Gittin 87aגיטין פ״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Gittin 87a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
87aפ״ז א

אפילו זמן אחד לכולן נמי הוי טופס אלא היכי דמי כלל דכתב אנו פלוני ופלוני גירשנו נשותינו פלונית ופלונית

Even if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately. Rather, what are the circumstances of the case of a general wording? It is a case where one wrote: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so.

מתקיף לה רבי אבא לר' יוחנן דאמר זמן אחד לכולן זהו כלל ליחוש דלמא כי חתמו סהדי אבתרא הוא דחתימי מי לא תניא עדים חתומין על שאילת שלום בגט פסול חיישינן שמא על שאילת שלום חתמו

Rabbi Abba objects to this: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that when there is one date written for all of them that is a general wording, we should be concerned that perhaps when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce they intended to sign for only the last couple. Isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:9) that if witnesses are signed on a greeting that was written in a bill of divorce, i.e., after the formulation of the bill of divorce the scribe extended greetings to someone and the witnesses signed underneath, it is invalid, as we are concerned that perhaps they signed the greeting and not the bill of divorce?

לאו איתמר עלה א"ר אבהו לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוחנן שאלו פסול ושאלו כשר ה"נ דכתיב ביה פלוני ופלוני ופלוני

The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this baraita that Rabbi Abbahu says: It was explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan that if the wording of the greeting is: Ask about the well-being of so-and-so, it is invalid, as perhaps the witnesses intended to witness only the greeting. But if the wording is: And ask about the well-being of so-and-so, with the conjunctive prefix vav, thereby making it appear as a continuation of the previous matter, it is valid, as the witnesses presumably signed the bill of divorce as well. Here too, it should be explained that this is a bill of divorce in which it is written: So-and-so has divorced his wife so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, as the conjunctive prefix indicates continuation.

ותו לרבי יוחנן דאמר זמן לכל אחד זהו טופס מאי איריא משום טופס ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה

The Gemara raises another challenge: And furthermore, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that when there is a separate date written for each couple, that is considered a separate formula, why is it rendered invalid specifically due to it being considered a separate formula? Derive that it is invalid because it is like a bill of divorce that was written during the day and signed at night, which is invalid because it was signed on a different calendar date than it was written. Here too, since a different date was written for each couple, and the witnesses signed only after the last formula, they clearly signed only on that date, and with regard to the previous couples it is therefore an invalid bill of divorce.

א"ל מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבי יוחנן דכתיב בהו בחד בשבא בחד בשבא

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: We say the following explanation of the case in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is a case where it is written in the respective formulations: On Sunday, on Sunday. In other words, the date written in each bill of divorce is the same, as they were all written on the same date.

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי לריש לקיש דאמר זמן אחד לכולן נמי טופס הוי והיכי דמי כלל דכתיב ביה הכי אנו פלוני ופלוני גירשנו נשותינו פלונית ופלונית נמצאו שתי נשים מתגרשות בגט אחד והתורה אמרה וכתב לה ולא לה ולחברתה

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to Reish Lakish, who says that if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately, then even if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula, and he explains that what are the circumstances of the case of a general wording; a case where the following wording is written in the bill of divorce: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so. Accordingly, two women are found being divorced with one bill of divorce. All of these women are divorced with the same bill of divorce that contains a list of several couples. And the Torah said: “And he writes her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it is derived from this phrase that he cannot write it both for her and for another woman. Rather, each woman requires a separate bill of divorce.

דהדר כתב פלוני גירש פלונית ופלוני גירש פלונית

The Gemara answers: It is valid because he then wrote after the general formulation: So-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so.

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ומאי שנא מהא דתניא הכותב כל נכסיו לשני עבדיו קנו ומשחררין זה את זה

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And in what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who writes a document granting all of his property to his two slaves, they both acquire the property and must emancipate each other? Since the slaves are included in the property, by acquiring the property together they each have ownership over half of the other slave. Consequently, they must emancipate each other. Since the halakhot of emancipation of slaves are compared to the halakhot of divorce, it can be proven from here that one bill of divorce can be written for two wives.

ולאו אוקימנא בשני שטרות

The Gemara answers: But didn’t we establish that that baraita is referring to a case where the master wrote two documents, one for each slave, stating that he is giving him all of his property, and he gave them to them simultaneously? Certainly each slave needs his own bill of emancipation.

תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and similarly it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish.

תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן חמשה שכתבו בתוך הגט איש פלוני מגרש פלונית ופלוני פלונית ופלוני פלונית וזמן אחד לכולן והעדים מלמטה כולן כשרים ותנתן לכל אחת ואחת

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan as follows: With regard to five men who wrote in the bill of divorce: So-and-so hereby divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and wrote one date for all of them, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of them are valid; and this document must be handed to each and every one of the women mentioned in it.

