משנה: שְׁלֹשָׁה גִיטִּין פְּסוּלִין וְאִם נִישֶּׂאת הַווְלָד כָּשֵׁר. כָּתַב בְּכְתָב יָדוֹ וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן יֵשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גִיטִּין פְּסוּלִין וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת הַווְלָד כָּשֵׁר. MISHNAH: Three kinds of bills of divorce are invalid56They are invalid only because they violate customary rules, not because of biblical precepts. The woman is forbidden to remarry on the strength of such a bill, but if she did marry, the second marriage and its offspring are legitimate., but if she married, the child is legitimate: If he wrote in his own handwriting but it was not signed by witnesses57The witnesses which validate the divorce are those present at the delivery. For the document itself, one can apply the principle valid for I.O.U’s: “The signature of the debtor is worth 100 witnesses.”; it was signed by witnesses but is not dated58According to all opinions, the dating of a bill of divorce is a rabbinic requirement (cf. Chapter 2, Note 32, Chapter 4, Note 64).; it is dated but only one witness signed it59Even if the document was in the husband’s handwriting, one witness alone is not sufficient to let the divorcee remarry without trouble.. These are three invalid kinds of bills of divorce, but if she married, the child is legitimate.
הלכה: הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכָל־אָדָם כול׳. לֵית כָּאן סְפֵק גֵּירוּשִׁין אֶלָּא גֵּירוּשִׁין מַמָּשׁ. כֵּיצַד סְפֵק קִידּוּשִׁין. כַּיי דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. זָרַק לָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. סָפֵק קָרוֹב לָהּ סָפֵק קָרוֹב לוֹ. זֶהוּ סְפֵק קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהָכָא הוּא זָרַק לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ. סָפֵק קָרוֹב לוֹ סָפֵק קָרוֹב לָהּ. זֶהוּ סְפֵק גֵּירוּשִׁין HALAKHAH: “You are permitted to any man,” etc. 49The entire Halakhah is copied from Yebamot 3:9, Notes 122-136 (י). It is inserted here at the wrong place since its topic is Mishnah 4, as explained in detail in Yebamot. The text here was copied negligently.There really is no questionable divorce here. What are questionable qiddušin? As we have stated there: If he threw the betrothal gift to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, those are questionable qiddušin. And here, if he threw the divorce document to her and there is a doubt whether it fell closer to him or to her, that is a questionable divorce.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא דְמִן חוח. וְכוּלָּן אִם נִיסֵּית לֹא תֵצֵא. שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לִיזָה עַל בָּנֵיהָ. בִּתּוֹ שֶׁנִּיסֵּית לַשּׁוּק בְּגֵט זֶה לֹא תֵצֵא. כְּדֵי לִיזּוּק צָרָתָהּ לְאָבִיהָ. צָרָתָהּ שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לַשּׁוּק בְּגֵט זֶה תֵצֵא. בִּתּוֹ שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו אֲפִילוּ לְאָבִיהָ לֹא תֵצֵא. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave126Judicial confirmation of the genuineness of a document does not have to be written immediately below the signatures of the witnesses; it can be anywhere on the document. The Babli, Baba batra 163b, forbids any space between signatures and confirmation, not even one line. in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother [on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother]50Necessary text added from Yebamot, missing here. on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.
תַּנֵּי שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁטָרוֹת הַלָּלוּ גוֹבֶה מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה מִן הַמְשׁוּעֲבָדִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. הָדָא דְתֵימָר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזַק שְׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה. [אֲבָל הוּחְזַק הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה גוֹבֶה. רִבִי יוֹסֵה בָּעֵי. אִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזַק הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה] אֲפִילוּ מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בְּשֶׁהוּחְזַק הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה. וְלָמָּה אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. רִבִּי בִּיסְנָא אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי קֳינוֹנִיָא. רִבִּי אָבִינָא אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי פְּסוּל. וְהָכָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָסוּל. הָתִיב רִבִּי אָבִין. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁלָּוָה הַזָּקֵן. שִׁיעְבֵּד הַזָּקֵן. אִית לָךְ מֵימָר מִפְּנֵי קֳינוֹנִיָא. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָסוּל. הָתִיב רִבִּי אָבוּן. וְהָתַנֵּי אַף בְגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים. אִית לָךְ מֵימָר מִפְּנֵי קֳינוֹנִיָא. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָסוּל. וְהָכָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָסוּל. It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. [But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed,]50Necessary text added from Yebamot, missing here. he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rebbi Abina said, because it is invalid And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abin asked, so far, if the old man took the loan [and the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and the son mortgaged,]50Necessary text added from Yebamot, missing here. can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun asked, was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce? Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.
שְׁלֹשָׁה גִיטִּין פְּסוּלִין כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְכוּלָּן בִּכְתָב יָדַיִם. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר שָׁאַל. עֵדִים יֵשׁ כָּאן. בִּכְתָב יָדַיִם מָא אֲנִי צָרִיךְ. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. וְכוּלְּהֶם בִּכְתָב יָדַיִם חוּץ מִשֶׁעֵדָיו עַמּוֹ. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא. הַלָּלוּ חוֹבֵיהוֹן עַל גַּרְמֵיהוֹן. דְּאִינּוּן שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן לְשַׁקֵּר לַחֲתוֹם בְּגֵט שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ זְמָן. “Three kinds of bills of divorce are invalid,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All in handwriting60The bill can only be used in an emergency if it was in the husband’s handwriting in all three cases.. Rebbi Eleazar asked: There are witnesses; why do I need handwriting61He questions why the middle case of a signed but undated bill needs to be the husband’s autograph to be valid. He is reported in the same sense in the Babli, 86b.? Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: All in handwriting except if its witnesses are with it62Supporting R. Eleazar. A similar statement is in the Babli, 86a/b. Samuel’s opinion, that the husband’s autograph is needed only in the first case, has no parallel in the Yerushalmi.. Rav Hamnuna said, they testified to their own sin since they agreed to lie by signing on an undated bill of divorce63He supports R. Joḥanan. The witnesses who signed the undated document impeach themselves; their testimony can be accepted only in an emergency..
רִבִּי בָּא בַּר הַמְנוּנָא רַב אָדָא בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַב. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. מֶה חָמִית מֵימַר כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בְּגִין דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. כָּל־הָהֵין פִּירְקָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר חוּץ מִשִּׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ. דְּלָא תִיסְבּוֹר מֵימַר. קַייְמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא תַנְנָייֵהּ דְּרַבָּנִן. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּגִין דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. הֲלָכָא כְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּלָא תִיסְבּוֹר מֵימַר אוֹף הָכָא. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥa64These names are not known from any other source. It seems that one should read: Rebbi Aḥa, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa. in the name of Rav: This is Rebbi Meїr’s65The Babli agrees, 86a.. Why did you have to say this? Rebbi Mana said, since Rav Huna said in the name of Rav66Chapter 8:5, Note 71.: “This entire Chapter is Rebbi Meїr’s except for ‘if he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city.’ ” You should not come to say that the first is Rebbi Meїr’s, the second the rabbis’67One should not think that only Chapter 8, Mishnah 5 ff. follows R. Meїr but all of Chapter 9 follows the rabbis opposing R. Meїr (who are represented by R. Eleazar in Mishnah 9:5) who hold that all bills of divorce are validated by the witnesses to the delivery, not the signatures on the bill.. Therefore it is necessary to say that this is Rebbi Meїr’s. Rebbi Yose said68The explanation of R. Mana is far-fetched., since Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rebbi Eleazar, that you should not be led to say the same here. Therefore it is necessary to say that this is Rebbi Meїr’s.