Gittin 17a — the Talmud in English

Meanwhile -

while they were speaking,

a certain man came ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

a Persian -

a Persian gentile.

He took the lamp from before them,

because it was illuminating the area for them. That day was a Persian festival, on which they would light lamps only in their house of idolatrous worship.

Rav bar bar Ḥana said:

Rav bar bar Ḥana:

Merciful One,

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

either under Your protection -

under Your shadow: protect us and bring us back from exile.

or under the protection of the descendants of Esau!

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Does this imply that the Romans,

the descendants of Esau,

are superior,

that they are preferable

to the Persians?!

But Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: What is the meaning of the verse

in the Book of Job [28:23],

“God understands its way, and He knows its place”?

The Holy One, blessed be He, knew that the Jewish people could not endure the decree of the Romans,

so He arose and exiled them to Babylonia!

This indicates, on the contrary, that the Persians who ruled Babylonia were more bearable for us than the descendants of Esau.

The Gemara answers:

That

which Rabbi Ḥiyya expounded, that the rule of the Babylonians was more bearable for us than that of the descendants of Esau,

was before the Persians came -

the Persians

to Babylonia,

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

But

that

which Rabba bar bar Ḥana said, that the descendants of Esau were preferable,

was after the Persians came to Babylonia.

From the time 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 final case of the Mishna:

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

Rabbi Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They taught

in the Mishna that the bill of divorce is valid

only when the bill of divorce emerges from the possession of the witness to the writing -

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

who have become like two witnesses regarding this -

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

and like two witnesses regarding this,

regarding the signatures.

But

if the bill of divorce emerges only

from the possession of the witnesses to the

signatures -

who are the agents, while the witness to the writing is not an agent - the bill of divorce

is invalid.

This is because Rabbi Ami follows Rabba, who says that the reason one must declare “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence” is to establish that the bill of divorce was written for her sake. Therefore, even if the signatures are authenticated by two witnesses, since there is no clarification regarding the writing that the bill of divorce was written for her sake, as only an agent is trusted concerning this, the bill of divorce is invalid.

And we infer from his words:

Apparently, he holds that two people who bring a bill of divorce from overseas must declare, “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence.”

For if they are not required to make this declaration, then here, where there are two agents, their testimony is entirely unnecessary, and the bill of divorce is valid. Even though there is no clarification that it was written for her sake, nevertheless, when there are two agents there is no need at all to say “It was written and signed in our presence for her sake,” because this is referring to a time after the scribes had learned to write bills of divorce for her sake, and with regard to two agents the Sages did not institute a decree lest matters return to their former state of disorder and they forget to write it for her sake. This follows the latter formulation stated above.

Rav Asi said to

Rabbi Ami:

If that is so,

since you hold that even two agents must declare “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence,”

the first clause

of our Mishna [and this is the same law previously mentioned in the name of the latter clause],

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

And even

if the

bill of divorce emerges from the possession of both of them, do the Sages invalidate it?!

He said to him

Rabbi Ami:

Yes -

indeed. Since I hold that even two agents must make the declaration, the Sages, who invalidated the case where two say “It was written in our presence” and one says “It was signed in my presence,” invalidated it even when there are two agents here. In my view, even two agents must declare “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence,” and here they did not make the declaration properly.

On another occasion -

another time

he found him,

Rav Asi found Rabbi Ami

sitting and saying that even when a bill of divorce emerges from the possession of the witnesses to the signatures,

and not from the possession of the witness to the writing, the bill of divorce is also

valid,

and not as in the first statement he had made.

The Gemara infers from the fact that Rabbi Ami understood the Mishna as referring only to those testifying about the writing being agents, while he added that even when the bill of divorce emerges from the possession of the witnesses to the signatures there is no need for the declaration:

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi Ami

that two people who bring a bill of divorce from overseas do not need to declare, “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence.”

Rav Asi said

to Rabbi Ami:

If that is so,

since you hold that when there are two agents there is no need at all to declare “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. But Rabbi Yehuda validates it,”

the reason

that the Sages invalidate it is

that the bill of divorce does not emerge from the possession of both of them,

as they are not both agents. Therefore, they must declare “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence,” and they did not make the declaration properly, so the bill of divorce is invalid.

But

if the

bill of divorce emerges from the possession of both of them -

as both of them are agents -

the Sages validate it,

because there is no need at all to declare “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence.” Therefore, their testimony is regarded as nonexistent, and the bill of divorce is valid. This follows the earlier formulation stated above!

He said to him

Rabbi Ami:

Yes -

indeed, if both of them are agents, the bill of divorce is not valid even according to the Sages.

Rabbi Asi challenged him:

But on another occasion, you did not tell us this!

Rather, you said that even when both of them are agents, they must make the declaration “It was written in our presence and signed in our presence.” Which of your statements is authoritative?

He said to him

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

“It is a firmly fixed peg that will not be moved!”

Mishna:

A bill of divorce that

was written during the day and signed during the day,

or a bill of divorce that was written

at night and signed during

the same

night,

is valid.

Likewise, a bill of divorce that was written at night and signed on the following day is valid, because the night follows the preceding day; it is considered to have been written and signed on one day, and it is

valid.

But if the bill of divorce

was written during the day and signed at night

that follows it, since the night is considered a different day, the bill of divorce has an early date, and it is

invalid,

as explained: either because the husband might use this bill of divorce to protect his wife, or because the woman might collect the produce of her usufruct property from the time written in the bill of divorce, even though, while she is married, her husband is entitled to consume the produce from the time of writing, and she is entitled to it only from the time of the signatures or delivery. Until then, the produce belongs to the husband, and that occurred on a different day.

But

Rabbi Shimon validates it. As Rabbi Shimon would say: All bills of divorce -

monetary documents -

that were written during the day and signed at night

whose date is earlier than the signatures and delivery - are

invalid,

because if the borrower does not repay his debt, the lender may seize land pledged for the debt [from purchasers who bought it from the borrower], beginning from the date written in the document, although in truth the document was signed and delivered only at night, which is a different day.

Except for bills of divorce,

because Rabbi Shimon holds that even if they were written during the day and signed at night, the bill of divorce is valid. The woman may collect produce beginning from the date written in the bill of divorce, because the husband forfeits the right to consume the produce from the time of writing. Therefore, a bill of divorce written on one day and signed on another creates no problem. Rabbi Shimon does not accept at all the concern that the husband might protect his wife who committed adultery!

Gemara:

It was stated: Why did they institute

writing the

date in bills of divorce?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

If a date were not written in the bill of divorce, there would be a concern

that he might protect

his wife who committed adultery, if she were

his niece,

and he gave her a bill of divorce without a date. Since it contains no date, the woman could claim that the bill of divorce 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 punishment of execution. Therefore, they instituted that a date be written in a bill of divorce, so that he could not protect his niece.

Reish Lakish said:

If there were no date in the bill of divorce, there would be a concern

because

the husband would continue to consume

the produce

of his wife’s usufruct property improperly - even after he divorced her he would continue consuming the produce. When she took 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 consumed. Therefore, they instituted that a date be written in a bill of divorce.

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 bill of divorce

as

according to the reason of

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

that the husband might protect his wife?