Gittin 10b — the Talmud in English

Were it not for the fact that he is a Samaritan -

that had the Samaritan not been

a chaver -

one who is particular and exacting in the mitzvot,

the Jewish man

would not have

had him sign before him -

him -

before him -

in his presence.

And the Gemara objects:

If so -

if that is so—that this is indeed the case—you should validate

even other documents as well -

also! Rather, certainly, why in the case of other documents do you not rely upon this presumption [the assumption that the Jew recognizes the Samaritan who signed as a chaver]? This is because one may say that in truth the Jew was the one who signed first on the document. But since, at the time the testimony was observed, there were, in addition to the Samaritan, several other elderly Jews there, he assumed that the holder of the document would have one of the elders who were there sign with him. Therefore, when he came to sign, he left the first place for the signature for that elderly man, out of politeness. He did not know that in the end the holder of the document would have the Samaritan sign there. And this is what the Gemara says:

Rather, we say

that with regard to other documents one may not rely upon the presumption, because one may say:

he left space -

he left a space

for one older than he -

for that elderly man who was older than he. If so, it is difficult:

here too -

also here, in the case of the bill of divorce, there is no presumption, since one may say:

he left space for one older than he.

And on the basis of the objection [which has no answer], the Gemara concludes:

Rav Pappa said: That is to say -

from the words of the Mishna, which validates a Samaritan witness for a bill of divorce and disqualifies him for other documents, we learn

that the witnesses to a bill of divorce do not

do

sign one without the other.

Accordingly, the Jew who signed on the bill of divorce necessarily saw his fellow Samaritan sign. Therefore, it must be assumed that had he not known him to be “a chaver,” he would not have allowed him to sign before him.

But the witnesses to other documents may sign without one another. Therefore, in their case there is concern that leaving the first place for the signature empty resulted only from considerations of politeness. It does not constitute proof that the Samaritan is a chaver, because it is possible that the first one did not know at all that a Samaritan would be made to sign in the empty place.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason -

what is the reason that, in the case of a bill of divorce, the Sages established that the witnesses are not permitted to sign without one another?

Rav Ashi said: It is a decree

that is

because

there is concern that the husband might say to a large number of people [for example, ten]:

“All of you”

write a bill of divorce for my wife. As the Mishna says below [66b], in such a case one of them must write the bill of divorce and all of them must sign it. If the signature of one of them is missing, the bill of divorce is invalid. Since the husband was particular to command this, it is as though he explicitly said that the bill of divorce should take effect only if all of them sign it. Therefore, the Sages enacted that even where the husband did not say, “All of you,” the witnesses to a bill of divorce must sign in one another’s presence.

And now the Gemara addresses the words of Rabbi Elazar that were mentioned earlier in the course of the discussion:

The body of the matter -

the substance of the matter -

Rabbi Elazar said: They validated it

in the case of a bill of divorce

only with one Samaritan witness.

And the Gemara objects:

What does this come to teach us -

what did [Rabbi Elazar] come to teach us?

We already learned it -

for we already learned this [in our Mishna]:

“Any bill of divorce upon which there is a Samaritan witness is invalid, etc.”

It implies that they validated only one. And concerning this the Mishna said: “Except for bills of divorce for women”—which are valid?! And the Gemara answers:

If [we learned it] from the Mishna -

if the teaching were only from the wording of the Mishna -

I would have said -

I would have said [that is, I would have learned from it]:

even two -

two Samaritan witnesses -

as well -

also are valid for a bill of divorce.

And this that it teaches one -

and the fact that the Mishna taught one is

because with regard to other documents

other

even

one

witness

Samaritan

as well -

also

is not

valid.

This comes to teach us -

therefore Rabbi Elazar came to teach us that in the case of a bill of divorce they validated only one.

But the Gemara is astonished:

With two, not -

and two [Samaritans] in a bill of divorce are not valid?

But it teaches -

and we learned—in the continuation of the Mishna:

“It happened that they brought before Rabban Gamliel, in Kfar Otznai, a woman’s bill of divorce, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and Rabban Gamliel validated

it.” It is explained that he validated even two Samaritan witnesses!

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: Teach -

read [in the Mishna]:

“its witness”

in the singular, instead of “its witnesses.”

Rava said: Actually, two -

indeed, one should read “its witnesses,” meaning two.

