Gittin 17b — the Talmud in English

He can say to you

sexual immorality is not common! And therefore, because of the concern that his wife, who is his sister’s daughter, might commit sexual immorality and he would cover up for her, they did not institute [the writing of] a date.

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 challenge:

But Rabbi Yohanan, who said that the reason they instituted [the writing of] a date was because perhaps he would cover up for his wife,

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 writing of] a date because of the loss of the produce,

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, according to Rabbi Yohanan, there is

the husband has the right to the produce

the produce-owner’s right until the time of delivery.

Now, the entire reason that, according to Reish Lakish, they instituted [the writing of] a date was so that the woman would be able to recover from the husband the produce that he consumed from the date written in the get. But Rabbi Yohanan holds that the husband consumes the produce of her nichsei melog until the time of delivery of the get. And if so, the date written in the get makes no difference at all, according to him, with regard to the consumption of the produce, because everything depends on the delivery.

And consequently, Rabbi Yohanan holds that if there is a concern that the husband will continue to consume produce, writing the date will not help with this—and for this witnesses to the time of delivery are needed. Therefore Rav Yohanan did not explain it like Reish Lakish, but rather explained a different reason why they instituted [the writing of] a date.

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who holds that the reason the Sages instituted that the time of its writing be written in a get is because perhaps the husband will consume the produce of the nichsei 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 is hers. It is understandable why, in the Mishna, in the case of a get that was written during the day and signed at night, Rabbi Shimon declared it valid. For Rabbi Shimon held that the husband loses the produce from the time of the writing of the get, and therefore a get that was written during the day and has the date of that day in it has no defect at all if it was signed on the night following it, because the woman will receive the produce from the date written in the get, and that is the time of the writing, and from that time she truly is entitled to receive the produce,

who holds that the reason the Sages instituted that the date of its writing be recorded in the bill of divorce was that perhaps the husband would unlawfully consume the produce of the woman’s usufruct property, and therefore they instituted that the woman should know on which day the bill of divorce was written and signed, and that from that day the produce would belong to her, it is understandable why, in the Mishna, in the case of a bill of divorce that was written during the day and signed at night, Rabbi Shimon deemed it valid. Rabbi Shimon held that the husband loses the right to the produce from the time the bill of divorce is written. Therefore, a bill of divorce written during the day and bearing that day’s date presents no problem if it was signed on the following night, because the woman will receive the produce from the date written in the bill of divorce, which is the time of writing, and from that time she is in fact entitled to receive the produce;

and for this reason Rabbi Shimon declares it valid.

But the Rabbis invalidated in the Mishna a get that was written during the day and signed at night, since the date in it is earlier than its signing.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said that the reason they instituted a date in a get is because perhaps he would cover up for his wife who committed sexual immorality, and the Rabbis likewise invalidated an early-dated get for the same reason—perhaps she committed sexual immorality after he wrote the get, and he will give her the get, and the woman will say that her husband divorced her at the time written in the get, and he will save her from execution—if so,

who said that the reason they instituted the date in the bill of divorce was that perhaps he would cover up the wrongdoing of his wife, and that the Rabbis likewise invalidated an antedated bill of divorce for the same reason—perhaps she committed the wrongdoing after he wrote the bill of divorce, and he would give it to her, and the woman would say that her husband divorced her at the time written in the bill of divorce, thereby saving her from execution—if so,

what is Rabbi Shimon’s reason for declaring it valid? Why does he disagree and hold that such a get is valid?

Why does he disagree and hold that such a bill of divorce is valid?

Rabbi Yohanan can say to you: According to Rabbi Shimon, who declared an early-dated get valid,

who deemed an antedated bill of divorce valid,

I did not say that the reason a date is needed is because perhaps he would cover up for his wife. For if Rabbi Shimon learned that a date is needed in a get because of “perhaps he would cover up,” then certainly an early-dated get would be invalid. It is necessarily the case that Rabbi Shimon learns that a date is needed in a get like Reish Lakish, because of the produce; and since he held that the husband consumes the produce until the time of delivery, he therefore holds that an early-dated get is valid.

that the reason the date must be written is because perhaps he would cover up his wife’s wrongdoing. For if Rabbi Shimon learns that the date must be written because of the concern that he might cover it up, then certainly an antedated bill of divorce would be invalid. Necessarily, Rabbi Shimon learns, as Rish Lakish does, that the date must be written because of the produce; and since he holds that the husband may consume the produce until the time of delivery, he therefore holds that an antedated bill of divorce is valid.

But when I say the reason is because perhaps he would cover up, that is only

that the reason is the concern that he might cover up his wife’s wrongdoing, this applies only

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

who hold that an antedated bill of divorce is invalid. Only according to them do I explain that they instituted the date in the bill of divorce because perhaps he would cover up his wife’s wrongdoing.

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, this is the difference between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. The Rabbis hold that the reason they instituted a date in a get is because perhaps he would cover up for his wife, and this reason applies also to an early-dated get, and therefore the Rabbis invalidated an early-dated get.

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

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 a date in a get is because of the produce, if so,

who holds that both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon agree that the reason they instituted the date in the bill of divorce is because of the produce, if so,

what difference is there between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis? Why did the Rabbis invalidate an early-dated get, and why did Rabbi Shimon declare it valid?

Why did the Rabbis deem an antedated bill of divorce invalid, while Rabbi Shimon deemed it valid?

