Gittin 23a — the Talmud in English

The Mishna does not validate a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor to write a bill of divorce in every circumstance, rather:

And this is when an adult is standing over him,

and says to him: “Write it for the sake of so-and-so.” And he does so, and writes it for her sake.

And Rav Huna holds that the Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who holds that the witnesses of delivery effect the divorce, and the essential writing of the bill of divorce that the Torah said must be for her sake applies not to the signatures of the witnesses but to the writing of the bill itself; therefore, an adult must be standing over him at the time of the writing.

And that which is stated in the Mishna, “for the bill is validated only by its signatories,” refers to the witnesses of delivery [and they are called “its signatories” because generally the witnesses of delivery also sign the bill].

And this provides a reason only for the middle clause of the Mishna, “the woman may write her bill of divorce,” since, as the bill is validated only through witnesses of delivery, there is therefore no concern that she might forge a bill by which she was not divorced. To insist on the fact that it was written by the woman. But not for the first clause, that a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are valid to write the bill of divorce, for in their case the reason is that an adult is standing over them.

Rav Naḥman said

to Rav Huna:

If that is so, a gentile

who wrote a bill of divorce,

and a Jew is standing over him,

and commands him to write it for her sake,

is it indeed also valid!?

Just as you say with regard to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor!?

And should you say: It is indeed also so,

that this is truly the case, that it is valid!

But it was taught

in a beraita:

A gentile is disqualified

from writing the bill of divorce. And it follows that this is so even when an adult is standing over him!

And we answer:

A gentile—

acts according to his own understanding!

He does not heed the command of others standing over him, but acts according to his own understanding, since he is an adult and possesses understanding. Therefore, even when a Jew is standing over him and commands him to write it for the sake of a particular woman, there is concern that perhaps he wrote the bill for the sake of another woman. But a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who do not possess understanding, intend according to what they were commanded.

Rav Naḥman then said: What I said is not a matter,

for I challenged the matter from a gentile who is disqualified even when a Jew is standing over him, because in truth, according to the Mishna, a gentile is entirely valid to write the bill of divorce, even when no Jew is standing over him. For our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds that the witnesses of signature effect the divorce. And according to him, the essential writing that the Torah stated, “and he shall write,” means that the signature of the witnesses on the bill must be for her sake, but the writing of the bill itself is valid even when it is not for her sake; therefore, a gentile is also valid for this.

And likewise, that which the Mishna says with regard to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, that they are valid to write the bill of divorce, is for this reason, as the Mishna concludes: “for the bill is validated only by its signatories.” This gives a reason for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor in its plain sense: the essential validation of the bill is through the witnesses of signature, and only they need to be “for her sake,” but not the writing. And there is no need to establish the Mishna specifically when an adult is standing over him, as Rav Huna does.

And proof that the Mishna follows Rabbi Meir and validates a gentile to write the bill of divorce is:

For since it disqualified the gentile with regard to bringing,

in the following Mishna it states that a gentile is disqualified from being an agent to bring the bill of divorce from the husband to his wife, because he is not subject to the laws of bills of divorce and betrothals.

And since our Mishna, which deals with the writing of the bill of divorce, did not mention the gentile,

by inference

you learn that he is disqualified only with regard to bringing,

but with regard to writing

he is

valid.

And he is included in that which the Mishna states, “for the bill is validated only by its signatories”; therefore, a gentile is also valid to write the bill of divorce, just like a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor.

And we challenge Rav Naḥman:

But it was taught: A gentile is disqualified!

And we answer:

That

beraita—

it is Rabbi Elazar, who said: The witnesses of delivery effect the divorce,

and the signature of the witnesses is not from the Torah. And that which is stated, “and he shall write,” means the writing of the bill itself,

and we require writing for her sake.

And it is certainly the case that

a gentile acts according to his own understanding,

and does not write it for her sake; therefore, he is disqualified according to the beraita.

Rav Naḥman said: Rabbi Meir would say: Even if he found it

the husband found the bill of divorce in a garbage heap, such that it certainly was not written for the divorce of his wife, and

he signed it,

he had witnesses sign it,

and gave it to her, it is valid.

For only the signature needs to be for her sake, but not the writing.

