Gittin 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

Because of the plight of an aguna, the Sages were lenient with regard to her.

The Sages were lenient by trusting the agent who brings the get, even though he is only one witness, in order not to prolong the time during which she remains an aguna. However, the Gemara also raises a difficulty concerning this:

Why do you say that the Sages were lenient? Is

this a leniency?

On the contrary,

it is a stringency!

For if you require two witnesses,

since if the Sages had required two witnesses [that is, two agents would have to bring the get and say: “It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence”], then

he would not come —

he would not come —

and the husband would challenge

the get [saying: “It is forged”]!

And he would disqualify it.

The husband would be unable to disqualify it, because there would be two witnesses opposing him, and he is not deemed credible against them.

But

one,

now that the Sages were satisfied with the testimony of the agent, who has the status of only one witness,

the husband will come and challenge it.

The husband will come and challenge it, and we will not know whom to believe, the husband or the agent, because it is one against one,

and he will disqualify it —

and the husband will disqualify the get due to the doubt.

Is

this,

the fact that the agent is trusted,

a leniency?

On the contrary,

it is a stringency!

For

if you require two,

if you required two witnesses rather than one,

the

husband

would not come and challenge

the get

and disqualify it,

because the statement of one person — the challenging husband — has no standing against two witnesses and is considered nothing! But now, since you trusted one agent

,

there is reason for concern lest

the husband come

and come afterward

and challenge

the validity of the get

and disqualify it

as a get. For we will place their statements [those of the agent and the husband] one against the other. This results in a stringency, for the agent’s statement will not be accepted!

The Gemara answers:

Since the Master said

below (5b):

In the presence of how many

witnesses is the agent required

to give it

the get

to her

the woman, and to say before them, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree about this.

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina

One

of them

said: In the presence of two

witnesses.

And one said: In the presence of three,

so that they will constitute a court, qualified to validate the get.

Therefore, already

initially,

when the agent receives the get from the husband,

the agent examines the matter carefully

and knows that the husband is divorcing her out of a genuine desire to divorce her, and does not intend to cause her distress by sending a disqualified get; and he will not subsequently challenge the validity of the get. For even if he challenges the get, he will not be believed. Therefore,

he will not come to harm himself —

the husband will not come to bring about his own detriment, since the court will not believe him. At the beginning of the discussion, the Gemara cited the disagreement between Rabba and Rava concerning the reason for the enactment requiring the agent to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” Until this point, the Gemara has discussed Rabba’s method: Why is testimony by two witnesses unnecessary, and why is the agent’s testimony sufficient? Now the Gemara begins to discuss Rava’s method.

And according to Rava, who said

that the reason for the enactment requiring the agent to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is

because witnesses are not readily available

here

to validate it, two should be required,

and two witnesses should be required to say this —

just as is the case

as is the law with regard to

all other validation of documents,

which are validated only through two witnesses.

The Gemara explains as before:

A single witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions —

and here his testimony concerns permitting a married woman!

The Gemara again raises a difficulty:

You may say that we state

that perhaps what the Sages said, that

a single witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions,

applies specifically where there is a doubt.

For example,

where there is before us

a piece

that is

possibly animal milk-fat

and

possibly animal fat

,

where the prohibition has not been established,

as the prohibition has not been established here with certainty.

But here,

with regard to permitting the woman through this get,

there has been established

for us

the prohibition of a married woman

with certainty.

And if so,

it is that the removal of the prohibition of a married woman in this case is a matter of

any

matter of forbidden relations.

And the rule is that testimony concerning

a matter of forbidden relations

is not accepted with

fewer than two

witnesses?!

The Gemara answers:

As a matter of law,

from the standpoint of the law,

even for the validation of documents, two should not be required —

there is no need for two witnesses —

in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish

in tractate Ketubot [18b].

As

he said there:

The witnesses who signed a document have become

those witnesses trustworthy

as though

as if

their testimony had been examined in court

and found to be correct. For we have an established presumption that no person is so brazen as to forge the signatures of witnesses.

And only the Sages required

validation of the signatures of the witnesses on the document.

And here,

here, in the case of a woman’s get,

because of the plight of an aguna,

in order not to leave her an aguna,

the Sages were lenient with regard to her,

and were satisfied with one witness who would say: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

The Gemara again raises a difficulty:

Is this a leniency!?

On the contrary,

it is a stringency!

For

if you require him

now

two

in one place,

he will not come,

he will not come later

and the husband will challenge it and disqualify the get,

because he knows that he will not be believed. But once you require only one witness,

one,

there is now reason for concern

that the husband will come

and challenge it and disqualify the get.

And if in the meantime the woman had managed to marry, she would now be required to leave her second husband, and likewise she could not return to her first husband. This is certainly a great stringency for her!

The Gemara answers:

Since the Master said

on 5b,

In the presence of how many

witnesses is the agent required

to give it

the get

to her

the woman, and to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree about this.

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina. One

of them

said: In the presence of two

witnesses.

And one

of them

said: In the presence of three.

Therefore, already

initially,

when the agent receives the get from the husband,

the agent examines the matter carefully

to ascertain that the husband intends to divorce her willingly, and does not intend to cause her distress by sending a get that is not valid and then challenging its validity,

and he will not come

the husband to challenge the get

and bring about his own detriment,

for in any event he is not deemed credible in challenging it.

