Gittin 11b — the Talmud in English

The witnesses who are signed on the get —

who came from another place in the Land of Israel.

And their names are like the names of foreigners,

and we do not know whether they are foreigners or Jews.

What

is the law — can this get be validated on the basis of delivery witnesses, or not?

He said to him:

Until today

such a case has not come into our hands —

a get in which the names of foreigners are written,

except

only one. And two men whose names were

Locus and Lus

were signed on it,

and we validated it on the basis of delivery witnesses.

And specifically

these names —

Locus and Lus,

which are unmistakably names of gentiles — we validated it, because

they are not common —

they are not found —

among Jews who are called by these names —

who are called by these names. And therefore people will not come to rely upon them as delivery witnesses.

But other names —

other names of gentiles, which are not unmistakable —

which are common —

which are found —

among Jews who are called by these names —

and there is concern that people will come to rely upon them — no!

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a beraita:

It challenged him —

it is possible to raise an objection [from the Tosefta, chapter 6, mishna 6] —

gittin that come from overseas, with witnesses signed upon them —

even though their names are

[the names of the witnesses]

like the names of foreigners —

they are

valid

even without delivery witnesses.

Because the majority of the Jews who

live

overseas have names like the names of foreigners.

And why did Rabbi Yoḥanan validate only names such as Locus and Lus? And the Gemara answers:

There,

there [in the case about which the beraita speaks] —

as its reason is taught —

the reason is as the beraita teaches:

Because the majority of the Jews who are overseas have names like the names of foreigners.

And therefore it is to be assumed that, presumably, these witnesses are Jews. But Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke about a get signed in the Land of Israel, where the names of the majority of the Jews are not like those of gentiles. And for this reason there is uncertainty: perhaps these witnesses are gentiles, who are disqualified from signing.

And some say —

and there are those who say —

that he asked him about the beraita —

that Reish Lakish’s question to Rabbi Yoḥanan concerned gittin that come from overseas, and the names of their witnesses are like the names of foreigners, as in the case discussed in the beraita.

And he resolved it for him from the beraita —

and Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his uncertainty from the words of the beraita, that they are valid. This is because these witnesses have the presumptive status of Jews, since the majority of Jews overseas are called by the names of foreigners.

Mishna:

A husband

who says

to his agent:

“Give this get to my wife,”

[or]

“and this emancipation document to my slave,”

if afterward he wishes

to retract

from it

in both cases,

before the get has reached the woman’s hand or the document has reached the slave’s hand — he may

retract.

And the agent cannot acquire them [the document or the get] for them [for the woman or the slave] and prevent the husband from retracting, because it is a liability for them, and a person cannot incur a liability for others except in their presence.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: With regard to women’s gittin

he can retract,

but not with regard to emancipation documents of slaves, because one may acquire a benefit for a person not in his presence.

And since, in their opinion, it is a benefit for the slave to be released from his master, as soon as the master gave the document to the agent, the agent acquired it for the slave. And therefore he cannot retract. [But since]

one cannot incur a liability for a person except in his presence,

and according to everyone it is a liability for the woman to be divorced from her husband, therefore the agent does not acquire the get for her, and the husband can retract from it.

And the proof of the difference between them [according to the Sages] is this:

if he wishes

the master

not to provide sustenance for his slave,

and says to him, “Work for me, and I will not provide your sustenance; rather, go and support yourself from charity,” he is

permitted to do so. Therefore, his emancipation does not entail the loss of sustenance. But, by contrast, if the husband wishes

and therefore the slave's emancipation does not entail the loss of sustenance. By contrast, if the husband wishes

not to provide sustenance for his wife,

and says to her, “Go and take the product of your labor for yourself and support yourself” —

I am not permitted to do so. For he is obligated by Torah law to provide her sustenance. Therefore, when he divorces her,

it is considered for her that the loss of sustenance is a debt.

He said to them

Rabbi Meir to the Sages:

“And yet he disqualifies his slave from teruma just as he disqualifies his wife” —

if the master was a priest, his slave too was permitted to eat teruma. But now that he emancipates him, he disqualifies him from eating teruma, just as he disqualifies his wife from teruma when he divorces her.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Meir: The benefit of eating teruma does not derive from the advantage of his being a slave,

but because he is his property

of the priest. And just as he could disqualify him from teruma by selling him to an Israelite, while he would continue to be a slave, and even then he would be disqualified from teruma, so too, since in any event he could prevent him from eating teruma [and not specifically through emancipation], the Sages hold that emancipation is not considered a debt.

Gemara:

They sat –

they sat –

Rav Huna and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef before –

before –

Rabbi Yirmeya,

and they were studying our Mishna.

And Rabbi Yirmeya sat and was dozing –

and he was dozing.

And Rav Huna sat and said: Learn from the Rabbis –

it can be inferred from the words of the Sages in our Mishna, who maintain that the agent can seize the document on behalf of the slave even after the master retracted his instruction and nullified his agency, that a stranger

who seizes

movable property from Reuben’s assets

for

the sake of Shimon, who is

Reuben’s creditor

without Shimon having appointed him as his agent,

acquires it

for the creditor.

Он сказал ему —

спросил его

Рав Ицхак бар Йосеф: «Даже там, где он наносит ущерб —

теряет из-за своего захвата

другим,

например, если Леви также был кредитором Реувена, и когда первый захватил имущество для Шимона, Леви потерял возможность взыскать долг, — мы также слышим из нашей Мишны, что он приобрёл? Ведь посланник в нашей Мишне захватывает грамоту для раба и тем самым наносит ущерб владельцам»!

He said to him –

Rav Huna answered him –

Yes –

indeed!

Meanwhile –

in the meantime –

Rabbi Yirmeya awoke among them –

Rabbi Yirmeya awoke from his nap and heard their discussion.

He said to them: Young students –

[students] as young as you are, you must not draw such an inference, because

thus –

so –

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

One who seizes property for a creditor where he causes a loss to others –

does not acquire it! And if you say

and ask what the reason is for

our Mishna,

which implies that he acquired it, the answer is that since there is a principle stating:

Anyone who says, “Give”

to a particular person is

as though he said –

as though he said –

“Acquire”

it on his behalf,

is considered –

it is considered so. Since our Mishna speaks of a case in which the master [or owner] said, “Give this bill of manumission to the slave,” it is as though he appointed him as an agent to acquire it for the slave. Although the slave knew nothing about it, one may acquire something on behalf of a person in his absence. The Gemara continues to discuss the law of one who seizes property for a creditor where he causes a loss to others:

Rav Ḥisda said: One who seizes property for a creditor where he causes a loss to others

has entered into the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

That is,

as we learned –

as we learned [in tractate Pe’a, chapter 4, Mishna 9]:

One who gathers the pe’a –

the landowner who gathers it not for himself, since he is wealthy, but for another person who is poor,

and said

as follows:

This

pe’a

that

I gathered is acquired

for a particular poor person.

By doing so, he causes a loss to the other poor who come to gather it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He acquired it for him.

And the Sages say:

he did not acquire it, rather

he should give it to the poor person encountered first.

And in this they disagree: Rabbi Eliezer holds that even where he causes a loss to others, he acquires it. And the Sages hold that he did not acquire it.