Gittin 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

For if it were not that the Cuthean -

had the Cuthean not been

a ḥaver -

one who is meticulous and exacting in the observance of mitzvot,

the Jewish witness would not

have

had him sign -

him -

before him -

in his presence.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so -

if this is the case—[that this is indeed the circumstance]—you should validate

even other documents as well -

also! Rather, certainly, why do you not rely on this presumption with regard to other documents [namely, the assumption that the Jew knows that the Cuthean who signed is a ḥaver]? This is because one may say that in fact the Jew was the one who signed the document first. However, since at the time the testimony was observed, several other elderly Jews were present in addition to the Cuthean, he assumed that the holder of the document would have one of those elders sign along with him. Therefore, when he came to sign, he left the first signing place for that elder, out of politeness. He did not know that in the end the holder of the document would have the Cuthean sign there. And this is what the Gemara says:

Rather, we say

that with regard to other documents one cannot rely on the presumption, because one may say that

he left space -

he left an empty space

for one older than he -

for an elder older than he. If so, the difficulty arises:

Here too -

also here [with regard to a get], there is no presumption, since one may say:

He left space for one older than he.

On the basis of this difficulty [for which there is no answer], the Gemara concludes:

Rav Pappa said: This indicates -

from the Mishna’s validating a Cuthean witness in a get while disqualifying him with regard to other documents, we learn -

that the witnesses to a get do not

do

sign independently of one another.

Accordingly, the Jew who signed the get must have seen his fellow Cuthean sign. Therefore, one must assume that had he not known him to be a ḥaver, he would not have allowed him to sign before him.

But the witnesses to other documents may sign independently of one another. Therefore, in their case there is concern that leaving the first signing place empty resulted only from considerations of politeness. It is not proof that the Cuthean is a ḥaver, because it is possible that the first witness did not know at all that a Cuthean would be made to sign in the vacant place.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason -

why did the Sages establish with regard to a get that the witnesses are not permitted to sign independently of one another?

Rav Ashi said: It is a decree

that was enacted

because

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

“All of you

write a get for my wife.” As the Mishna states below [66b], in such a case one of them must write the get and all of them must sign it. If one of them is missing, the get is invalid. Since the husband was particular to give this instruction, it is as though he explicitly said that the get would not take effect unless they all signed. Therefore, the Sages enacted that even where the husband did not say, “All of you,” the witnesses to a get must sign in one another’s presence.

The Gemara now addresses the words of Rabbi Elazar mentioned earlier in the course of the sugya:

The essential matter -

the body of the matter -

Rabbi Elazar said: They validated in it

-

only one Cuthean witness.

The Gemara raises an objection:

What does this come to teach us -

what did [Rabbi Elazar] come to teach us?

We already learned it -

we already learned this [in our Mishna]:

“Any get bearing a Cuthean witness is invalid, etc.”

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

If [we derived it] from the Mishna -

if the teaching were based only on the wording of the Mishna -

I would have said -

I might have said [that is, inferred from it]

even two -

two [Cuthean witnesses] -

as well -

would also be valid in a get.

And the fact that it taught one -

and that the Mishna stated one—this is

because with regard to other documents

other than a get,

even

one

witness

Cuthean

as well -

also -

is not

valid.

It comes to teach us -

therefore Rabbi Elazar came to teach us that with regard to a get, only one was validated.

But the Gemara wonders:

Not two -

and two [Cutheans] are not valid in a get?

But it was taught -

did we not learn—in the continuation of the Mishna:

“It once happened that they brought before Rabban Gamliel, in Kefar Otznai, a woman’s get, and its witnesses were Cuthean witnesses, and Rabban Gamliel validated

it”? This indicates that he validated even two Cuthean witnesses!

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: Teach -

read in the Mishna:

“Its witness”

in the singular, instead of “its witnesses.”

Rava said: Actually, two -

the text should indeed read “its witnesses,” meaning two.

And Rabban Gamliel fundamentally disagrees -

he disagrees in this regard with the first tanna, who validated only one Cuthean 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:

And the Mishna is incomplete -

its wording is incomplete -

and this is what it teaches -

and this is how it should be taught [following the words of the first tanna]:

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

also

, that they brought before Rabban Gamliel, in Kefar Otznai, a woman’s get, and its witnesses were Cuthean witnesses -

and he validated it.”

