Gittin 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

Meanwhile -

while they were speaking,

a certain

associate -

a Persian gentile - arrived.

He took the lamp from before them,

he took the lamp by which they had been illuminated, because that day was a Persian holiday, on which they would light lamps only in their house of idolatry.

Rav

bar bar Ḥana said:

Merciful One,

the Holy One, blessed be He! I beg You -

either under Your protection -

under Your shadow; protect us and return us from the exile.

or under the protection of the descendants of Esau!

And if we must be in exile, we ask that we be under the protection of the descendants of Esau, who treat us with respect, and not in the exile of the Persians, who trouble us.

The Gemara challenges this:

Is that to say that the Romans,

the descendants of Esau,

are superior,

they are preferable,

to the Persians?!

And Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: What is the meaning of that which is written

in the Book of Job [28:23]: "

God understands its way, and He knows its place"?

The Holy One, blessed be He, knows that the Jewish people cannot withstand the decree of the Romans,

so He arose and exiled them to Babylonia!

And it follows that, on the contrary, the Persians who ruled Babylonia were more lenient toward us than the descendants of Esau.

The Gemara answers:

This

that Rabbi Ḥiyya expounded, that the rule of the Babylonians was more lenient toward us than that of the descendants of Esau,

was before the associates came -

the Persians -

to Babylonia,

when the Babylonians were preferable for us to the descendants of Esau.

Whereas

this

that Rab bar bar Ḥana said, that the descendants of Esau were preferable, was

after the associates came to Babylonia.

Once Cyrus took control of Babylonia, they became worse than everyone else, and the descendants of Esau were preferable to the Persians in Babylonia.

We learned in the Mishna in the final ruling:

If one says, “It was written in my presence,” and two say, “It was signed in our presence,” it is valid.

Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught

in the Mishna that the get is valid

only when the get emerges from under the control of the witness to the writing -

who is the agent. He is trusted regarding “It was written in my presence,” and the signatures are validated by two witnesses,

who have become like two regarding this -

regarding the writing, because an agent is trusted like two witnesses,

and like two regarding this,

regarding the signatures.

But

if the get emerges only

from under the control of the witnesses to the

signatures -

who are the agents, while the witness to the writing is not an agent - the get is

invalid.

This is because Rabbi Ami maintains the view of Rabba, that the reason one must say “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence” is to establish that the get was written for her sake. Therefore, even if the signatures are validated by two witnesses, since there is no verification regarding the writing that the get was written for her sake, as only an agent is trusted in this regard, the get is invalid.

We infer from his words:

Apparently, he maintains that two people who brought a get from overseas must say, “It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.”

For if they do not have to say this, then here, where there are two agents, their testimony is entirely unnecessary, and the get should be valid. Even though there is no verification regarding the writing “for her sake,” nevertheless, when there are two agents there is no need at all to say “It was written and signed in my presence for her sake,” because this is after the scribes had learned to write lishma, and with regard to two agents the Sages did not decree that one must be concerned lest matters revert to their earlier state and they forget to write lishma. This accords with the second formulation cited above.

Rav Asi said

to Rabbi Ami:

If that is so,

as you maintain that even two agents must say “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence,”

the first clause

of our Mishna [and this is in fact the case mentioned earlier in the name of the final clause,

which teaches: “If two say, ‘It was written in our presence,’ and one says, ‘It was signed in my presence,’ it is invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid”] -

even

if the

get emerges from under the control of both of them, do the Rabbis deem it invalid?!

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami:

Yes -

indeed. Since I maintain that even two agents must make the declaration, the Rabbis, who deemed invalid a case in which two say “It was written in our presence” and one says “It was signed in my presence,” likewise deemed it invalid when there are two agents here. In my view, even two agents must say “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence,” and here they did not make the declaration in the required manner.

On another occasion -

another time -

he found him,

Rav Asi found Rabbi Ami,

sitting and saying that even when a get emerges from under the control of the witnesses to the signatures,

and not from under the control of the witness to the writing, the get is also

valid,

and not as in the first statement he had made.

