Gittin 18b — the Talmud in English

And what is the reason? Because

We are concerned that perhaps he appeased her.

Perhaps the husband regretted divorcing her, had intercourse with her, and the bill of divorce is invalid by virtue of the law of a “stale bill of divorce”—that is, a bill of divorce that was written and afterward the husband had intercourse with her, or secluded himself with her and it is an invalid bill of divorce].

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

Rabbi Shimon deemed it valid

even from now until ten days—despite there having been ten days between the writing and the signing, the bill of divorce is valid. And Rabbi Yohanan is not concerned by the concern of Resh Lakish, that perhaps he appeased her, because

despite the fact that ten days elapsed between the writing and the signing, the get is valid. And Rabbi Yoḥanan is not concerned about Reish Lakish’s concern that perhaps he appeased her, because

if it is so that he appeased her, the matter would have a public voice and would become publicized. Therefore, as long as we do not know that he appeased her and secluded himself with her, the bill of divorce is valid, even though there were ten days between the time of the writing and the time of the signing.

and it would have become known. Therefore, as long as we do not know that he appeased her and secluded himself with her, the get is valid, even though ten days elapsed between the time of the writing and the time of the signing.

It was stated: He said to ten

men:

Write a bill of divorce for my wife!

Rabbi Yohanan said: Two

sign

by virtue of witnesses, and all of them—

the remaining ones sign the bill of divorce only

by virtue of a condition—for it is considered that the husband made it a condition, that he divorces only on condition that these men sign the bill of divorce, but he did not demand that they be witnesses to the bill of divorce.

as it is considered as though the husband stipulated that he would divorce her only on condition that these men sign the get, but he did not require them to be witnesses to the get.

And Resh Lakish said: All of them

must sign

by virtue of witnesses because this is what the husband intended.

as this is what the husband intended.

And we raise an objection:

What are the circumstances?

If we say that the husband did not say to them

the husband “

all of you

sign,”

but did we not learn: A husband who

that a husband who

said to ten, “

Write a bill of divorce for my wife”—

one writes, and two sign,

and the rest need not sign at all.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish, who hold that the rest also need to sign, either by virtue of a condition or by virtue of witnesses.

And we answer:

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish spoke of a case such as

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish were speaking of a case in which he said to them, “

he said to them, “

All of you write a bill of divorce for my wife,” and therefore all of them need to sign. And in this Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disagree as to why they need to sign. Rabbi Yohanan holds that apart from the two witnesses, all of them are by virtue of a condition. And Resh Lakish holds that all of them are by virtue of witnesses.

And we examine this:

What difference is there between them?

For according to both Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish, all of them need to sign, and if so, what practical difference is there?

And we say: There are two practical differences if the rest sign by virtue of a condition or by virtue of witnesses.

1.

There is a difference between them in a case where two of them signed—

the first two witnesses—

on that day, and the others—

the other eight signed

from now until ten days.

The one who says

that the remaining ones sign

by virtue of a condition,

the bill of divorce

is valid.

Because the bill of divorce was written and signed on the same day. And it is valid—even according to the Rabbis, who hold that if it was written today and signed tomorrow it is invalid; here it is valid. And as for the fact that there are witnesses who signed after several days, they are not witnesses; rather, they are merely a condition.

And the one who says

that the remaining ones sign

by virtue of witnesses,

the bill of divorce

is invalid,

and because it is an early-dated bill of divorce. For the bill of divorce was written on one day, and its witnesses signed after several days. And even if two witnesses signed on the day of the writing, the bill of divorce is invalid, since the other witnesses signed after several days, and the bill of divorce has no public voice; this is an early-dated bill of divorce, and it is invalid.

2.

Alternatively—

there is another practical difference between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish,

such as where one of them is found—

from among the ten men—

a relative or disqualified.

According to the one who says

that the eight remaining men sign

by virtue of a condition,

the bill of divorce

is valid,

because his entire intention was that eight additional men sign, but not in the capacity of witnesses. Therefore, even if one of them were a relative or disqualified, the bill of divorce is valid, since it contains two valid witnesses.

And according to the one who says

that the other eight men also sign

by virtue of witnesses,

the bill of divorce

is invalid—

because the relative or the disqualified person is not fit for testimony, and if they testified together with all of them, the testimony of all of them is nullified, according to the principle that if one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified, the testimony of all of them is nullified.

And now the Gemara explains the second practical difference:

These words apply when the relative or the disqualified person signed in the middle or at the end of all the witnesses. But

if he signed at the beginning,

the

relative or disqualified person—

it is not clear to us that according to Rabbi Yohanan the bill of divorce will be valid; rather, there is a dispute concerning this.

Some say: It is valid—

since there are two valid witnesses here, we are not concerned that the first is disqualified, and he signed by virtue of the condition, while after him the two witnesses signed by virtue of witnesses.

And some say: It is invalid.

And the Gemara explains the dispute:

Some say: It is valid,

since

it is a condition,

we are not concerned with where the valid person signs and where the disqualified person signs, since among all those signing there are two valid witnesses; therefore, the bill of divorce is valid.

Some say: It is invalid,

since it is necessary to decree here that it be invalid because

people may come to confuse this with ordinary documents.

And they will say that a relative or disqualified witness is fit to sign ordinary documents.

But if the disqualified persons signed in the middle of the bill of divorce or at its end, they did not decree that it be invalid, because only when they signed at the beginning would people say that the first witnesses sign in the capacity of witnesses, and would not say that they are among those who sign by virtue of the condition. And they would learn from this to validate a relative or disqualified person in documents. Therefore, even according to Rabbi Yohanan, the bill of divorce is invalid in that case.

A certain

man

who said to ten

men:

Write a bill of divorce for my wife!

Two of them signed on that day,

two of the ten signed on that very day,

and the others—

the eight remaining men signed

from now until ten days.

He came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

to ask what the status of this bill of divorce was.