זמן לכל אחד ואחד והעדים מלמטה את שהעדים נקראים עמו כשר ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר אם יש ריוח ביניהן פסול ואם לאו כשר שאין זמן מפסיקן

Nevertheless, if a separate date is written for each and every one and the witnesses signed below, the bill of divorce with which the witnesses’ signatures are read is valid. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If there is space between them it is invalid, as the witnesses’ signatures appear to be referring only to the last couple. But if there is not a space it is valid, as the date written for each couple does not separate between them. Rather, they are still considered the same bill of divorce with regard to the witnesses’ signatures.

תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש חמשה שכתבו כלל בתוך הגט אנו פלוני ופלוני גירשנו נשותינו פלונית ופלונית פלוני גירש פלונית ופלוני גירש פלונית וזמן אחד לכולן והעדים מלמטה כולן כשרין ותנתן לכל אחת ואחת

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: With regard to five men who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have hereby divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so; so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and they wrote one date for all of them, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of them are valid; and it must be handed to each and every woman.

זמן לכל אחד ואחד וריוח לכל אחד ואחד והעדים מלמטה את שהעדים נקראין עמו כשר ר"מ אומר אע"פ שאין ריוח ביניהם פסול שהזמן מפסיקן

If a separate date was written for each and every one, and there is a space for each and every one, and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the witnesses’ signatures are read is valid; the others are not. Rabbi Meir says: Even if there is no space between them, the upper ones are invalid, as the date separates them.

וריש לקיש מאי איריא זמן לכל אחד ואחד הא אמר זמן אחד לכולן נמי טופס הוי

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, why is the baraita referring specifically to a case in which a separate date was written for each and every one? Didn’t he say that if one date was written for all of them it is still considered a separate formula?

הני מילי היכא דלא ערבינהו מעיקרא אבל הכא דערבינהו מעיקרא אי פליג להו זמן אין אי לא לא:

The Gemara answers: This matter applies where he did not merge them at the outset but instead wrote the divorce of each couple separately. But here, he merged them at the outset, writing: So-and-so and so-and-so have hereby divorced their wives so-and-so and so-and-so. Therefore, if the date separates them they are considered to be separate bills of divorce, and if not, then they are not considered separate bills of divorce.

מתני׳ שני גיטין שכתבן זה בצד זה ושנים עדים עברים באים מתחת זה לתחת זה ושנים עדים יונים באים מתחת זה לתחת זה את שהעדים הראשונים נקראין עמו כשר

MISHNA: With regard to two bills of divorce that a scribe wrote on the same paper one next to the other, and the signatures of two Hebrew witnesses, i.e., witnesses who signed in Hebrew from right to left, extend from underneath this bill of divorce on the right to underneath that bill of divorce on the left, and the signatures of two Greek witnesses, i.e., who signed in Greek from left to right, extend from underneath that bill of divorce on the left to underneath this bill of divorce on the right, the bill of divorce with which the names of the first two witnesses are read [nikra’in] is valid. The other bill of divorce is invalid, as it is not considered signed by these witnesses.

עד אחד עברי ועד אחד יוני ועד אחד עברי ועד אחד יוני באין מתחת זה לתחת זה שניהם פסולין:

If one witness signed in Hebrew from right to left, and one witness signed beneath him in Greek from left to right, and underneath that signature one witness signed in Hebrew, and beneath him one witness signed in Greek, with the signatures extending from underneath this bill of divorce to underneath that bill of divorce, both bills of divorce are invalid.

גמ׳ וליתכשר האי בראובן והאי בבן יעקב עד דהא תנן בן איש פלוני עד כשר

GEMARA: It is stated in the first case of the mishna that the bill of divorce under which the names of the first two witnesses appear is valid and the other is not, even though the signatures extend to that bill of divorce as well. The Gemara says: But let this bill of divorce be validated by the name Reuven alone, and let that bill of divorce be validated by the continuation: Son of Ya’akov, witness, which can be considered a separate signature. Didn’t we learn in a subsequent mishna (87b) that a signature that reads: Son of so-and-so, witness, is valid?

דכתב ראובן בן אקמא ויעקב עד אבתרא

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the words: Reuven, son of, are written on the side of the first bill of divorce, and the words: Ya’akov, witness, are written on the side of the latter bill of divorce, indicating that it is one signature.

וליתכשר האי בראובן בן וליתכשר האי ביעקב עד דהא תנן איש פלוני עד כשר

The Gemara says: But let this bill of divorce, on the first, left-hand, side, be validated by the words: Reuven, son of, and let that bill of divorce on the other, right-hand, side be validated by the words: Ya’akov, witness. Didn’t we learn in the same mishna that a signature that reads: So-and-so, witness, without the father’s name, is valid?

דלא כתב עד ואיבעית אימא לעולם דכתב עד ודידעינן בהא חתימה דלאו דיעקב הוא

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the word witness is not written. The latter side includes only a name, which is not sufficient. And if you wish, say: Actually, it is a case where the expression: Ya’akov, witness, is written underneath the second bill of divorce; but it is a case where we know that this signature is not Ya’akov’s. Evidently it is part of the signature of Reuven, son of Ya’akov, and cannot serve as a separate signature for the second bill of divorce.