיו של ר"ע

It is taught in explanation: Rabbi Shimon would forget little of his studies, and what he removed from his memory, he removed only chaff. And likewise, Rabbi Shimon said to his students: My sons, accept my halakhic rulings, as my rulings are the finest rulings of the finest rulings of Rabbi Akiva.

גופא אמר לשנים אמרו לסופר ויכתוב ולפלוני ופלוני ויחתמו אמר רב הונא אמר רב כשר ולא תעשה זאת בישראל

§ With regard to the matter previously cited itself, a case where one who said to two people: Tell a scribe and he will write the document and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they will sign it, Rav Huna says that Rav says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done in Israel ab initio. The husband himself must appoint the scribe and witnesses.

אמר ליה עולא לרב נחמן ואמרי לה רב נחמן לעולא מאחר דכשר אמאי לא תעשה זאת בישראל א"ל חיישינן שמא תשכור עדים

Ulla said to Rav Naḥman, and some say that Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Since it is valid, why shall it not be done in Israel? He said to him: We are concerned lest the woman hire witnesses. Since this is permitted by means of an agent, and the witnesses themselves do not know what the husband said, a woman could hire witnesses to tell a scribe to write a bill of divorce on her behalf and hire witnesses to sign it without her husband’s knowledge.

ומי חיישינן והתניא עדים החתומין על שדה מקח ועל גט אשה לא חשו חכמים לדבר זה מעשה לא עבדי דבורא קאמרי

The Gemara asks: But are we concerned about that possibility? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Yevamot 4:7): With regard to witnesses who are signed on a field of sale and a woman’s bill of divorce, the Sages were not concerned with regard to this matter of forgery, that perhaps these documents were written without consent of the owner and the husband, respectively. The Gemara answers: Although they would not perform an action and forge a bill of divorce, they would utter a statement and tell another to forge a document. The other person acts unknowingly, unaware of the impropriety involved.

אמר לשנים אמרו לסופר ויכתוב ואתם חתומו רב חסדא אמר כשר ולא תעשה רבה בר בר חנה אמר כשר ותעשה

The Gemara cites another halakha: If one said to two people: Tell the scribe and he will write the document and you sign it, Rav Ḥisda says: This bill of divorce is valid; however, it shall not be done ab initio. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: It is valid and it may be done ab initio.

רב נחמן אמר כשר ולא תעשה רב ששת אמר כשר ותעשה רבה אמר כשר ולא תעשה רב יוסף אמר כשר ותעשה

Several other amora’im dispute this matter. Rav Naḥman says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done ab initio. Rav Sheshet says: It is valid and it may be done ab initio. Rabba says: It is valid; however, it shall not be done. Rav Yosef says: It is valid and it may be done.