The Gemara now turns to clarifying the views of Rabba and Rava and why they disagree with one another.

And Rava,

who said that the reason is that witnesses are not readily available to validate the get,

what is the reason —

what is the reason — that

he did not state the opinion of Rabba,

that the reason is that people are not expert in the requirement that the get be written for her sake?

Rava could have said to you: Is it taught

in the Mishna,

“It was written in my presence for her sake and it was signed in my presence for her sake,”

in which case the meaning would certainly be that he testifies concerning the writing of the get for her sake?!

And Rabba

will answer this question:

As a matter of law, it should have been taught that way,

by law, the tanna should have taught it in that manner, but he was concerned

that if he lengthened the statement,

that if they required the agent to say in the longer formulation, “It was written in my presence for her sake, and it was signed in my presence” —

he might abbreviate it,

the agent might sometimes shorten it, out of disregard for the lengthy formulation, and say only, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” thereby disqualifying the get. For there is a rule: Whenever one deviates from the formula established by the Sages for gittin, the get is invalid. And if a woman who was divorced with such a get married another man, her child would be a mamzer, because she would still be considered the wife of her first husband. Therefore, the Sages preferred to institute that the agent say only the two words “It was written in my presence,” and another two words, “It was signed in my presence,” so that the agent would not come to abbreviate the formula.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Now too—

even now, after they instituted that he say only two words—

he may cut it—

and sometimes say only one word out of the two.

And the Gemara answers:

One out of three—

one word out of three—

may be cut.

However,

one out of two—

one of the two—

may not be cut.

He is careful to say both words that they instituted him to say, “Before me it was written,” and then either they ask him whether it was written for her sake, or they understand his intent implicitly, namely, that the get was written for her sake. In any event, they obligated him to say the words, “Before me it was written, and before me it was signed,” in order to ensure that each of them was done for her sake. Since each of these is an independent legal matter, there is no concern that he will cut something from his statement.

Now the Gemara asks from the other side:

And Rabba,

who said that the reason is that people are not expert in writing it for her sake,

what is the reason that he did not say like Rava,

that the reason is that witnesses are not readily available to validate it?

And the Gemara answers:

If so,

as Rava says,

let the Mishna state,

the Mishna should have stated

“Before me it was signed”

alone,

and nothing more,

since validation is performed only with regard to the signatures of the witnesses.

“Before me it was written”—why do I need this?—

Why does the agent nevertheless have to testify about the writing as well? Rather, certainly

infer from here—

we learn from this

that it is necessary

to have testimony concerning the writing as well, namely, that the get was written

for her sake,

as Rabba maintains.

And Rava

will respond to this proof that, in truth,

the law is

that it need not state it;

indeed, the tanna should have been satisfied with the agent’s statement, “Before me it was signed,” without testimony concerning the writing.

Rather, if so,

if the writing were not mentioned,

it would come to be confused—

people would mistakenly confuse the validation performed here by the agent with regard to a get

and

the validation of

ordinary documents—

and they would think that those documents too could be validated

by one witness,

rather than requiring two. Therefore it is necessary to say also, “Before me it was written.”

And Rabba

will argue against this:

Are they comparable?—

Are these really comparable—the validation of a get by means of the agent and the validation of other documents by means of two witnesses? There are three differences between them: A.

There,

with regard to the validation of documents, the witnesses say:

We know—

we know that these are the signatures of the witnesses whom we recognize [even though those witnesses were not present at the time of the loan]! Whereas

here,

with regard to a get, the agent must say

“Before me

it was written and before me it was signed”; it is not sufficient that he recognizes the signatures.

B.

There,

with regard to the validation of other documents,

a woman is not deemed credible—

she is not deemed credible to validate the signatures of witnesses. But

here,

here, with regard to a get,

a woman is deemed credible—

a woman is deemed credible to serve as an agent to bring a get to another woman and say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.” C.

There,

with regard to the validation of other documents,

the interested party,

the holder of the document who presents it in order to collect on its basis,

is not deemed credible—

he is not deemed credible to validate it, since he has a personal interest in the matter and is suspected of lying. Whereas

here, the interested party is deemed credible.

If the husband gave the get to his wife outside Eretz Yisrael and said to her: You are not divorced by this get; rather, you will be divorced when you reach a court in Eretz Yisrael, she thereby becomes the husband’s agent of delivery for her own benefit. When she reaches the court, she must say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.” She is then divorced by means of the get [below, 23b].

And Rava responds with regard to the first difference:

Is it so here—

is it the case here, with regard to a get, that

when they say, “We know,”

are they not deemed credible? [Rashi’s version: “When he says, ‘I know,’ who is not deemed credible?”]—Would it really occur to one to say that here, with regard to a get, the agent’s statement would not be effective if he said: I know that this get was signed by the witnesses So-and-so and So-and-so, whom I recognize? For according to Rava, the reason for the statement is validation, and there is no difference between “Before me it was written” and “I know.”

And since, when they say, “We know,”—

if the agent says, “I know”—

they are deemed credible—

he is deemed credible—

it would come to be confused with the validation of ordinary documents—

people would mistakenly think that the signatures of witnesses on other documents may also be validated

by one witness

alone. Therefore, Rava maintains, we require the agent to say also, “Before me it was written,” in order to distinguish between the validation of a get and the validation of other documents.

Now the Gemara attempts to determine who the tanna of our Mishna is, who maintains that both the writing and the signing must be done “for her sake.”