And Rabban Gamliel fundamentally disagrees -

he disagrees in this matter with the first tanna, who validated only one Samaritan witness.

And if you ask: Is there not a contradiction in the wording of the Mishna between the ruling of the first tanna and the incident involving Rabban Gamliel? The answer is:

The Mishna is incomplete -

its wording is missing -

and this is what it teaches -

and this is how it should be read [after the words of the first tanna]:

“And Rabban Gamliel validates with two. And it also happened -

also

, that they brought before Rabban Gamliel, in Kfar Otznai, a woman’s bill of divorce, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses -

and he validated it.”

Mishna:

All documents that arise -

that are made -

in courts -

courts of law -

of idolaters,

even though their signatories -

the witnesses who signed the documents -

are idolaters -

are valid

they. Except

for bills of divorce for women and documents of emancipation of slaves -

which are invalid.

Rabbi Shimon says: These too -

bills of divorce for women and documents of emancipation of slaves -

are valid. And they were mentioned

in the house of study as invalid

only when they were made by

idolaters, each of whom is

an ordinary person,

and not a judge.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

It states and teaches categorically -

the tanna stated his words and taught categorically that all documents whose signatories are idolaters are valid,

whether

documents of

sale or whether gifts -

and did not distinguish [change] between documents of sale and documents of gift, but validated all of them. Yet a distinction must be made:

Granted -

it is reasonable and understandable that they are effective with regard to

a sale,

for

he gives money before them -

when [the purchaser] gives money before them [to the seller] -

it is that he acquires

the purchased item with that money which he paid.

And the document

-and the document that they prepared in his presence—is nothing but

mere evidence,

which the purchaser has, so that tomorrow the seller will not claim, “I sold it but did not receive money.” For this matter, the gentile judges are reliable, because

if he did not give money before them -

if he had not given the money in their presence -

they would not damage their own reputations -

they would not damage themselves [that is, undermine their reliability].

Rather,

with regard to

a gift,

which is not acquired through money, for the recipient does not pay for it, and its entire acquisition is effected through delivery of the document.

By what does he acquire?

Посредством чего он [получатель] приобретает его? Разве

not through this deed—

is it not through this deed?

And

yet

this deed

this deed is worthless, merely

an ordinary shard of pottery—

like a piece of pottery—

is it?!

The Gemara answers:

Shmuel said: The law of the kingdom is law —

the law of the gentile kingdom is binding upon the Jews who reside there.

Alternatively—

if you wish, say

teach—

teach in the Mishna, instead of “except for bills of divorce,”

“except for bills of divorce.”

This wording would include as disqualified all deeds that are comparable to bills of divorce—that is, deeds through which the matter is completed and brought into effect. This includes a deed of gift, through which the acquisition is effected:

The Gemara now discusses the statement of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna.

Rabbi Shimon says: These too,

bills of divorce and bills of emancipation of slaves

, are valid, and so on:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can Rabbi Shimon deem gentiles fit to sign bills of divorce?

But

is it not so that

they are not subject to the laws of divorce—

they are not subject to the laws of divorce? For it is written in the passage concerning divorce, “And he writes and gives,” and from this they derive: Anyone who is included in the act of giving is included in the act of writing. But a gentile is not capable of giving a bill of divorce!

Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Shimon followed

here

the approach of Rabbi Elazar, who said

who holds with regard to a bill of divorce

“the witnesses who observe the delivery effect the divorce.”

As the Gemara says below, according to Rabbi Elazar, even if there are no witnesses signed on the bill of divorce, if he gave it to her in the presence of witnesses who observed the delivery, it is valid. Rabbi Shimon likewise deems it valid when he gives her the bill of divorce in the presence of Jewish witnesses.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Yet Rabbi Abba said

above:

Rabbi Elazar concedes that a bill of divorce falsified in its contents

is invalid.

Although Rabbi Elazar said that a bill of divorce without witnesses signed on it is valid, because the witnesses who observe the delivery are the essential witnesses, nevertheless he concedes that if disqualified witnesses signed it, it is invalid by rabbinic law. This is because there is concern that if it were declared valid, people would come to rely on those witnesses and deliver bills of divorce in their presence, even though they are disqualified. If so, here too, where gentile witnesses signed the bill of divorce, Rabbi Elazar's approach would not help at all?!

The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing—

what case is being discussed here—