Gittin 34b — the Talmud in English

And the halakha is in accordance with Nahmani [ [A0003]Abaye]:

!

Mishna:

In the main text of the get, one must write the name of the man and the woman, and the name of their city. At times the husband and the wife have two names: by one name they were called in their original place of residence, and after some time, when they moved to an overseas country, they changed their names. Our Mishna deals with a case in which the woman returned to her original place, and the husband sent her a get from his place in the overseas country.

At first, the

scribe

would change

the

name

of the husband,

and

the

name

of the woman.

That is to say: He would write in the get their new names, by which they were called in the place of residence of the husband, which was the place where the get was written; and he would not add their old name, by which they were called in the place where the get was delivered.

And likewise he would change the

name of his city, and

the

name of her city!

That is to say, he would write the name of their city as it was called in the place where the get was written, and not as it was called in the place where it was delivered.

Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that he should write

in the get: “

So-and-so

[the name used in the place of writing],

every name

[other name]

that he has.”

And likewise one must write regarding the name of the woman: “

So-and-so, and every name

other

that she has”!

And he instituted this

for the betterment of the world!

For since in the place where the get is delivered they do not recognize the man and the woman by these names, but by their previous names, if they write only their second name, they will say: This is not her get, and she was not divorced from her husband! And if she marries another, a rumor will emerge concerning her children that they are mamzerim.

And by adding to the get the words, “Every name that he has,” they will no longer say this, and even one who does not know him by this name will understand that he has another name.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

The people of the overseas country sent to Rabban Gamliel: People coming from there to here

[from Eretz Yisrael to the overseas country],

and the name

of one of them in Eretz Yisrael is “

Yosef,”

and

here

they call him “

Yohanan,”

or his name there is “

Yohanan,”

and

here

they call him “

Yosef”:

How

do they write in the get

the

names, when they

divorce

their

wives?

Do they write them according to the names by which they are called here, or according to their names in Eretz Yisrael?

Rabban Gamliel arose and instituted:

That they should write “

So-and-so and every name that he has.”

And likewise they should write, “

So-and-so and every name that she has” —

for the betterment of the world!

Rav Ashi said:

And

this obligation to write in this manner

is

specifically where

it has been established

that this person has

two names [ [A0089]][two names]! For it is known to us here, at the time of writing, that he has an additional name elsewhere. But if it has not been established for us that he has two names, and they wrote in the get only his name here, even if it becomes known to us later that he has another name, the get is not invalidated by this.

[то есть два имени]: нам известно уже здесь, во время написания, что в другом месте у него есть дополнительное имя. Но если у нас не установлено, что у него два имени, и в гете написали только его имя, употребляемое здесь, то даже если впоследствии нам стало известно, что у него есть другое имя, гет из-за этого не становится недействительным.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Rabbi Mari and Rabbi Elazar stand in agreement with you, [ [A0091]]they too said in accordance with your words].

that is, they too stated the same ruling.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rav Ashi:

If he had

the husband

two wives, one in Judea and one in the Galilee, and he had two names,

one

one

by which he was called

in Judea, and

one

one

by which he was called

in the Galilee, and he divorced his wife in Judea with a

get in which

his name in Judea

alone was written,

and his wife in the Galilee

he divorced

with a

get in which

his name in the Galilee

alone was written —

she is not divorced!

For the get is not valid

until he divorces his wife in Judea with his name in Judea, and

he also attaches the

name by which

he is called in the

Galilee with it!

And

likewise, when he divorces

his wife in the Galilee,

the get is not valid until he writes in the get

his name in the Galilee, and

adds

the name of Judea with it!

But if

the husband goes out

to

another place, and he divorces

his wife with

one of them

alone, and he does not add the second name, she is

divorced!

And

it is difficult:

Did you not say

in the first clause that with only one name she is not divorced, until he writes

the name of the Galilee with it?

And how does the latter clause teach, “She is divorced”?!

Rather, necessarily,

this —

the first clause — deals with a case where

it has been established

that this man has two names, and therefore he must write both names, and otherwise she is not divorced.

And

this —

the latter clause — deals with a case where

it has not been established

for us that he has two names; therefore, even if he wrote only one of his names, she is divorced.

This proves by inference in accordance with Rav Ashi, who said: “And it is where it has been established that he has two names.”

There was an incident involving

a certain

woman

whom they used to call “

Miriam,”

and a small number

[a minority] of the townspeople called her “

Sarah.”

The people of Nehardea said:

When they write her name in the get, they must write “

Miriam

and

every name that she has.”

And not

should they write “

Sarah and every name that she has”!

Because her principal name is “Miriam,” and therefore that is what must be written explicitly, and not the second nickname.

Mishna:

A widow may not collect from the property of orphans

her ketuba,

except by means of an oath

that she received nothing from their father on account of her ketuba.

However,

the court refrained

the court

from administering an oath to her

because of the severity of the prohibition of an oath, and they refrained from having the ketuba collected for the woman; therefore

Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted:

That

in place of an oath,

the widow shall

the widow

take a vow to the orphans concerning anything they wish!

They should choose for themselves something that would be difficult for her to withstand, such as types of food, and obligate the woman to vow: “The types of food are konam to me if I benefited from my ketuba” —

and thereby she will

collect

her

ketuba!

For she is not suspected of violating her vow, and she would not take such a difficult vow unless the truth was as she said, that she had still not collected her ketuba.

And

Rabban Gamliel the Elder further instituted: that

the witnesses sign the get,

and the Gemara explains it.

And these two ordinances that Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted,

for the betterment of the world

he instituted them, so that women would marry husbands and would not worry lest they lose their ketuba; and the betterment of the world involved in signing the get will be explained in the Gemara.

It is a Torah law that the Sabbatical year cancels debts, and it is forbidden for a person to collect his debts once the seventh year has passed over them, as the verse says: “At the end of seven years you shall institute a release. And this is the matter of the release: Every creditor shall release his hand from what he lent his fellow; he shall not press his fellow or his brother, for he has proclaimed a release for the Lord.” And it is called the cancellation of monetary debts, and we hold that the Sabbatical year cancels debts only at its end.

And Hillel instituted

that through a

prosbul

that the creditor makes [and its details will be explained in the Gemara], the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt.

And

for the betterment of the world

Hillel instituted this, so that the lenders would not suffer a loss, and also so that they would not refrain from lending to the poor who require loans.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A widow may not collect from the property of orphans except by means of an oath. And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Why is it specifically “

a widow”

in particular? But

even everyone

[other creditors]

also

do not collect from orphans without an oath!?

For it is established for us:

Every creditor

who comes to collect from the property of orphans

their father's debt,

may not collect

from them

except by means of an oath

that his debt has still not been paid.

And we answer: It is indeed so, for this is the law regarding every creditor; however,

the widow was necessary for him

the tanna to teach us, that she too requires an oath; and because

it might have entered our minds to say [ [A0229]]it might have occurred to us to say]:

[что мы скажем]: