Gittin 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

If you say -

that the agent was

deaf-mute

[who can neither hear nor speak]? - It is impossible to say this! Since

is a deaf-mute qualified to bring a bill of divorce -

is he qualified to bring a bill of divorce?

But didn’t we learn

[on page 23a]:

All are qualified to bring a bill of divorce except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

because they lack awareness and are not fit to be a “divorce agent.”

And Rav Yosef said

to explain this:

Here -

in this case -

with what are we dealing -

what is the case -

for example, when he gave it to her

[the agent gave the woman the bill of divorce]

while he was competent -

able to hear and speak -

but did not manage to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,”

as enacted by the Sages,

until he became deaf

the agent suddenly.

And from the fact that in such a case it is effective to validate the bill of divorce, it may be proven that Rav’s view is correct!

According to Rava,

who holds that the reason for the enactment is that witnesses are not readily available to validate it,

it is understandable -

it is clear why the Mishna suffices with “validation” by the signatures.

But

according to Rabba, it is difficult!

What benefit is there in “validation,” since those outside Eretz Yisrael are not expert in writing a bill of divorce for her sake?

The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing -

here the case concerns -

after they learned

the halakha of writing it for her sake, and no testimony is required for this!

But the Gemara objects:

If so -

if that is the case - even if the agent

can

say

as well -

he should also be exempt from saying it, since they have learned it?! Let them suffice with the “validation” by witnesses.

The Gemara answers: Even though they learned it, the Sages did not uproot their enactment that the agent must make the declaration, because of

a decree lest the matter return to its state of disrepair,

and they forget that the bill of divorce must be written and signed “for her sake.” Therefore, even now the agent must, before taking the bill of divorce, ascertain that it was made “for her sake.”

The Gemara again objects:

If so,

even if the agent

cannot

say

, as well

he too - his agency should be invalidated since he does not make the declaration, because of the decree lest the matter return to its state of disrepair?!

The Gemara answers: This case, in which the agent was

competent

at the time the bill of divorce was delivered

and became deaf

afterward, before he made the declaration, is

an uncommon matter -

it is an uncommon case -

and an uncommon matter

the Sages did not decree concerning -

the Sages enacted decrees only concerning common cases.

But the Gemara objects:

But

yet - even a case in which

a woman

becomes an agent to bring her own bill of divorce from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and the bill of divorce does not take effect until she reaches a particular court in Eretz Yisrael,

is uncommon -

it is entirely uncommon.

And didn’t we learn -

[nevertheless] we learned in a Mishna [below, 23b]:

The woman herself brings

her

bill of divorce

as an agent.

Provided that she must say: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

It is thus proven that the Sages decreed that the declaration must be made even in uncommon cases!

The Gemara answers:

So as not to distinguish among agents! -

the Sages did not distinguish between one agent and another. The woman herself who brings her bill of divorce must also make the declaration, like every other agent. And even this agent who “cannot” is obligated to make the declaration; it is simply that he cannot!

But the Gemara again objects:

If so

if that is the case -

the husband too

a husband who brought the bill of divorce [written] with him from a country overseas in order to divorce her in Eretz Yisrael should also be obligated to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” for this reason: so as not to distinguish among agents.

Why, then, does the beraita teach

why, then, did we learn in a beraita -

“He himself who brought his bill of divorce need not say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence’”?

The Gemara answers:

What is the reason

what is the reason -

did the Sages say

that the Sages said -

he must

the agent

say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”?

It is due to the concern

lest the husband come

lest the husband come -

and challenge it and invalidate it

and disqualify the bill of divorce. If so,

now

at present -

he is holding it in his hand

he is holding and bringing the bill of divorce in his own hand -

and he would challenge it?

Is it conceivable that he would challenge a bill of divorce that he himself brought as valid?! Therefore, they did not enact that he make the declaration in this case!

The Gemara brings another attempt to prove Rav’s view:

Come and hear: For Shmuel asked Rav Huna

he asked him -

“Two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas

and both became agents: Do they

need to say, ‘It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence,’ or do they not need to? He said to him: They do not need to!”

And the reason is:

“And what if they were to say”

that is, if they wished to say, “We testify that

she was divorced in our presence

and he gave her or her agent a bill of divorce” -

would they not be believed

would they really not be believed?!