Gittin 5b — the Talmud in English

And the reason that they were lenient is: for what reason,

what is the reason—

what is the reason for the enactment of the Sages that the agent should say,

perhaps the husband will come—

lest the husband come—

and challenge it and invalidate it —

he will challenge it and invalidate the get, so that she will not be able to marry. But

now—

now that she has already married, and certainly

the husband is not challenging it,

since no benefit whatsoever will result from his challenge—

shall we arise—

shall we come—

and challenge it—

challenge her get, in order to invalidate it and remove her from her husband?

And if so, from this beraita too there is no proof for Rava's view.

And now the Gemara says that Rabba and Rava's dispute had already been disputed by amoraim who preceded them.

Rabba and Rava disputed

the dispute of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One

of them

said

that the reason for the enactment is

because they are not expert in lishmah. And one said

that the reason is

because witnesses are not commonly available to validate it.

But it is not known what each one of them held.

It may be concluded,

it should be proved,

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

is the one

who said: because they are not expert in lishmah.

And this may be learned from the incident in which

Rabbi Shimon bar

Abba brought a get—

he brought a get—from overseas

before

before

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. And he said to him—

and he asked him—

must I say—

must I say—

“It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” or not? He said to him—

he answered him:

you do not need to—

you do not need to say it. Since

the Sages did not say

this enactment

except in the earlier generations, when they were not expert

the inhabitants of outside the Land in the law of

“lishmah.” But in the later generations, who are expert in “lishmah,” they did not

require the agent to say it.

And from this

it may be concluded—

we may learn Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's view!

And the Gemara asks:

and can you understand it—

do you truly think that Rabbi Shimon bar Abba was the sole agent in bringing the get?

But—

yet also

Rabba holds—

he holds the reason of

Rava,

that the get must be validated so that the husband will not challenge it. And here there was no “validation” at all. How did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi exempt him from the statement?

And furthermore, we said—

after all, we said on the preceding page—that we are concerned

lest the matter return to its state of disorder.

And therefore we require him to say it even after they have learned?!

And the Gemara concludes:

rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba

was not the sole agent, but

another person was with him—

another person was appointed together with him for the agency.

And the fact that he was not counted—

and the fact that he was not mentioned—

was because of Rabbi Shimon's honor.

For he was important, and it was not fitting to mention together with him another person who was not of his standing.

It was stated: Before how many

people

does he give it

the agent

to her

the woman—the get? It is a dispute between

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina. One

of them

said: before two. And one said: before three.

It may be concluded—

it should be proved

that it is Rabbi Yohanan

who

said: before two.

And this may be learned from an incident that occurred:

for Rabin son of Rav Hisda—

for Rabin, the son of Rav Hisda—

brought a get,

he brought a get from overseas

before

before

Rabbi Yohanan,

and asked what he had to do.

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan answered him:

go, give it to her—

go and give her the get

before two—

before two,

and say to them—

and say to them [that is, testify before them]:

“It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

If so,

it may be concluded,

we may learn from this that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who holds that it is before two.

And the Gemara analyzes:

shall we say that they disagree about this—

shall we say that this is what they dispute:

the one who says—

the one who said

before two, holds

that the reason for the statement is

because they are not expert in lishmah.

And therefore it is sufficient for two to testify that he said it before them.

And the one who says: before three holds—

he holds that the reason is:

because witnesses are not commonly available to validate it.

And if so, this statement, which is considered “validation,” must be made before three [who are considered a court], according to the law of every validation of documents.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

and can you understand it—

do you truly think that this is Rabbi Yohanan's view?!

But—

after all, from what we proved above,

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

is the one

who said: because they are not expert in lishmah,

it follows that his disputant,

Rabbi Yohanan, said

the second reason,

because witnesses are not commonly available to validate it.

And if so, it is difficult:

here—

here—

how does he say,

how does the Gemara say [prove] that according to

Rabbi Yohanan

he gives it to her

before

two?

After all, for “validation,” three are required, so that they will be a court.

And furthermore, Rabba holds Rava's view—

even the one who holds that the reason is because they are not expert in lishmah agrees with the reason of “validation.” If so, according to both of them, it should be required to give it before three?!

And the Gemara answers:

rather,

they do not disagree concerning the reason for the statement;

according to everyone—

according to everyone's view—

we require

that there be

witnesses commonly available to validate it. And here

the issue is

with an agent who became a witness,

whether likewise

this witness

will

become a judge,

or not.

And in this

they disagree—

they dispute:

the one who says,

the one who says

before two holds

that just as the law is that

an agent becomes a witness,

so the law is that

a witness becomes a judge.

