Gittin 33b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi holds: testimony that was partially annulled ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

was not entirely annulled,

but only the one whom he annulled from being a witness was annulled by himself; and if so, he does not need to annul him in the presence of the others, so that they will know of the annulment of this witness.

And

because even

if those others go [the remaining witnesses], and

[if the remaining witnesses go], and

write and give

her a bill of divorce [and write and give her a bill of divorce]—

let them write and give [write and give],

and there is nothing in this, for they were not annulled from being witnesses and from being agents.

And therefore it is sufficient when he annuls him from being a witness in his presence. But when not in his presence, he cannot annul him from being a witness, because since he is also an agent for delivery, if he does not know of the annulment, there is concern that he will sign a bill of divorce with his fellow and give it to the woman, and this too is included in Rabban Gamliel’s enactment.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: testimony that was

partially annulled was entirely annulled,

and even those witnesses whom he did not expressly annul are annulled by law.

And

from now on, there is concern that

those others [the remaining witnesses] whom he did not annul in their presence

[the remaining witnesses] whom he did not annul in the presence of the others

do not know

of the annulment,

and go and write

a bill of divorce

and give

it to the woman [for they too are agents for delivery, since he said to them, “Give”], and she will go and marry another through it,

and

it will turn out

that they have permitted a married woman to everyone [and they permit a married woman to everyone], for in truth she was not divorced, since the husband’s instruction was entirely annulled with regard to this bill of divorce.

[and they have permitted a married woman to everyone], since in truth she was not divorced, because the husband’s instruction regarding this bill of divorce was completely annulled.

If you wish, say

to explain the dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

They did not dispute concerning this matter. Rather,

everyone

holds:

testimony that was partially annulled was not entirely annulled!

And even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, this does not involve Rabban Gamliel’s enactment, for those witnesses whom he did not annul in their presence can write and give the bill of divorce, and there is no concern of a mishap here.

And here, this is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

who said, “He can annul only in the presence of all,” because

he holds:

Every

matter performed in the presence of ten requires ten in order to remove it [every matter that was done in the presence of ten requires ten to extract and remove it]! Since the husband instructed each one to write in the presence of ten men, he can annul only in the presence of those ten and in the manner in which it was done; and as long as he has not done so, his annulment is not an annulment.

[every matter performed in the presence of ten requires ten people to remove and undo it]! Since the husband instructed each one to write in the presence of ten men, he can annul it only in the presence of those ten and in the same manner in which it was performed. As long as he has not done so, his annulment is ineffective.

They raised a dilemma:

If the husband said to the witnesses: “

All of you

write and sign a bill of divorce for my wife,” and afterward he went and annulled one of them in his presence and not in the presence of the others—

what

is the law in this matter according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and did he also dispute Rabbi?

Is

the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel—

when he said to ten without “all of you,” that he cannot annul this one without that one—

because he holds: testimony that was partially annulled was entirely annulled,

and we are concerned lest those who were annulled not in their presence write and give her the bill of divorce?

And if so,

these

[these ten],

since he said to them “

all of you

write and sign,” there is no concern for this, for

they cannot—

the remaining witnesses whom he did not annul in their presence—

write and give [write a bill of divorce and give it] before all of them sign, since he stipulated specifically that all of them sign; and since those two in whose presence he annulled know of the annulment, there is no concern that the others will prepare the bill of divorce without them.

[write a bill of divorce and give it] before all of them sign, because he stipulated specifically that all of them sign. Since the two in whose presence he annulled know of the annulment, there is no concern that the others will prepare the bill of divorce without them.

Or perhaps: the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

is like the second explanation brought above,

for he holds: “

Every matter performed in the presence of ten requires ten in order to remove it”—

and therefore, even

when he said to them: “

All of you

write and sign,”

also

his annulment is not an annulment, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Come and hear that even when he says “all of you,” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that he cannot annul this one without that one, from what was taught in a beraita:

a proof that even when he says “all of you,” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that he cannot annul one without the other, from a source that teaches:

He said to two: “

Give a bill of divorce to my wife”—

he can annul this one without that one, the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He can annul only this one in the presence of that one!

And it entered our minds that the beraita is dealing with one who said to two: “Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife,” and therefore the Gemara proves:

But

when he says to

two “

write and give a bill of divorce,”

for when

he says “

all of you

give,” they are

comparable!