And we answer:

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

Indeed, both the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon hold that they instituted a date in a get because perhaps the woman will lose produce, but they disagree until when the husband consumes produce: until the time of the writing of the get, or until the time of the signing of the get. And from this dispute follows the dispute whether a get that was written during the day and signed at night is valid or invalid.

The Rabbis hold that the husband consumes produce until the time of the signing, and a get that was written during the day and signed at night is invalid, because produce belongs to the husband until the night—until the signing; and in an early document there is concern that perhaps the woman will take the produce with the get from the time of the writing, unlawfully, and therefore such a get is invalid.

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

And now the Gemara returns to explain the dispute above between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish: Rabbi Yohanan does not hold like Reish Lakish because, according to him, the husband has the produce until the time of delivery. Whereas Reish Lakish holds that they instituted [the writing of] a date because of the produce, because according to him the husband consumes produce until the time of writing, according to Rabbi Shimon, or signing, according to the Rabbis, but not until the time of delivery.

And we challenge:

But we heard the opposite from them—

from Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish!

For it was stated: From when do they take out the produce

of nichsei melog—from the husband?

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

But from our discussion it emerges oppositely.

And we answer:

Reverse it!

And say this: Reish Lakish holds, from the time of writing, and Rabbi Yohanan holds, from the time of delivery.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

For we learned in the Mishna below that there are

three gittin

that are

invalid, and

nevertheless

if she married, the child is valid—because their invalidity is only rabbinic. And one of these gittin is a get without a date.

because their invalidity is only by rabbinic enactment. One of these bills of divorce is a bill of divorce without a date. If so, the following difficulty arises: if a bill of divorce without a date is valid after the fact,

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? For anyone who wishes to cover up for his wife will give her a get without a date, and she will say that she was divorced before the sexual immorality, and he will save her from execution. And likewise, one who wishes to deprive his wife of produce will give her a get without a date and will continue to consume produce!?

Anyone who wishes to cover up his wife’s wrongdoing can give her a bill of divorce without a date, and she can say that she was divorced before the wrongdoing, thereby saving her from execution. Similarly, one who wishes to deprive his wife of the produce can give her a bill of divorce without a date and continue consuming the produce!

Rav Yosef answers:

They accomplished

with their enactment,

that

because

initially she may not marry

with this get, and the scribes of gittin and the witnesses will not wish to sign a get of this kind for the husband, since initially it is invalid. And this is where the enactment of the Sages helped, because he will find no one who will write the get for him.

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

cutting,

the husband will cut

his date

written in the get,

and give it to her

without the date.

What [then]?

For the get will certainly be valid after the fact, and if so, what did the Sages accomplish? For the husband will write a get with a date and cut out the date, and a get without a date is valid after the fact, and in this way he will cover up for his wife.

Rav Yosef said to him:

For a deceiver—

we do not take concern!

For cutting out the date is a conspicuous act of deception, and there is no need to be concerned about this.

Abaye further added and asked:

If he wrote in it

in the get “

year”—a particular cycle of seven years, out of the seven cycles of seven years comprising the fifty years of the Jubilee.

a particular seven-year period, one of the seven periods of seven years that make up the fifty years of the Jubilee cycle. Or if he wrote in the bill of divorce

Or if he wrote in the get

a year

a certain one, or

a month

a certain one, or

Shabbat,

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

what [is the law]?

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

He said to him

Rav Yosef:

Valid.

And Abaye challenged him: If so,

what did the Sages accomplish with their enactment? For any husband who wishes to cover up for his wife will write in the get a certain year, and the woman will say, “I was divorced at the beginning of the year, before the sexual immorality”; and likewise with regard to produce, the husband will write a certain year and continue to consume produce. And when she summons him to the court, he will say to her, “I divorced you just now.”

Any husband who wishes to cover up his wife’s wrongdoing can write in the bill of divorce that it was issued in a certain year, and the woman can say that she was divorced at the beginning of that year, before the wrongdoing. Similarly, with regard to the produce, the husband can write a certain year and continue consuming the produce. When she brings him before the court, he will say to her: I divorced you only now. Rav Yosef said to him: Since even when he writes a year, a month, or the like,

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

the Sages accomplished

with their enactment

for the preceding week,

that is before it,

with regard to his wife’s sexual immorality: if she committed sexual immorality during the preceding week, and he learned of it only during the present week, he will not be able to cover up for her.

And the Sages also accomplished through the enactment of the date

for the following week,

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

And Rav Yosef adds a necessity supporting his answer:

For if you do not say so—but hold that the date must be precise, so that it will prevent all the concerns of covering up for his wife and all the concerns of loss of produce—it will be difficult for you: even when he writes a precise date, even then there is still reason for concern, because

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

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? And if the woman committed sexual immorality in the morning, he will write a get during the day and cover up for her. Or with regard to produce, he will write a get for her in the morning and continue to consume produce until the evening. And when she comes in the evening to court, he will say to her, “I divorced you just now.” And what did the Sages accomplish with their enactment?

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that one must say that since writing the date is effective

for the preceding day

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

for the following day

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

If so,

here too,

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

it is effective for the preceding week—

and for the following week,

even though for that week itself the date is not effective, nevertheless, since the date is effective in that he cannot cover up for sexual immorality of the preceding week, and he cannot deprive her of the produce of the following week, it is considered that the enactment concerning the date in gittin is fulfilled here, and the get is valid.