Rava challenged Rav Naḥman:

It is stated in the Torah,

“And he shall write for her,”

which implies that he should write

for her sake.

Does this not mean that “and he shall write” means

the

the writing of the bill of divorce,

and it must be for her sake?

Rav Naḥman answers:

No! “

And he shall write” means

the signature of the witnesses,

and only it must be for her sake.

Rava challenged

Rav Naḥman: We learned in the beginning of the third chapter:

Any bill of divorce that was written not for the sake of

the divorce of

a woman,

but in order to teach students the order of writing a bill of divorce,

is disqualified.

It is thus evident that the writing must be for her sake!

Rav Naḥman answers:

Say that this is what the Mishna says: Every bill of divorce

that was

signed not for the sake of a woman is disqualified.

But the writing does not need to be for her sake.

He challenged him

Rava to Rav Naḥman: It was taught:

When he writes it, it is as though he writes it for her sake.

Does this not mean

that the intention of the beraita is to say that it is not necessary to write the entire bill of divorce for her sake, but it is sufficient to write the essential part of the bill for her sake?

And this is what it says:

When he writes it for its essential text,

which is the names of the man and the woman and the date,

for her sake,

it is

as though he writes it

also

for its formula

of the bill

for her sake,

since the essential part of the bill is its essential text.

It follows that he must write, at any rate, the essential text for her sake! And Rav Naḥman answers:

No!

Rather, this is what the beraita says:

When he signs it

the bill

for her sake, it is as though he writes it for her sake.

Only the signature needs to be for her sake.

And if you wish, say:

There is no difficulty for Rav Naḥman from the Mishna and the beraita, which imply that the writing must be for her sake, because

these Mishnayot—which authority are they?

They are Rabbi Elazar, who said: The witnesses of delivery effect the divorce.

And according to him, it is certainly necessary to write it for her sake, whereas Rav Naḥman speaks according to Rabbi Meir, who says that the witnesses of signature effect the divorce, and only the signature must be for her sake.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

There is no need to establish the question raised at the beginning of the sugya, why the Mishna validates a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor to write the bill of divorce, specifically when an adult is standing over him, as Rav Huna says, nor specifically according to Rabbi Meir, as Rav Naḥman said. Rather, the Mishna is speaking of a case in which

he left

the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor

the place of the essential text,

so that he wrote only the formula, whereas an adult possessing understanding completed the essential text.

And it is according to Rabbi Elazar, who says that the witnesses of delivery effect the divorce, for even according to his view, writing the essential text for her sake is sufficient.

And likewise Rabbi Ḥaga said in the name of Ulla: And this is when he left the place of the essential text, and it is Rabbi Elazar.

And Rabbi Zerika said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is not Torah!

That is, we do not accept your statement.

And we explain:

What is meant by

“It is not Torah”?

Rabbi Abba said:

Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the Mishna does not follow Rabbi Elazar, but

here he informed you

that the Mishna treated the writing of the bill of divorce lightly, for it is possible to write it even through a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

for there is no force of “for her sake”!

There is no force of “for her sake” at all in the writing of the bill of divorce, but only in the signature.

And it is Rabbi Meir, who said: The witnesses of signature effect the divorce.

And we challenge:

But Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan

with regard to the Mishna on page 21b, which says that one may not write on something attached to the ground:

It is Rabbi Elazar!

And how could Rabbi Zerika say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that our Mishna follows Rabbi Meir?

And we answer:

They are amoraim, and they differ according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.

The two amoraim, Rabbi Zerika and Rabba bar bar Ḥana, disagreed concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view of how to establish the Mishnayot in our chapter.

Mishna:

All are valid

to be agents

to bring the bill of divorce

from the husband to his wife

except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor; a blind person; and a gentile.

If the minor received

the bill of divorce from the husband to take it to the woman while he was still a minor,

and he came of age,

becoming an adult before he gave it to her.

Or a

deaf-mute

received

the bill of divorce,

and regained his faculties,

or a

blind person received it, and recovered his sight,

his eyes having opened.

Or a

mentally incompetent person received it, and recovered,

becoming sane.