For he necessarily needs both of them to prepare the bill of divorce, since the bill of divorce is signed by at least two witnesses; and there is no concern lest the second alone write and deliver the bill of divorce, such that we would say: since it was annulled through his annulment of this one, it turns out that this one permits a married woman to everyone.

And

nevertheless

they dispute, Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he cannot annul the one without the other; and necessarily the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is: “Every matter performed in the presence of ten requires ten in order to remove it.” Here too, since he made them witnesses in each other’s presence, he must also annul them in each other’s presence.

Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he cannot annul one without the other. Necessarily, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s reason is: “Every matter performed in the presence of ten requires ten people to remove it.” Here too, since he made them witnesses in one another’s presence, he must annul them in one another’s presence.

Rav Ashi said:

There is no proof from here. For if it were

a

case of one who said to

two

writing

witnesses, meaning that they are also writing witnesses in addition to being agents for delivery, and that he said to them, “Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife,”

meaning that they are also witnesses to the writing in addition to being agents to deliver the bill of divorce, and he said to them, “Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife,”

so too,

there would be proof from here according to your words.

Rather,

what are we dealing with here? With witnesses

for delivery

alone, to whom he said, “Give this bill of divorce to my wife,” for one does not need his fellow in order to carry out the agency.

And the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is because we say, “Agency that was partially annulled was entirely annulled,” and it turns out that through his annulment of one, the other too was annulled; and since they do not need one another, there is concern that the agent who did not know that he had been annulled will go and give the bill of divorce to the woman, and it will turn out that she married in prohibition, for his agency was annulled when the first one was annulled.

And we prove:

so too, it is more reasonable,

that it is dealing only with agents for delivery:

For

this is

taught in the

in the

latter part of this beraita: If

of this source: If he

he said to this one separately “

give a bill of divorce to my wife,”

and to that one separately

he said likewise,

he can annul

this one

without that one!

And this is even according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Granted, if you say

that the source is speaking only

that it is dealing only with witnesses for delivery, indeed

properly

he can appoint each one separately, for this is not testimony that requires the two witnesses to see it together, but merely agency.

And it is also understandable why it is permitted to annul the agency of one of them without his fellow. For Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s reason, “Agency that was partially annulled was entirely annulled,” does not apply here, because he did not appoint them in one appointment; rather, they are two separate agencies. And even if one of them is annulled, the second can still divorce her, and there is nothing to be concerned about.

But if you say

that the source is also speaking

that it is also dealing with writing witnesses, and do

if so,

they join—when he said to each one separately to sign—to be a valid group of two witnesses?!

And their testimony concerns the fact that the husband instructed them to sign. Thus, although there is testimony here from two people concerning the husband’s instruction, they testify about two separate instructions, and their testimony cannot be joined—

For their testimony concerns the fact that the husband instructed them to sign; and if so, although there is here testimony of two concerning the husband’s instruction, nevertheless they testify concerning two separate instructions, and their testimony does not join—

the Master said: The testimony of two witnesses

For the master said: The testimony of two witnesses does not

the act

join until both of them see

the act

together,

and if one witness says, “In my presence he admitted that he owed so-and-so one hundred,” and the second says likewise, their testimony does not join, because this one does not testify concerning what that one testifies; and although there is here testimony of two testifying that so-and-so owes so-and-so one hundred, their testimony does not join.

And we reject this: It is still possible to explain that the beraita is also dealing with writing witnesses, because

perhaps it follows Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha,

and the tanna of the beraita holds as he does, that two witnesses join even if they saw two separate acts, such as when one says, “In my presence so-and-so admitted that he owed so-and-so one hundred,” and the other says, “In my presence he admitted or lent one hundred to that same so-and-so.”

And if so, even if the husband instructed each of the signing witnesses separately, they properly join as one testimony concerning the bill of divorce.

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: I heard from Rabbi Abba [I heard from Rabbi Abba] that he ruled the law concerning these

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: I heard from Rabbi Abba

two

disputes between Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated above, [a. if they annulled it, is it annulled? b. annulment of this one without that one].

