Gittin 2b — the Talmud in English

Rabba said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

because

the inhabitants of outside the Land of Israel are not learned in Torah, and they are not

expert

in the halakha that one must write the get specifically for the sake of this woman. For it is stated in the Torah, “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance” [Deuteronomy, chapter 24], and we learn from this below [20a] that the husband must write the get for the sake of this woman who is being divorced. Therefore, when the agent says, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” the judges ask him whether the get was written for her sake, and he answers: Yes!

And Rava said: Because

the road caravans from outside the Land of Israel to the Land of Israel are not regularly found, and if the husband challenges this get and says, “I did not write it; rather, it is forged,” there will not be

witnesses

from there

available

here who could recognize the signatures of the witnesses on the document in order

to authenticate it.

Therefore they enacted that the agent should say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” and the matter is considered authentication. And the Gemara asks:

What is the practical difference between them, what is the practical difference between the two explanations of Rabba and Rava? And the Gemara answers: There are three circumstances in which there is a difference between their reasons:

As with all other testimony in the Torah where a witness is not believed when there is a denial by the litigant himself. Only in a few cases is the agent believed, whereas in other cases the husband is believed [as demonstrated in the chapter “HaMekabel”]. Therefore, the Sages enacted one procedure for everyone, so that his credibility would not concern the very agency. Rather, his essential testimony concerns the writing and the signing, and they required him to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” They established that he is trusted because authentication of documents is only a rabbinic requirement (see the Meiri). The Ramban further answered [and the Ran and Rabbeinu Karkash brought his words] that the agent certainly does not have independent credibility to authenticate the bill of divorce like two witnesses, especially when the husband denies his claim and says that the bill of divorce is invalid. His entire credibility regarding the bill of divorce is when it has been authenticated [by two witnesses], to testify that it was written and signed specifically for her. His credibility regarding the agency is only because the husband himself trusted him and appointed him as his agent [as explained above in note 2]. Therefore, there is no basis for comparing him to two witnesses, as the Raavad, of blessed memory, asked.

a.

There is a difference between them—

there is a difference between them in the circumstance

that two brought it—

that two witnesses brought the get from overseas, rather than one, and both became the husband’s agents to divorce her and deliver the get to her together. According to Rabba, the law remains as it was, and both of them must say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.” But according to Rava, whose reason for the statement is the concern of a challenge by the husband, now that there are two of them and they can authenticate it, they need not say at the time of delivery, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

b.

Alternatively—

there will be another difference between the two reasons if the get is sent

from one country

in the Land of Israel

to a second country

in the Land of Israel.

For example, from the country of the Galilee to the country of Judea, between which road caravans are not now regularly found. According to Rabba, since both places are in the Land of Israel and their inhabitants are expert in the law of writing the get for her sake, the agent need not say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.” But according to Rava, since road caravans are not regularly found, the agent must say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” so that the husband will not be able to challenge it.

c.

Alternatively,

the third difference between them is in the circumstance that the agent carries a get

within the same country in overseas territory.

For example, it was sent from one city overseas to another city in the same country. According to Rabba, certainly the agent will have to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” because they are not expert concerning writing it for her sake. But according to Rava, he need not say this, because caravans traveling from city to city are regularly found.

The Gemara initially discusses Rabba’s words and afterward Rava’s words:

According to the

method of

Rabba,

whose

reason for the statement is that they are not expert concerning writing it for her sake,

why is one witness sufficient for this?

Let two be required—

after all, testimony of two witnesses is required!

Just as is the case—

like the law in

all other testimonies in the Torah?

And the Gemara answers:

One witness is believed concerning prohibitions,

for the Torah believed every individual Israelite if he says that the tithes and priestly gifts were separated from the produce, or that the animal was slaughtered according to law and its meat is permitted for eating. Likewise, if the forbidden sinews and fats were removed from the meat, he is believed. Therefore here too the Sages enacted that the agent would be believed to testify that the get is valid.

And the Gemara again asks:

Suppose—

perhaps we should say:

We say “

one witness is believed concerning prohibitions”

only in a place where there is a doubt before us,

such as a piece

of fat that is

possibly forbidden fat—

which is forbidden for eating—

possibly ordinary fat

of an animal—which is permitted for eating—

where there was no established

in this piece

prohibition

of forbidden fat with certainty. Specifically in such a case the Torah believed one witness to testify concerning the matter.

But here,

in our case, concerning the get,

where there has been established—

it has been established with certainty—

the prohibition of

a married woman.

For until now she was married, and now clear testimony is required that the get was made according to law in order to permit her—

Behold

this matter, in general, is a

matter of forbidden sexual relations.

And it is not

proper to permit

a matter of forbidden sexual relations

with fewer than two [

witnesses].

And this is learned by a gzera shava from the laws of monetary matters, since in both of them the word “matter” is written. [In the laws of forbidden sexual relations it is written [Deuteronomy, chapter 24]: “For he has found in her a matter of forbidden sexual relations.” And concerning money it is written [Deuteronomy, chapter 19]: “By the mouth of two witnesses a matter shall stand.”]

And the Gemara distinguishes:

Here it is different, because

the majority of Israel [

according to Rashi’s version]

are expert

in the halakha of lishma. And for this reason there is no concern that they might have sent a bill of divorce that is not valid. Therefore, it is sufficient for the Sages that the agent say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” in order to rely upon this bill of divorce and permit her.

And even according to Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority

even when the majority is not so, here, concerning a bill of divorce, there is no concern.

For

the ordinary scribes of judges,

the scribes of the judges, who regularly write bills of divorce in all places,

are thoroughly learned—

they are learned in and know the halakha of writing a bill of divorce lishma. And the Sages were concerned in this only in an exceptional case, in which a ready bill of divorce is found that was written for one of the townsmen, who had written it in order to divorce his wife, and the name of the husband on the bill of divorce is the same as the name of the finder, and the name of the woman on the bill of divorce is the same as the name of his wife, and in the end that husband reconsidered and decided not to divorce. And the finder will take this bill of divorce in order to divorce his wife with it, yet it was not written “lishma” for his wife.

And it is the Rabbis who required

testimony of the agent that would clarify that this was not done, but rather that the bill of divorce was written lishma for the woman being divorced.

And here,

in this case, in which the husband is outside the Land of Israel and the woman is in the Land of Israel—