Or a

gentile received it, and converted,

in all these cases

the bill is disqualified,

even though it was delivered validly, because at the time the agent received the bill from the husband, he was not valid for this agency.

But

if he was

sane

at the time of receiving the bill,

and became deaf,

afterward,

and regained his faculties

at the time of delivery, or he was

sighted, became blind, and regained his sight,

or he was

sane, became mentally incompetent, and recovered, he is valid

to deliver the bill of divorce.

This is the principle: Anyone whose beginning and end are with understanding,

meaning that the agent possessed understanding at the time of receiving the bill and at the time of delivering it, even though in the interim he was a deaf-mute or mentally incompetent, the bill is

valid.

Gemara:

And we consider the matter:

Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor

are disqualified from being agents with regard to a bill of divorce because

they are not possessed of understanding,

and one who is not possessed of understanding is not valid for agency, since with regard to agency “man” was stated [“and they shall take for themselves, each man, a lamb for a father’s house”], meaning an adult possessing understanding.

A gentile, too,

is not valid for agency with regard to a bill of divorce because

he is not subject to permission,

for he is not subject to the laws of bills of divorce and betrothals, and a person cannot become an agent for something to which he himself has no connection whatsoever.

Rather, as for a blind person, why is he not

valid for agency with regard to a bill of divorce? And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: Because he does not know from whom he receives it and to whom he gives it!

For he recognizes neither the husband nor the woman, and for this reason he is disqualified from agency.

Rav Yosef challenged him:

According to your words,

how is a blind man permitted with his wife?

Perhaps this is not his wife?

And

how are people permitted with their wives at night?

Rather, through recognition of the voice,

for they recognize their wives through the voice.

Here too, with a bill of divorce, through recognition of the voice

a blind person can recognize the husband and the woman; why, then, is he not valid for agency? And we answer:

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with outside the Land of Israel, where he is required

the agent

to say

in the court,

“Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

But the blind person

cannot say “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” since he did not see the writing of the bill or its signature; therefore, he cannot become an agent.

“It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” since he did not see the writing or signing of the divorce document. Therefore, he cannot serve as an agent.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef

:

If that is so,

if the agent was

sighted

at the time the bill was written

and became blind

at the time of its delivery,

can say “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” is it

it likewise be valid?

indeed also valid?

But it teaches

in the Mishna:

“A sighted person who became blind and regained his sight is valid.”

And it implies that only when he

regained

his sight, yes,

then he is valid; but if

he did not regain his sight, no!?

And we answer:

The same law applies: even though he did not regain his sight,

he is valid;

and since

incidentally

it teaches

in the Mishna,

“sane, became mentally incompetent, and recovered,”

and there

the reason

is only because

he recovered

at the time of delivering the bill, he is valid;

if he did not recover, no,

for he must possess understanding until the completion of his agency. Therefore,

it also taught

“sighted, became blind, and regained his sight,”

even though here he does not need to regain his sight.

Rav Ashi said: It is precise as well

that it is possible to infer from our Mishna that, with regard to a blind person, it is not necessary that he regain his sight.

For it teaches "

This is the general rule: Anyone whose beginning and end are with awareness is fit,"

which implies that only those disqualified in the Mishna because of lack of awareness must have awareness from beginning to end.

But it does not teach "

Anyone whose beginning and end are in a state of fitness is fit,"

which would imply that the blind person, too, must remain in a state of fitness until the end.

Learn from it

that with regard to a blind person, it is not necessary that his end be in a state of fitness, for the entire reason for the blind person [being unfit] is that he cannot say, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence", and it is sufficient that he have sight at the beginning only, since through this he can say, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence".

They asked Rabbi Ami: A slave

a Canaanite slave,

what is the law regarding his becoming

an

agent to receive a woman's get from her husband?

A woman who appointed a slave as her agent, so that he should go to receive her get from her husband: will she be divorced through his receipt of it? And the same uncertainty applies to agency for delivery, when the husband appointed a slave as an agent to deliver the get to his wife; but the question was asked in the beit-midrash with regard to an agent for receipt.

Rav Ami said to them: Since it disqualifies a non-Jew,

since the Mishna disqualifies only a non-Jew from being an agent for delivery,