Gittin 86aגיטין פ״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Gittin 86a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
86aפ״ו א

לאפוקי מדבעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן דאמר היום אי את אשתי ולמחר את אשתי:

was instituted to the exclusion of that which Rava asked Rav Naḥman, with regard to a case where the husband said to his wife while handing her the bill of divorce: Today you are not my wife and tomorrow you are my wife. Does this limitation take effect? Although the conclusion of that inquiry was that once the wife is divorced she is divorced forever, Rava instituted the addition of this expression in the text of the bill of divorce to remove any uncertainty with regard to such a case.

גופו של גט שחרור הרי את בת חורין הרי את לעצמך: אתקין רב יהודה בשטר זביני דעבדי עבדא דנן מוצדק לעבדו ופטיר ועטיר מן חרורי ומן עלולי ומן ערורי מלכא ומלכתא ורשום דאיניש לא אית עלוהי ומנוק' מכל מום ומן שחין דנפיק עד טצהר חדת ועתיק

§ It is stated in the mishna: The basic element of a bill of manumission for a maidservant is: You are hereby a free woman, or: You are hereby your own. Rav Yehuda instituted the following formulation in a document of sale for slaves: This slave is justified, i.e., fit for slavery, and he is dismissed and removed from manumission and from accusations and from contests of the king and queen, meaning that he was not sentenced to death by the governmental court. And there is not a sign [reshum] of ownership of another person on him. And he is clean of any blemish and of boils that emerge on him for four [tatzhar] years, whether new or old.

מאי אסותיה אמר אביי גינברא ומרתכא וכבריתא וחלא דחמרא ומשחא דזיתא ונטפיק חיורא ושייפי ליה בגדפא דאווזא:

The Gemara asks tangentially: What is the cure for boils? Abaye said: One takes ginger [ginebara], and slag from silver, and sulfur [kavrita], and wine vinegar, and olive oil, and white naphtha [natpik], and spreads it with a goose feather.

מתני׳ שלשה גיטין פסולין ואם נשאת הוולד כשר

MISHNA: Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman marries another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of the offspring from this marriage is unflawed. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child.

כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים יש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד הרי אלו שלשה גיטין פסולין ואם נשאת הולד כשר

These three bills are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it, but it contains only one witness. These are the three invalid bills of divorce with regard to which the Sages said: And if she marries, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

רבי אליעזר אומר אע"פ שאין עליו עדים אלא שנתנו לה בפני עדים כשר וגובה מנכסים משועבדים שאין העדים חותמים על הגט אלא מפני תיקון העולם:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written for her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband can contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. Nevertheless, the witnesses’ signatures are not an essential part of a bill of divorce.

גמ׳ ותו ליכא והא איכא גט ישן התם לא תצא הכא תצא

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But are there no other invalid bills of divorce? But isn’t there an outdated bill of divorce, where the husband and wife were secluded after it was written and before it was handed to her? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the cases: There, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, if the woman remarries on the basis of that bill of divorce she need not leave her husband; here, she must leave him.

הניחא למ"ד הכא תצא אלא למ"ד הכא לא תצא מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, even though the lineage of their children is unflawed. But according to the one who says that here she need not leave, what is there to say? Why is an outdated bill of divorce not mentioned in the mishna?

התם תינשא לכתחלה הכא דיעבד

The Gemara answers: There is still a difference between the cases, as there, in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, she may remarry ab initio; while here, it is only after the fact, if she remarried, that she need not leave her second husband.

והא איכא גט קרח התם הוולד ממזר הכא הולד כשר

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bare bill of divorce, i.e., one that is missing a signature, which is also invalid? The Gemara answers: There, if the woman remarries based on this bill of divorce the offspring of her second marriage is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

הניחא לרבי מאיר (דאמר כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין הולד ממזר) אלא לרבנן מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that anyone who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce renders the offspring a mamzer. Therefore, a bare bill of divorce is completely invalid, and if the woman remarries the offspring is a mamzer. But according to the Rabbis, who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? Why is a bare bill of divorce not listed in the mishna?