Mishna:

All documents executed -

made -

in the courts -

courts -

of idolaters

even though their signatories -

the witnesses who signed the documents are -

idolaters -

are valid

They are. Except

for bills of divorce for women and documents emancipating slaves -

which are invalid.

Rabbi Shimon says: These too -

bills of divorce for women and documents emancipating slaves -

are valid. And they were mentioned

in the beit-midrash as invalid

only when they were executed by

idolaters, each of whom is

an ordinary person,

and not a judge.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

It categorically states and teaches -

the tanna stated his ruling decisively, that all documents whose signatories are idolaters are valid,

with no distinction

between documents of

sale and documents of gift -

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

Granted -

it is understandable that they are effective with regard to

a sale,

for

he gave money in their presence -

once [the buyer] gave the money in their presence [to the seller] -

it is that by which he acquired

the purchased property, with the money he paid.

And the document

the document they prepared in their presence—is merely

evidence,

which the buyer possesses, so that the seller will not later claim, “I sold it, but I did not receive the money.” For this purpose, the gentile judges are believed, because

if he had not given the money in their presence -

if he had not given the money in their presence -

they would not damage their own credibility -

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

But

with regard to

a gift,

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

By what does he acquire it?

According to the approach of the Mordekhai (cited in the Hagahot Asheri on the Rosh, siman 10), gentiles are not disqualified by Torah law; rather, they are disqualified because they are robbers. See Ketzot HaHoshen (siman 68, subsection 1), which notes that according to the approach of the Mordekhai, the Gemara’s question here—“But with regard to a gift, by what means does he acquire it?”—is not understood: Why should he not acquire it? After all, they are valid witnesses [assuming there is no concern that they are lying]. The deficiency exists specifically with regard to a bill of divorce, since they are not subject to the laws of divorce, but with regard to a gift, why should their testimony not be effective? He answered based on the approach of Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Tosafot on Bava Batra 54), who holds that the law that land can be acquired by means of a document is derived from the verse in Jeremiah, “And I took the deed of purchase,” which is stated with regard to Jews. And Tosafot likewise wrote in Kiddushin 14 (beginning with the words “since”): a gentile even land does not acquire by means of a document because he is not subject to the laws of documents at all. Accordingly it is understandable why one cannot acquire by a written document a gift signed by a non‑Jew. Just as they are unfit for making a get, because they are not bnei karet, so too they are disqualified for other documents that are of the nature of a shtar. And all their acquisitions are effected only by money. In what does he [the recipient] acquire it? And is it not

by means of this document—

that is, is it not by means of this document?

And

after all,

this document—

this document—is worth nothing, but is merely

a piece of pottery—

[like] a shard of pottery—

is it?!

And 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—

and if you wish, [a different answer], say:

read—

read in the Mishna, in place of “except for bills of divorce for women,”

“except for bills of divorce for women.”

In this way, all documents that are comparable to bills of divorce for women would be included in the disqualification — all documents in which the matter is completed and brought into being through the document. 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 as well,

bills of divorce for women and bills of manumission of slaves

, are valid, etc.:

And the Gemara challenges: How does Rabbi Shimon validate gentiles to sign bills of divorce?

But—

but after all,

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 shall write, and he shall give,” and from this it is derived: Whoever is included in giving [in giving the bill of divorce] is included in writing. But a gentile is not capable of giving it!

Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Shimon adopted

here

the position 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 (86a), according to Rabbi Elazar: Even though there are no witnesses on the bill of divorce, if he gave it to her in the presence of witnesses [witnesses who observed the delivery], it is valid. Likewise, Rabbi Shimon validates the bill when he gives it to her in the presence of Jewish witnesses.

But the Gemara challenges:

Yet Rabbi Abba said [

above, 4a]:

Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a bill of divorce that is forged internally—

that it is invalid.

For although Rabbi Elazar said that a bill of divorce without witnesses signed on it is valid, since the witnesses who observe the delivery are the essential factor, nevertheless he concedes that if invalid witnesses signed it, it is invalid by rabbinic law. This is because there is concern that if they validate it, people will come to rely upon them and give bills of divorce in their presence. And they are disqualified. If so, here, where gentile witnesses signed a bill of divorce, the position of Rabbi Elazar is of no help at all?!

And the Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing—

with what are we dealing here—