Gittin 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

He can say to you

Reish Lakish:

sexual immorality is not common!

And therefore, because of the concern that his wife, who is his niece, might commit adultery and he would cover up for her, they would not have instituted that the date be written.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan,

who said that the reason they instituted that the date be written was because perhaps he would cover up for his wife,

for what reason

did he not explain that they instituted the date because of the loss of the produce,

as

he explained

Reish Lakish?

And we answer:

He holds

that Rabbi Yohanan holds that the husband

has rights to the produce until the time of delivery.

The entire reason that, according to Reish Lakish, they instituted that the date be written was so that the woman could claim from the husband the produce that he had consumed from the date written in the get. But Rabbi Yohanan holds that the husband consumes the produce of her nikhsei melog until the time the get is delivered. If so, according to him, the date written in the get makes no difference at all with regard to the consumption of the produce, because everything depends on the delivery.

Consequently, Rabbi Yohanan holds that if there is concern that the husband will continue consuming the produce, writing the date will not help with this; witnesses to the time of delivery are required. Therefore, Rav Yohanan did not explain the matter in accordance with Reish Lakish, but explained a different reason for instituting that the date be written.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Reish Lakish,

who holds that the reason the Sages instituted that the date of its writing be written in a get was because perhaps the husband would consume the produce of the nikhsei melog unlawfully, and therefore they instituted that the woman should know on which day the get was written and signed, and from that day the produce would be hers. It is understandable why, in the Mishna, regarding a get written during the day and signed at night, Rabbi Shimon deemed it valid. For Rabbi Shimon held that the husband loses the rights to the produce from the time the get is written. Therefore, a get written during the day and bearing that day’s date has no problem if it was signed on the following night, because the woman will receive the produce from the date written in the get, which is the time of its writing, and from that time she truly is entitled to receive the produce;

for that reason Rabbi Shimon deems it valid.

But the Rabbis disqualified in the Mishna a get written during the day and signed at night, since its date precedes the time of its signing.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who said that the reason they instituted the date in a get was so that perhaps he would cover up for his wife who had committed adultery—and the Rabbis likewise disqualified an antedated get for that reason, lest she committed adultery after he wrote the get, and he would give her the get, and the woman would say that her husband divorced her at the time written in the get, thereby saving her from execution—if so,

what is Rabbi Shimon’s reason for deeming it valid?

Why does he disagree and hold that such a get is valid?

Rabbi Yohanan can say to you: According to Rabbi Shimon,

who deemed an antedated get valid,

I did not say

that the reason the date is required is lest he cover up for his wife. For if Rabbi Shimon learns that the date is required in a get because of “lest he cover up,” then certainly an antedated get would be invalid. Rather, it is necessary to say that Rabbi Shimon learns, like Reish Lakish, that the date is required because of the produce; and since he holds that the husband consumes the produce until the time of delivery, he therefore holds that an antedated get is valid.

But when I say

that the reason is lest he cover up, this applies only

according to the Rabbis,

who hold that an antedated get is invalid. Only according to them do I explain that they instituted the date in a get because perhaps he would cover up for his wife.

And the Gemara analyzes:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, this is the difference between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis.

The Rabbis hold that the reason they instituted the date in a get is lest he cover up for his wife, and this reason applies even to an antedated get; therefore, the Rabbis disqualified an antedated get.

Whereas Rabbi Shimon held that the reason they instituted the date in a get is because of the produce, and according to him this reason does not apply to an antedated get [because the husband loses the rights to the produce from the time of writing].

But according to Reish Lakish,

who holds that both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Shimon, the reason they instituted the date in a get is because of the produce, if so,

what difference is there between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis?

Why did the Rabbis disqualify an antedated get, and why did Rabbi Shimon deem it valid?

And we answer:

The produce from the time of writing until the time of signing is the difference between them.

Indeed, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon hold that they instituted the date in a get because of the possibility that the woman might lose the produce, but they disagree as to how long the husband consumes the produce: until the time of writing the get, or until the time of signing it. This dispute leads to the dispute over whether a get written during the day and signed at night is valid or invalid.

The Rabbis hold that the husband consumes the produce until the time of signing, and a get written during the day and signed at night is invalid, because the husband is entitled to the produce until the night, until the time of signing. And in the case of an antedated document, there is concern that the woman might use the get to claim the produce from the time of writing, unlawfully; therefore, such a get is invalid.

But Rabbi Shimon holds that the husband consumes the produce only until the time of writing. Therefore, even if the get was written during the day and signed at night, there is no concern that the woman will claim the produce from the date written in the get, because in truth the produce belongs to her from the time of writing.