In one

dispute he ruled—Rabbi Abba—

like Rabbi, and

in

in one

dispute he ruled—Rabbi Abba—

like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but we do not know

in

which

of them he ruled

like Rabbi, and

in

which

of them he ruled

like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Rav Yosef said: Let us examine [let us consider the matter], where it is appropriate to rule like Rabbi and where like Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel;

[let us consider the matter], to determine where it is appropriate to rule according to Rabbi and where according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

for when Rav Dimi arrived, he said:

An incident occurred, and Rabbi acted in accordance with the words of the Sages,

who used to teach: “The assessments of the judges [judges who assessed the borrower’s property for the lender without the borrower’s presence] who reduced by one-sixth [of the true value of the property, thereby causing the borrower a loss], or added one-sixth [to its true value, thereby causing the lender a loss]—[the] sale [of the judges who sold the borrower’s property to the lender] is void,” and they disputed Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who would say: “Their sale stands; if so, what force would the court possess?”—

And it happened that they erred, and Rabbi nullified the sale in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

He said before him [

before Rabbi]

Rabbi Parta,

who was

the son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Parta

the great one; that is to say, he was

the grandson of Rabbi Parta the great:

If

you do

so

and nullify the valuation,

what becomes of the authority of the court?!

After all, we have to enhance the authority of the court, and not nullify what they have done.

And Rabbi reconsidered and acted in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who says, “Their sale stands,” for this reason!

And since we find that Rabbi conceded to the reasoning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, “If so, what becomes of the authority of the court,” it is certainly the case that “if he nullified it, it is not nullified,” in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, because of “if so, what becomes of the authority of the court.”

And from

this

matter—

in this dispute—Rabbi Abba ruled the halakha

in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

necessarily, Rabbi Abba ruled in

this

dispute [of “this nullification not in the presence of that one”]

in accordance with Rabbi.

For Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda testified that in one dispute he ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and in the other he ruled in accordance with Rabbi.

And Rabbi Yoshiyya of Usha as well held

in

one

of the aforementioned disputes

in accordance with Rabbi; and

in

one

of them he held

in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

For Rabbah bar bar Hana said:

We were five elders before Rabbi Yoshiyya of Usha [

we were five elders before Rabbi Yoshiyya of Usha], when

a certain man came before him

before Rabbi Yoshiyya,

and he took it

Rabbi Yoshiyya

the bill of divorce from him against his will [

a certain man came before Rabbi Yoshiyya, and Rabbi Yoshiyya compelled him to give a bill of divorce to his wife], for that man was one of those whom they compel to divorce and give the ketubah; and the husband instructed the witnesses that they should write and give a bill of divorce to his wife.

And immediately

he said to them

Rabbi Yoshiyya to the witnesses of the bill of divorce:

Go, hide [

go and conceal yourselves]

and write it for her

the bill of divorce for his wife, so that you will not be available for him to nullify you in your presence.

And from here one can learn his position regarding the two disputes over which they disputed:

A. Rabbi Yoshiyya’s position was that “if he nullified it, it is not nullified,” in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: for

if it could enter your mind

that Rabbi Yoshiyya of Usha held

in accordance with Rabbi,

that “if he nullified it, it is nullified,”

what would hiding accomplish [

what benefit did the witnesses gain by hiding]?! After all, he could still violate Rabban Gamaliel’s ordinance and nullify it before a court and not in their presence.

Rather, conclude from it: [he held] in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel,

that “if he nullified it, it is not nullified,”

was the position

of Rabbi Yoshiyya!

B. Rabbi Yoshiyya’s position was that “he need not nullify this one in the presence of that one,” in accordance with Rabbi:

and

because

if it could enter your mind

that

in the other

dispute

also

he held

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel—and he cannot nullify this one not in the presence of that one—

if so,

why

did

he say to them

Rabbi Yoshiyya to the witnesses

to hide?

After all, it would have been sufficient that

they disperse in all directions [

they disperse], and not remain together in one place! And since he would not find them together, he could not nullify them.

And he concludes:

Rather, conclude from it,

that Rabbi Yoshiyya held in

one

dispute

in accordance with Rabbi!

That he can nullify this one not in the presence of that one. Therefore, it was not sufficient that they disperse and not remain in one place, and for that reason Rabbi Yoshiyya instructed them to hide, so that he would not find them at all and would not be able to nullify it.

And

in

one

dispute he held

in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel!

That anything which he transgressed and nullified not in their presence is not a nullification even after the fact, as was explained.

And Rava said

in the name of

Rav Naḥman: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi in both matters!

Thus, if he annulled it without the other’s presence, it is not annulled, but one may initially annul one without the presence of the other.

And we challenge:

and

when

Rav Nahman does not hold

the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel,

“What becomes of the authority of the court”?!

And he does not hold that one must enhance their authority, and that a nullification performed contrary to the ordinance of the Sages is ineffective?!