Gittin 19a — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

This is an early-dated bill of divorce, since there is a difference between the time of the writing and the time of the signing of each witness. And even so, the bill of divorce is valid, because

it is worthwhile,

it is fitting

for Rabbi Shimon—

who validated an early-dated bill of divorce in the Mishna—

to rely upon him in a time of pressing circumstances.

And here it is speaking of a case in which the divorcing husband went on his way, or the woman married, and after the fact we permit an early-dated bill of divorce, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon. And we raise an objection:

But did Reish Lakish not say: Rabbi Shimon validated

an early-dated bill of divorce

only

if it is given to the woman

immediately.

But

if it is given to her

from then until ten days

from the time of its writing,

not

did Rabbi Shimon validate it, because we are concerned lest he became reconciled with her and secluded himself with her.

And here the signatures were from then until ten days later; and why did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi validate it in accordance with Rabbi Shimon? After all, even according to Rabbi Shimon the bill of divorce is invalid, according to Reish Lakish!

And we answer:

In that

dispute, whether Rabbi Shimon validated it even when there is an interval of ten days between the writing and the signing, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan,

that we are not concerned lest he became reconciled with her. And even if there is a difference of ten days between the writing and the signing, Rabbi Shimon also validates it.

But it is still difficult for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

But did Rabbi Yohanan not say,

only

two are on account of witnesses,

while all the others—the remaining ones—sign the bill of divorce on account of a condition? And according to this view it was explained in the Gemara above that if two sign on that same day, and the remaining ones [sign] from then until ten days later, the bill of divorce is not an early-dated bill of divorce, because the two witnesses signed on the day of the writing, and the remaining ones are not witnesses. If so, it is difficult: why did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi validate the bill of divorce because he claimed that in a time of pressing circumstances one may rely upon Rabbi Shimon? After all, even according to the Rabbis the bill of divorce is valid, because it is not an early-dated bill of divorce!

And we answer:

In that

dispute, whether all are on account of witnesses or the remainder are on account of a condition, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

holds in accordance with Reish Lakish,

that all are on account of witnesses. If so, the bill of divorce is an early-dated bill of divorce, because some of its witnesses signed after a considerable interval from the day of the writing. Therefore Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had to validate the bill of divorce, because in a time of pressing circumstances one may rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who validates an early-dated bill of divorce.

Mishna:

The laws of writing the bill of divorce are explained in this Mishna:

With everything they write

the bill of divorce:

with ink, with sam,

which is a liquid substance composed of metal ores,

with sikra,

a red color used as a protective paint for wood and metals,

and with komos,

a substance produced from the resin of a tree,

and with kankantum.

And it is a type of ink that will be explained in the Gemara.

And with every substance—

with every writing

that is lasting.

They do not write the bill of divorce: neither with liquids, nor with fruit juices, nor with anything that does not endure.

Until here the Mishna enumerates the types of ink, and from here onward the Mishna deals with what they write the bill of divorce upon:

Upon everything they write: upon the leaf

that has been detached

of

a

olive tree.

And upon the horn of a cow,

even if the horn is attached to the body of the cow,

but only if he

gives her the cow

itself. However, he cannot detach the horn and give her only the horn, as will be explained.

Upon the hand of a slave, and

only if he

gives her the

entire

slave.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: They do not write upon anything that has a living spirit—

such as a slave or an animal.

Nor upon food,

such as an olive leaf, which is food for animals.

Gemara:

Now the Gemara explains the types of ink mentioned in the Mishna.

Ink,

this is what is called

“diyuta.”

Sam,

this is what is called

“sama.”

Sikra—

Rabba bar bar Hana said: “Its name is sakarta.”

Komos,

this is what is called

“koma.”

Kankantum—

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Shmuel:

this is

“ḥarta de-ushpakhai,”

the black color that shoemakers use [“ushpakhai” are shoemakers].

We learned in the Mishna:

“And with every substance that endures.”

And we inquire concerning it: “‘Every,’ which is an expression of increase,

to include what?”

What does it come to include?

And we answer:

To include that which Rav Hanina taught: If they wrote

the bill of divorce

with mei tarya,

water in which fruit is soaked, and the water receives color from the fruit, color

and afatsa—

rainwater with gallnuts—the bill of divorce

is valid.

Rabbi Hiyya taught: If they wrote

the bill of divorce

with lead—

lead dust in water,

with black—

charcoal,

and with shihor—

which is the ḥarta de-ushpakhai mentioned above—the bill of divorce

is valid.

It was stated: One who passes ink

black

over sikra,

which is red ink,

on Shabbat—

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, both of them say: He is liable for two

sin-offerings:

one on account of writing

the new writing—the black.

And one on account of erasing

the old writing—the red.

But if he wrote on Shabbat with

ink

black

upon ink

black, or if he wrote on Shabbat with

sikra

red ink

upon sikra

red ink, he

is exempt.

For the new writing has no significance.