Now the Gemara returns to explain the dispute above between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish: Rabbi Yohanan does not hold in accordance with Reish Lakish because, in his opinion, the husband has rights to the produce until the time the get is delivered. Whereas Reish Lakish holds that they instituted the date because of the produce, because in his opinion the husband consumes the produce until the time of writing, according to Rabbi Shimon, or until the time of signing, according to the Rabbis, but not until the time of delivery.

And we raise an objection:

But we have heard the opposite from them—

from Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish!

For it was stated: From when may one claim the produce

of the nikhsei melog—from the husband?

Rabbi Yohanan said: From the time of writing. And Reish Lakish said: From the time of delivery.

But our sugya indicates the opposite.

And we answer:

Reverse it!

And state it as follows: Reish Lakish holds that it is from the time of writing, and Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is from the time of delivery.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

We learned in the Mishna below that there are

three gittin

that are

invalid, but

nevertheless,

if she married, the child is valid—

because their invalidity is only rabbinic. One of those gittin is a get without a date.

And if so, it is difficult: If a get without a date is valid after the fact,

what did the Sages accomplish with their enactment?

Anyone who wishes to cover up for his wife can give her a get without a date, and she can say that she was divorced before the adultery, thereby saving her from execution. Likewise, anyone who wishes to cause his wife to lose the produce can give her a get without a date and continue consuming the produce!?

Rav Yosef answers:

The Sages accomplished

something through their enactment,

as

once

she may not marry ab initio

with this get, the scribes who write gittin and the witnesses will not wish to sign such a get for the husband, since it is invalid ab initio. This is how the Sages’ enactment was effective, because he will find no one to write the get for him.

But Abaye added and challenged Rav Yosef: Even though the scribes and witnesses will not sign for the husband unless there is a date in the get, the husband can still cover up for her by

cutting it off,

the husband cutting off

its date

written in the get,

and giving it to her

without the date.

What

then? The get will certainly be valid after the fact, and if so, what did the Sages accomplish? The husband will write a get with a date, cut off the date, and a get without a date is valid after the fact; thus he can cover up for his wife.

Rav Yosef said to him:

We do not take into consideration

a fraudster!

For cutting off the date is an overt act of fraud, and there is no need to be concerned that he will do so.

Abaye further asked:

If he wrote in it

in the get

“a seven-year cycle”—

a particular cycle of seven years, one of the seven cycles of seven years that comprise the fifty-year Jubilee period.

Or if he wrote in the get

a year

of a certain year, or

a month

of a certain month, or

a week,

a certain week, but did not write the precise date,

what

is the ruling? Is the get valid, or is a precise date required and the get is invalid?

He said to him

Rav Yosef:

It is valid.

And Abaye challenged him: If so,

what did the Sages accomplish with their enactment?

Any husband who wishes to cover up for his wife can write in the get that it was given in a certain year, and the woman can say, “I was divorced at the beginning of the year, before the adultery.” And likewise regarding the produce, the husband can write a certain year and continue consuming the produce. And when she takes him to the court, he will say to her, “I divorced you just now.”

Rav Yosef said to him: Since even when he writes a year, a month, and so on,

the Sages accomplished

something through their enactment

for the preceding

week,

with regard to his wife’s adultery, if she committed adultery during the previous week and he learned of it only during the current week, he cannot cover up for her.

The Sages also made their enactment concerning the date effective

for the following week,

with regard to the produce. Even if he wishes to cause her to lose it, he cannot cause her to lose the produce of the following week. It follows that even in this case the Sages’ enactment is fulfilled to some extent, and therefore the get is valid.

Rav Yosef adds a proof to his answer:

For if you do not say so—

but maintain that the date must be precise in order to eliminate all concerns of covering up for his wife and all concerns of loss of produce, you will encounter a difficulty: Even when he writes a precise date, there is still cause for concern, because

as for the very day itself, do we know whether it was from the morning

that the get was written, or

from the afternoon

that it was written? If the woman committed adultery in the morning, he can write a get during the day and cover up for her. Or, with regard to the produce, he can write a get for her in the morning and continue consuming the produce until the evening. And when she comes to court in the evening, he will say to her, “I divorced you just now.” What, then, did the Sages accomplish with their enactment?

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that since writing the date is effective

for the preceding day

with regard to adultery—if she committed adultery before the day on which they are now, he cannot cover up for her—and the date is also effective

for the following day

with regard to the produce, as on the day after the date written in the get he cannot consume the produce, this is sufficient reason for the Sages to institute that the date be written, since there are cases in which the date is effective.

If so,

here too,

when he writes a week, a month, or the like,

it is effective for the preceding week

and for the following week,

even though the date is not effective for that particular week. Nevertheless, since the date is effective in that he cannot cover up for adultery committed during the preceding period, and he cannot cause her to lose the produce of the following period, the enactment concerning the date in gittin is considered fulfilled here, and the get is valid.