התם תצא הכא לא תצא

The Gemara answers that there is still a distinction between the cases: There, if the woman remarries she must leave her husband, even according to the Rabbis who hold that the offspring is not a mamzer; here, she need not leave her husband.

הניחא למ"ד הכא לא תצא אלא למ"ד הכא תצא מאי איכא למימר במקושר לא קא מיירי

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband; but according to the one who says that here she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Apparently the mishna is not speaking about a folded and tied bill of divorce, which requires a signature on every fold, but rather, an open bill of divorce. There are only three cases in which this type of a bill of divorce is invalid in a manner that obligates the woman, if she remarries, to leave her second husband, although the lineage of their children would be unflawed.

והא איכא שלום מלכות התם תצא הכא לא תצא

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bill of divorce that is invalid due to the need to maintain peaceful relations with the kingdom, as it mentions the year of the divorce according to the age of another kingdom? Why is this not mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara answers: There, she must leave her husband; here, she need not leave her husband.

הניחא למ"ד הכא לא תצא אלא למ"ד תצא מאי איכא למימר (התם הולד ממזר הכא הולד כשר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that here she need not leave her husband. But according to the one who says that she must leave her husband, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, the offspring is a mamzer; here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

הניחא לר' מאיר אלא לרבנן מאי איכא למימר) מוקים לה כדרבי מאיר והתם הולד ממזר הכא הולד כשר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir; but according to the Rabbis, who hold that in the case of a bill of divorce in which the date is written according to the age of another kingdom, the offspring is not a mamzer, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The one who holds that in the cases in the mishna the woman must leave her husband establishes it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, according to whom there, the offspring is a mamzer. Here, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

מנינא דרישא למעוטי מאי ומנינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי

The mishna emphasizes twice that there are three bills of divorce that are invalid. The Gemara asks: What does the quantity in the first clause serve to exclude? And what does the quantity in the latter clause serve to exclude?

מנינא דרישא למעוטי הני דאמרן

The Gemara answers: The quantity mentioned in the first clause serves to exclude those invalid bills of divorce that we previously mentioned, which are treated either more or less stringently than the cases in the mishna.

מנינא דסיפא למעוטי הא דתניא המביא גט ממדינת הים נתנו לה ולא אמר (לה) בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם יוציא והולד ממזר דברי רבי מאיר

The quantity mentioned in the latter clause serves to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce for a certain woman from a country overseas, and gives it to her but does not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and she remarries, her second husband must divorce her, and the offspring of their marriage is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכ"א אין הולד ממזר כיצד יעשה יטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה בפני שנים ויאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם:

And the Rabbis say: The offspring of the second marriage is not a mamzer; rather, how should the agent act to rectify the situation? He should take the bill of divorce from her, and give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Since this problem can be corrected, it is not listed in the mishna as one of the invalid bills of divorce.

כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים: אמר רב כתב ידו שנינו

§ It is stated in the mishna: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting, but has no signatures of witnesses on it at all, is invalid; nevertheless, if the woman remarries, the lineage of the child born from her second husband is unflawed. Rav says: We learned that this is referring to his handwriting.

אהייא אילימא ארישא פשיטא כתב ידו קתני

The Gemara asks: With regard to which clause of the mishna is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the first clause, what Rav said is obvious, as the case of his handwriting is explicitly taught in that clause.

ואלא אמצעיתא הרי יש עליו עדים אלא אסיפא יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד

And if it is rather referring to the middle clause, i.e., an undated bill of divorce, why does it matter whether it was written in the husband’s handwriting? Aren’t there signatures of witnesses on it? Rather, it must be referring to the latter clause in the mishna, i.e., a bill of divorce that has a date written on it but has only the signature of one witness.