And therefore the agent joins the other two. Together they are three [a court].

And the one who says: before three, holds

that although the law is that

an agent becomes a witness,

nevertheless

a witness does not become a judge.

And therefore he must give her the get specifically before three. But the Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation:

but we hold—

after all, it was decided as halakha [in tractate Ketubot, page 21b] that in the law

of the Rabbis

which is not from the Torah, such as validation of documents,

a witness becomes a judge?!

And therefore the Gemara establishes another interpretation:

rather, here they disagree about this—

here they dispute this.

For one master holds—

the one who says before three holds—

since a woman is fit to bring the get

from overseas [as below, page 23b], there is a concern that

sometimes—

sometimes—

a woman will bring it to him—

that woman will bring it—

and they will rely upon her,

and they will rely upon her to join with them to make three, and they will validate it with two, while a woman does not join the session of a court.

And the other one -

Rabbi Yohanan, who deems it fit when [the agent delivers the get] before two, holds: this is because

a woman

is disqualified from judging,

everyone knows \-

all people know,

and do not rely upon her -

they will not come to rely upon her and join her to the two men. Therefore, in such a case [when a woman brought a get], she must give it before three. But when a man brings a get, he joins the two [since a witness becomes a judge]. Therefore, it is sufficient that he give it before two.

Summary up to this point:

A. Rabbi Yohanan is the one who holds that the agent must give the get before two.

B. According to everyone, the get must be ratified! Therefore, three are required.

C. According to everyone, a witness becomes a judge [since ratification of documents is rabbinic]. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yohanan, the agent joins the other two.

D. The dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina is whether it is necessary to give it specifically before three, because one must be concerned that just as a woman is fit to bring a get and testify concerning it, so they may come to deem her fit to be a judge as well; or whether there is no need for concern, since everyone knows that a woman is disqualified from judging!

The Gemara brings a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan:

It was taught -

we learned in a beraita -

in accordance with him -

like -

Rabbi Yohanan,

that it is sufficient to give the get before two:

One who brings a get from overseas and gave it to her, but did not say to her, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed”—he must remove

her, the second husband who married her with this get.

And the child,

born to her from him,

is a mamzer. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: The child is not a mamzer!

Rather, he must return and give her the get validly, so that she will not have to leave her second husband.

What shall he do

this agent?

He shall take it

[the get]

from her -

from her.

And he shall return and give it

to her

before

two. And he shall say

when he gives it

“Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And the Gemara is astonished:

A

according to

Rabbi Meir,

only

because he did not say

the agent

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

therefore

“he must remove her and the child is a mamzer”?

But the get is valid, and it was written in his presence; it is merely that he did not say “Before me it was written and before me it was signed” as the Sages instituted. Is it possible that only because of this he must remove her and the child is a mamzer? The Gemara answers:

No -

yes - the opinion of

Rabbi Meir

here is

according to his own approach -

in accordance with his reasoning and method in other places as well.

For Rav Hamnuna said in the name -

in his name -

of

Ulla: Rabbi Meir used to say

a general rule:

“Anyone who alters the formula that the Sages established in connection with gittin,”

the law is:

“he must remove her and the child is a mamzer!”

The Gemara brings two incidents:

A man named

Bar Hedya wished to bring a get -

he wished to bring a get from overseas as an agent. When he reached that city where they needed to write the get,

he came before Rabbi Ahi -

he came to ask his question before a great man named Rabbi Ahi,

who was

the one who was

appointed over gittin

in that city. And Rabbi Ahi

said to him: You must stand over every single letter

and see that it was written validly.

He came before -

but when he came to ask before

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

who were also great men,

they said to him -

they answered him:

You do not need to -

you do not need to do as he said. Rather, it is sufficient that you stand at the time of the writing of only one line.

And if you should say -

and if you say [to yourself],

I shall do

for stringency -

I shall do as Rabbi Ahi said and stand over every single letter in order to be stringent -

you will be found

in this action

bringing disrepute -

a name of disqualification -

upon the earlier gittin

that were sent until now, without being stringent in this matter. And a second incident:

Rabba bar bar Hana brought a get -

he brought a get from overseas.

Half was written in his presence

half of it was written in his presence -

and half was not written in his presence

and half was not written in his presence.

He came before -

he came before -

Rabbi Elazar

and asked.

He said to him

Rabbi Elazar:

Even if the scribe wrote in it

[in the get]

only one line -

a line -

“for its sake,”

from then on -

from that point onward -

he does not need

the agent to stand and watch.