The Gemara infers from this that Rabbi Ami understood the Mishna as referring only to those testifying regarding the writing being agents, whereas he added that even when the get emerges from under the control of the witnesses to the signatures, there is no need to make the declaration:

Apparently, he maintains

Rabbi Ami,

that two people who brought a get from overseas do not need to say, “It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.”

Rav Asi said

to Rabbi Ami:

If that is so,

as you maintain that when there are two agents there is no need at all to say “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence,” then

the first clause

of our Mishna

which teaches: “If two say, ‘It was written in our presence,’ and one says, ‘It was signed in my presence,’ it is invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid” -

the reason

that the Rabbis deem it invalid is because

the get does not emerge from under the control of both of them,

as they are not both agents, and therefore they must say “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence.” Since they did not make the declaration in the required manner, the get is invalid.

This

means, if the

get emerges from under the control of both of them -

as both are agents -

the Rabbis deem it valid,

because there is no need at all to say “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence.” Therefore, their testimony is as though it were nonexistent, and the get is valid. This accords with the first formulation cited above!

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami:

Yes -

indeed, if both are agents, the get is not valid even according to the Rabbis.

Rav Asi challenged him:

But on another occasion, you did not say this to us!

Rather, you said that even when both are agents, the declaration “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence” is required. Which of your statements is the primary one?

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami: The later statement - that when there are two agents there is never a need to say “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence” - is the primary one, and concerning it I say:

It is a firmly planted peg that will not be moved!

Mishna:

A get that was

written during the day and signed during the day,

or a get that was written

at night and signed during the

same

night,

is valid.

Likewise, a get that was written at night and signed on the following day is valid, since the night follows the preceding day, and it is considered that the get was written and signed on one day; it is

valid.

But if the get was

written during the day and signed at night

following it, since the night is considered a different day, the get bears an earlier date and is

invalid,

as explained: either because of the concern that he might use this get to cover up for and save his wife, or because the woman might collect the produce of her nichsei melog from the time of the writing, even though during that period she was still married and her husband was entitled to eat the produce; she is entitled to it only from the time of the signing or delivery, because until then the produce belongs to the husband, and that was a different day.

But

Rabbi Shimon deems it valid. As Rabbi Shimon would say: All bills

of monetary obligation

that were written during the day and signed at night

and their date is earlier than the signing and delivery - are

invalid,

because if the borrower does not pay his debt, the lender will come to collect the land that is liened to the debt from purchasers who bought it from the borrower, beginning from the date written in the document, whereas in truth the document was signed and delivered only at night, which is a different day.

Except for bills of divorce,

with regard to which Rabbi Shimon maintains that even if they were written during the day and signed at night, the get is valid, because the woman may collect produce beginning from the date written in the get, as the husband loses the right to the produce from the time of the writing. Therefore, a get written on one day and signed on another does not create a problem. Rabbi Shimon does not accept at all the concern that the husband might cover up for his wife who committed adultery!

Gemara:

It was stated: Why did they institute

writing the

date in bills of divorce?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

If the date were not written in the get, there would be a concern

that he might cover up for

his wife who committed adultery, if she were

his niece,

and he gave her a get without a date. Since it contains no date, the woman could claim that the get was given to her before the adultery - and that she committed adultery when she was unmarried. In this way she would be exempt from the death penalty. Therefore, they instituted that the date be written in the get, so that he would not be able to cover up for his niece.

Reish Lakish said:

If the get did not contain a date, there would be a concern

because

the husband would continue eating

the produce

of his wife’s nichsei melog unlawfully - he would continue eating the produce even after he divorced her. When she summoned him to court, he would say to her that he had divorced her only now, and she would be unable to recover from him the produce he had already eaten. Therefore, they instituted that the date be written in the get.

The Gemara now explains:

Reish Lakish

who said that they instituted the date because of the produce -

what is the reason

that he did not explain that a date is required in a get

as

the reason of

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

that he might cover up for her?