Gittin 3b — the Talmud in English

And

according to

Rabba, who said

the reason for the enactment is

because they are not expert in lishmah, who—

that is, who is

this tanna,

of our Mishna,

who requires—

who requires

writing lishmah and requires ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page-column position")

signing lishmah? If—

if we say that this is

Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the essential force of the document derives from the signature in it, then according to him specifically

a signature is required—

only the signature must be lishmah—because what is written in the verse, “And he writes for her,” refers to the signing of the get. But

writing

lishmah for the woman

, is not required—

he does not require that it be lishmah. And the proof for this is from the words of the Mishna [21b],

as we learned: One may not write

the get initially

while attached to the ground,

lest they come to sign it while it is attached, and it will be invalid. But after the fact

, if he wrote it while attached to the ground,

and afterward

detached it, signed it, and gave it to her,

it is

valid.

And it is demonstrated that according to him, the writing does not effect the severance, since it is valid while attached. And if so, it is impossible to establish the Mishna as [the opinion of] Rabbi Meir.

If—

if we say that the tanna in the Mishna is

Rabbi Elazar,

who holds that a get written according to its halakhic requirements is valid by Torah law even if the witnesses are not signed upon it—which according to this, the word “and he writes” in the verse refers to the writing of the get—then specifically

writing is required—

he requires it to be “lishmah.” But

a signature is not required

to be lishmah!

But if you would say—

if you wish to establish

that in every case

our Mishna is according to the position of

Rabbi Elazar. And does Rabbi Elazar not require

that also

the signature

be

lishmah,

that is,

by Torah law,

but

by rabbinic law he requires—

by rabbinic law he requires both writing and signing lishmah.

It is impossible to say this, because:

but

the Mishna [in chapter nine, 86a] counts, according to the Sages,

three invalid bills of divorce by rabbinic law—

one of which is a get that the husband wrote in his own handwriting with no witnesses signed upon it—and in all of them the law is that if she married another man, after receiving this get from her first husband, the child is valid. And Rabbi Elazar disagrees with the Sages and holds that even initially she is permitted to marry with it.

And Rabbi Elazar does not require—

he did not require—

a signature lishmah

even initially.

As we learned: Three bills of divorce are invalid, and if

nevertheless

she married [

married ] after receiving one of them,

the child is valid:

a.

The husband wrote

the get

in his own handwriting, and there are no

witnesses

signed upon it.

b. If

there are witnesses upon it

signed,

, but there is no

writing of a

date [

calendar date ].

c. If

there is a date in it, and only one witness is signed upon it,

and likewise the handwriting of the scribe—which is considered a second witness.

These are three invalid bills of divorce

by rabbinic law.

And if she married, the child is valid.

And it indicates that the Sages invalidate these bills of divorce only by rabbinic law.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no

witnesses

signed upon it

at all,

but he gave it to her in the presence of witnesses,

it is a get

valid, and she collects

by means of it her marriage settlement

from the assets

of the husband, even though they are

encumbered

to others [such as his creditors], because

the witnesses do not sign upon

the get

by Torah law,

but

it is a rabbinic enactment

for the betterment of the world, so that if they die after witnessing the delivery, the woman will have no testimony at all concerning her divorce. Therefore the witnesses became accustomed to sign, so that even if they die, the woman will have proof: she will show their signatures to other witnesses, and they will authenticate the signatures of the witnesses on the document.

And from the fact that Rabbi Elazar disagrees, we see that he holds that a get without the signatures of witnesses is valid even initially.

And if so, it is impossible that Rabbi Elazar is the tanna of our Mishna, which requires also a signature lishmah!

Rather,

perhaps we should say that our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Meir. And does Rabbi Meir not require—

and what he does not require is—

writing lishmah,

that is specifically

by Torah law.

But

by rabbinic law he requires—

he does require it!

It is impossible to say so:

but—

for

Rav Nahman said: Rabbi Meir would say:

the writing of the get does not need to be done “lishmah” at all, and therefore

even

if

he found

the husband [the get]

in a garbage heap,

and by chance names identical to his name and his wife’s name were written in it, and certainly this get was not written for her sake,

and signed,

the husband had witnesses sign upon it for the purpose of divorcing his wife, and gave it to her, it is

valid.

And from here you learn that even rabbinically there is no need to write the get lishmah, according to Rabbi Meir. For if rabbinically it were necessary to write it lishmah, Rabbi Meir would not have deemed it valid in this case to have it signed and give it to her.