And if he wrote on Shabbat with

sikra

red ink

upon ink

black—

The amoraim disputed this:

Some say he is liable, and some say he is exempt.

Some say he is liable,

because

he is erasing

the lower black writing by passing the sikra over it.

And

some say he is exempt,

because he is damaging the lower black writing.

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: Witnesses who do not know how to sign, what is the law: may others write their names for them

the names of the witnesses

with sikra,

with red ink,

and

the witnesses

sign

over the sikra with black ink?

Is

the upper writing

upon the lower writing considered

writing,

and there are here signatures of witnesses?

Or

upper writing upon lower writing

is not

considered

writing,

and there is here no signature of witnesses?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan: Upper writing upon lower writing

is not writing.

He said to him

Reish Lakish:

But did you not teach us, our master,

that

upper writing is writing

—it is considered

writing with regard to Shabbat,

for you said that one who writes with black ink upon sikra is liable for two on Shabbat, and you hold that black writing upon red writing is considered writing; why is this not considered writing with regard to the signatures of witnesses?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan:

And because we draw an analogy—

we believe that this is writing, but we are not certain of it—

shall we perform an act

to be lenient, to permit and say that witnesses may sign in this manner? Therefore I said that the witnesses cannot sign in this manner, because I am not certain that this is writing. And also with regard to Shabbat, he is not actually liable to bring a sin-offering for this, because there is a possibility that he is not liable for a sin-offering; and if he were to bring it, it would turn out that he was bringing an unconsecrated offering into the Temple courtyard, because one who is not liable for a sin-offering cannot consecrate it and bring it as a voluntary offering.

It was stated: Witnesses who do not know how to sign

their names—what should they do?

Rav said: They make perforations for them in blank paper—

they engrave their names for them in the paper,

and

they

fill the perforations,

that is, the place of the engraving, with

ink.

And Shmuel said:

They should write their names for them

with lead—

they should rub a piece of lead upon the parchment of the bill of divorce, and the rubbing of a piece of lead upon parchment leaves a black mark upon it; they should make, through the rubbing, the marks of the names of the witnesses, and upon the lead mark the witnesses themselves should sign, with ink.

And we raise an objection: And is it conceivable

that with lead, it enters your mind

that it is possible to write their names for them? After all, the lead mark is complete writing, and the writing of the witnesses upon it with ink will not be considered writing, because it is writing upon complete writing.

And

the proof that a mark made with lead is considered complete writing is

that Rabbi Hiyya taught: If they wrote

the bill of divorce

with lead,

or

with black

—charcoal, or

with shihor—“ḥarta de-ushpakhai” [as explained above]—the bill of divorce

is valid.

And it is proven that this is writing; if so, how did Shmuel say that it is possible to write for the witnesses with lead?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

which Shmuel said—that they write for the witnesses with lead—speaks of a mark made

with a piece of lead,

with an actual piece of lead, without an admixture of water. And this mark is weak writing and is not considered writing; therefore the witnesses who sign upon it have writing that is considered writing.

Whereas

this

which Rabbi Hiyya said, that one may write a bill of divorce with lead, means

with lead-water,

water in which lead was soaked, with which they write strong writing, which is complete writing. And upon this it is certainly impossible to have witnesses sign.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

There is another solution for witnesses who do not know how to sign: they should write their names for them

with mei millin,

gallnut water, which is not considered writing.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Hanina taught: If they wrote

the bill of divorce

with mei tarya and afatsa—

with rainwater or with gallnuts—the bill of divorce

is valid!

And it is proven that gallnut water is considered complete writing; how, then, did Rabbi Abbahu say that we should write the witnesses’ names for them with gallnut water? After all, this will be complete writing, and what they write upon it is nothing!

And we answer:

This

which Rabbi Abbahu said, that we should write for the witnesses with mei millin, speaks of a parchment

treated with gallnuts,

as will be explained.

And

this

which Rabbi Hanina said, that it is possible to write a bill of divorce with mei millin, speaks of parchment

not treated with gallnuts,

which was not processed with gallnuts; therefore the writing of gallnut water is visible upon it.

And the reason for the distinction is: writing with gallnut water is not visible upon parchment processed with gallnuts, because

mei millin are not

visible

upon mei millin

other.

Rav Pappa said

another solution for witnesses who do not know how to sign: they should write their names

with saliva.

And so Rav Pappa instructed Pappa the ox-merchant—

Rav Pappa thus instructed a cattle merchant named “Pappa” to have the witnesses’ names written for them with saliva, and for the witnesses to sign upon this.

And we say:

And these matters

—that they employ these solutions—are specifically

with bills of divorce,

and because of the plight of a deserted woman they are lenient and accept witnesses in such a manner.

But with monetary documents

of property,

no.

For the holder of the document can seek other witnesses, and there is no need to be lenient and have such witnesses sign.

For that

man

who performed an act

with witnesses who did not know how to sign

with other documents

in one of the forms mentioned,

and Rav Kahana flogged him—

he punished him.

Rav Kahana.

Rav Kahana punished him.