Gittin 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

And

according to

Rabba, who said

the reason for the enactment is

because people are not expert in writing a bill of divorce לשמה, who

— that is,

this tanna

of our Mishna,

requires

— that is, requires

writing לשמה and requires

signing לשמה? If

we say that this is

Rabbi Meir,

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

a signature is required

— only the signature must be לשמה, because the phrase “and he shall write it for her” in the verse refers to the signature of the bill of divorce. But

writing

לשמה for the woman

, is not required

— he does not require it to be לשמה. The proof for this is from the statement of the Mishna [21b],

as we learned: One may not write

the bill of divorce initially

while it is attached to the ground,

lest one come to sign it while it is still attached, rendering it unfit. But after the fact,

, if he wrote it while it was attached to the ground,

and afterward

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

it is

valid.

This proves that according to him, the writing does not effect the severance, since the document is valid even when written while attached. If so, it is impossible to establish the Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

If

we say that the tanna in the Mishna is

Rabbi Elazar,

who holds that a bill of divorce written in accordance with its halakhic requirements is valid by Torah law even if the witnesses did not sign it—and according to this, the word “and he shall write” in the verse refers to the writing of the bill of divorce—then specifically

writing is required

— he requires it to be לשמה. But

a signature is not required

to be לשמה!

But if you would say

— if you wish to establish it —

that in fact

our Mishna is according to

Rabbi Elazar. And does Rabbi Elazar not require

also

the signature

to be

that is,

by Torah law,

but

by rabbinic law he requires it

— by rabbinic law, he requires both the writing and the signature to be לשמה.

This cannot be said, because:

but

the Mishna [in the ninth chapter, 86a] lists, according to the Sages,

three bills of divorce that are unfit by rabbinic law

— one of them being a bill of divorce written by the husband in his own handwriting with no witnesses signed on it—and in all of them the law is that if she married another man after receiving this bill of divorce from her first husband, the child is valid. Rabbi Elazar disagrees with the Sages and holds that even initially she is permitted to marry using it.

And Rabbi Elazar does not require

— he does not require —

a signature לשמה

even initially.

As we learned: There are three bills of divorce that are unfit, and if

nevertheless

she married

[married] after receiving one of them,

the child is valid:

a.

The husband wrote

the bill of divorce

in his own handwriting, and there are no

witnesses

signed on it.

b. If

there are witnesses on it

who are signed,

, but there is no

date

written in it [date].

c. If

there is a date in it, but only one witness is signed on it,

as well as the scribe’s handwriting, which is considered a second witness.

These are three bills of divorce that are unfit

by rabbinic law.

And if she married, the child is valid.

This indicates that the Sages disqualify these bills of divorce only by rabbinic law.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no

witnesses

signed on it

at all,

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

it is a bill of divorce

valid, and she collects

her marriage-contract payment by means of it

from the property

of the husband, even though it is

encumbered

to others [for example, to his creditors], because

the witnesses do not sign on

the bill of divorce

by Torah law;

rather,

it is a rabbinic enactment

for the betterment of the world,

so that if they die after witnessing the testimony, the woman will have no testimony at all concerning her divorce. Therefore, the witnesses customarily sign, so that even if they die, the woman will have proof: She can show their signatures to other witnesses, who will authenticate the signatures of the witnesses on the document.

From the fact that Rabbi Elazar disagrees, we see that he holds that a bill of divorce without the signatures of witnesses is valid even initially. If so, it is impossible for Rabbi Elazar to be the tanna of our Mishna, which requires the signature also to be לשמה!

Rather,

perhaps we should say that our Mishna, according to

Rabbi Meir, is. And does Rabbi Meir not require

— and what he does not require —

writing לשמה

is specifically

by Torah law.

But

by rabbinic law he requires it

— he does require it!

This cannot be said:

but

— after all —

Rav Naḥman said: Rabbi Meir would say:

The writing of the bill of divorce need not be done לשמה at all; therefore,

even

if

he found

the bill of divorce [the bill of divorce]

in a garbage heap,

and by chance it contained names identical to his name and his wife’s name, and certainly this bill of divorce was not written לשמה,

and signed,

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

valid.

And from here you learn that, according to Rabbi Meir, even by rabbinic decree there is no need to write the get lishmah. 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.