Gittin 5a — the Talmud in English

If you say -

that the agent

was deaf-mute

[who neither hears nor speaks] - is it possible to say this?! Since,

is a deaf-mute fit to bring a get -

is he fit to bring a get?

But we learned

[on page 23a]:

Everyone is fit to bring the get, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

because they do not possess understanding 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 get]

while he was competent -

who hears and speaks -

and did not manage to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,”

as the Sages’ enactment requires,

until he became deaf-mute

the agent suddenly.

And from the fact that in such a case it is effective to validate the get, it can be proven in accordance with Rava’s position!

For Rava,

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

it is understandable -

it is well understood why the Mishna suffices with “validation” through the signatures.

But

for Rabba it is difficult!

What will the “validation” accomplish, since those outside the Land of Israel are not expert in lishmah?

And the Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing -

here we are dealing -

after they learned

the law of lishmah, and testimony is not required for this!

But the Gemara challenges:

If so -

if that is so - even

the one who can

the agent say

also -

he should likewise be exempt from saying it, since they learned it?! And let him suffice with the “validation” of witnesses.

And the Gemara answers: even though they learned it, the Sages did not uproot their enactment that the agent should say it, because of

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

and they forget that the get must be written and signed lishmah. Therefore even now the agent must, before taking the get, ascertain that it was made lishmah.

And the Gemara again challenges:

If so,

even if the agent

cannot

say it,

, also

his agency should be invalidated since he does not say it, because of the decree lest the matter return to its state of disorder?!

And the Gemara answers: this case, in which the agent was

competent

at the time of the handing over of the get

and became deaf-mute

afterward, before he said it, is

a matter that is uncommon -

it is an uncommon case -

and concerning an uncommon matter

the Sages did not decree -

the Sages made decrees only concerning common cases.

But the Gemara challenges:

But -

and yet - also a case in which

a woman

becomes an agent to bring her own get from outside the Land of Israel to the Land of Israel, and the get will not take effect until she reaches a particular court in the Land of Israel,

which is uncommon -

which is entirely not common.

And we learned -

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

The woman herself brings

her

get

in the capacity of an agent.

Provided that she must say: “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And it is proven that the Sages decreed that it be said even in cases that are not common!

And the Gemara answers:

So that you do not differentiate concerning agency! -

the Sages did not differentiate between one agent and another. And the woman herself, who brings her get, must also say it like every other agent. And even this agent who “cannot” is obligated to say it, except that he cannot!

But the Gemara again challenges:

If so -

if that is so -

a husband also -

a husband too, who brought the get [written] with him from a foreign country in order to divorce her in the Land of Israel, should be obligated to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” for this reason: so that you do not differentiate concerning agency.

Why, then, is it taught -

and why, then, did we learn in a beraita -

he himself who brought his get does not need to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed”?

And the Gemara answers:

What is the reason -

what is the reason -

did the Sages say -

that the Sages said -

he must

the agent

say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed”?

It is because of the concern

perhaps the husband will come -

perhaps the husband will come -

and challenge it and invalidate it -

and invalidate the get. If so,

now -

at present -

he is holding it in his hand -

he is holding and bringing the get in his hand -

and is he challenging it? -

is it conceivable that he will come to challenge a get that he himself brought as valid?! Therefore they did not institute that he say it in this case!

And the Gemara brings another attempt to prove Rava’s position:

Come and hear: for Shmuel asked -

he asked him -

Shmuel asked Rav Huna: two who brought a get from a foreign country

and both became agents. Do they

need to say, “Before us it was written and before us it was signed,” 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, surely if they wished to say, “We testify that

before us he divorced her

and gave her or her agent a get,

would they not be believed

would they not be trustworthy?!

For Rava this is satisfactory —

According to Rava’s method, this halakha is convenient and understandable, for they have a migo. And this is effective like “validation.”

But

according to Rabbah, it is difficult!

For according to his view, even two who bring [the get] need to say it.

And the Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here? —

Here we are dealing with [a case]

after they had learned.

And again it raises a difficulty:

If so —

if that is so —

one also —

one agent also should be exempt?

And it answers as before:

[This is] a decree lest the matter return to its disorder!

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, two also —

even with two agents, should we require them to say it because of the decree?

And the Gemara answers:

Two who bring a get —

that two should act as agents to bring a get —

is an uncommon matter —

this is something that is not common.

And the Sages did not decree concerning an uncommon matter!

And the Gemara again raises a difficulty as before:

But —

yet

a woman

who becomes an agent to bring her own get,

is uncommon.

And we learned

in a Mishna [on folio 23]:

The woman herself brings

her

get, provided that she herself needs to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

And the Gemara answers:

So that you should not distinguish among agencies!

And the Gemara again raises a difficulty:

If so, the husband also —

even when he himself brings the get here in order to divorce her, let us decree that he must say it.

Why, then, does the beraita teach —

and why is the beraita different:

He himself, who brought his get, does not need to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”?

But the Gemara also rejects this as before:

What is the reason that the Sages said: He must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”? Perhaps the husband will come and challenge it. Now he is holding it in his hand. And will he challenge it?!

And another attempt to prove [the law] according to Rava:

Come and hear: One who brings a get from overseas and gave it to her but did not say to her, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”—if

it was validated by its signatures, it is valid. And if not, it is invalid.

And the beraita concludes from this:

You must say

—that is, it is heard from here:

They did not require

those who bring a get to say

“It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence” in order to impose stringency upon her,

so that without this statement she would not be able to be divorced.

Rather,

the Sages wished

to ease matters for her,

so that the agent’s statement suffices and two additional witnesses are not needed to validate the get.

And according to this, [the law] is proven according to Rava:

For Rava,

whose reason for the statement is because of validation,

it is satisfactory —

it is well understood that the Sages eased matters by being satisfied with the agent’s statement in place of validation! But

for Rabbah, it is difficult.

What does validation by witnesses accomplish with regard to lishmah?

And the Gemara answers as before:

What are we dealing with here? —

Here we are dealing with [a case]

after they had learned.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But you said —

earlier you said that even after they had learned, he must say it because of the

decree, lest the matter return to its disorder?!

And the Gemara answers:

When she has married —

when she has already married on the basis of the get. And because of the decree, she is not removed from her husband. But according to this, there is a difficulty:

If so —

if that is so, what the beraita concluded, “

You must say

that is,

they did not require him to say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,’ in order to impose stringency upon her.

Rather, in order to ease matters for her,”

is not correct. For it is only

because she has married —

she has already married—that they suffice with validation; and it is implied from this that had she not yet married, we would not have allowed her to marry even after validation. And if so, requiring the statement is a stringency, and not an easing!

But the Gemara rejects the difficulty and explains it differently:

Indeed, it is speaking of a case after she has already married.

And this is what it is saying

—

and this is how one might have precisely inferred and asked:

And should you say

—if you will argue and say that even after she has married he must

impose stringency upon her —

upon her —

and remove her —

and take her away from her husband, since the enactment was not fulfilled—concerning this came the precise inference:

You must say

that is,

they did not require him to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” in order to impose stringency upon her

and remove her after she had married.

Rather, in order to ease matters for her

initially, so that she would not need witnesses. The agent’s statement would suffice.