Gittin 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

And the reason that they were lenient is that

what is the reason—

what is the reason for the Sages’ enactment that the agent must say

perhaps the husband will come—

perhaps the husband will come

and challenge it and invalidate it—

he will challenge it and invalidate the get, so that she will be unable to marry. But

now—

now that she has already married, and certainly

the husband will not challenge it,

since no benefit will result from his challenge—

should we arise—

shall we come

and challenge it—

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

If so, this beraita also provides no proof for Rava’s view.

The Gemara now states that the dispute between Rabba and Rava had already been debated by earlier amoraim.

Rabba and Rava disputed

the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 readily available to validate it.

However, it is not known which view each of them held.

It may be concluded—

there is proof—

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

was the one

who said: Because they are not expert in lishmah.

This can be learned from the incident in which

Rabbi Shimon bar

Abba brought a get—

he brought a get from overseas

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 need not say it, since

the Sages instituted

this enactment

only in the earlier generations, when they were not expert

—the people outside Eretz Yisrael were not expert in the halakhic requirement of

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

require the agent to make the declaration.

And from this

it may be concluded

that we can learn the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi!

The Gemara asks:

Can you understand it so?

Do you really think that Rabbi Shimon bar Abba was the sole agent who brought the get?

But—

surely

Rabba also holds

the reasoning of

Rava—

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

And furthermore, we said

—we said on the preceding page—that we are concerned

lest the matter revert to its original state of disorder.

Therefore, they require the declaration even after the people have learned?!

The Gemara concludes:

Rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba

was not the sole agent; rather,

another person was with him—

another person had been appointed together with him as an agent.

And the fact that he was not mentioned—

the fact that the other agent was not mentioned—was

for the honor of Rabbi Shimon.

He was an important person, and it was inappropriate to mention together with him another person who was not of his standing.

It was stated: In the presence of how many

people

does he give it

—the agent

to her

—to the woman—the get? This is a dispute between

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina. One

of them

said: In the presence of two. And one said: In the presence of three.

It may be concluded—

there is proof—

that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan

who

said: In the presence of two.

This may be learned from an incident that occurred, in which

Ravin bar Rav Ḥisda—

Ravin, the son of Rav Ḥisda—

brought a get,

bringing a get from overseas

before

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

and

asked him what he should do.

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan answered him:

Go, give it to her—

go and deliver the get to her

in the presence of two,

in the presence of two people,

and say to them—

and tell them [i.e., testify before them]:

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

If so,

it may be concluded,

we can learn from this that Rabbi Yoḥanan is the one who holds that it must be given in the presence of two.

The Gemara analyzes this:

Shall we say that they disagree about this—

shall we say that this is the point of their dispute:

The one who says—

the one who says

“In the presence of two,” holds

that the reason for the declaration is

because they are not expert in lishmah.

Therefore, it is sufficient for two people to testify that he made the declaration before them.

And the one who says: In the presence of three holds—

he holds that the reason is

because witnesses are not readily available to validate it.

If so, this declaration, which is considered “validation,” must be made before three [who are considered a beit din], as is the law for every validation of documents.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Can you understand it so?

Do you really think that this is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view!?

But—

surely from what we proved above

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

was the one

who said: Because they are not expert in lishmah,

it follows that his disputant,

Rabbi Yoḥanan, said

the second reason,

because witnesses are not readily available to validate it.

If so, there is a difficulty:

here—

here—

how does it say—

how does the Gemara say [and prove] that according to

Rabbi Yoḥanan

he gives it to her

in the presence

of two?

But for “validation,” three people who constitute a beit din are required.

And furthermore, Rabba holds the view of Rava—

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

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

they do not dispute the reason for the declaration;

everyone—

according to everyone—

requires

that there be

witnesses readily available to validate it. And

here—

the issue here is

whether, when the agent becomes a witness,

the witness

also

becomes a judge,

or not.

And in this

they dispute—

they disagree:

The one who says—

the one who says

“In the presence of two” holds that just as the law is that

an

agent becomes a witness,

so too the law is that

a witness becomes a judge.

Therefore, the agent joins the other two, and together they are three [a beit din].

And the one who says: In the presence of three, holds that although the law is that

an

agent becomes a witness,

nevertheless

a witness does not become a judge.

Therefore, the get must be given to her specifically in the presence of three. But the Gemara challenges this interpretation:

But we have established—

surely the halakha has been decided [in tractate Ketubot, 21b] that, with regard to

a rabbinic

matter that is not from the Torah, such as validation of documents,

a witness becomes a judge?!

The Gemara therefore proposes another interpretation:

Rather, here they dispute this matter—

this is the point about which they disagree:

One master holds—

the one who says “in the presence of three” holds—

since a woman is fit to bring the get

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

sometimes—

at times—

a woman will bring it—

that woman will bring the get—

and they will rely upon her,

and rely on her to join them in constituting three and validate it with two, even though a woman cannot join a session of a beit din.

And the other one—

Rabbi Yohanan, who permits the agent to deliver it in the presence of two, holds that this is because

a woman

is disqualified from serving as a judge,

people know this—

everyone knows that,

and they will not rely on her —

they will not come to rely on her and count her together with the two men. Therefore, in such a case [where a woman brought a get], she must deliver it in the presence of three. Only when a man brings a get does he join the other two [since a witness may become a judge]. Therefore, it is sufficient for him to deliver it in the presence of two.

Summary thus far:

A. Rabbi Yohanan is the one who holds that the agent must deliver the get in the presence of two.

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

C. According to everyone, a witness may become a judge [since the 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 the get must be delivered specifically in the presence of three, because there is concern that just as a woman is fit to bring a get and testify concerning it, people will come to consider her fit to serve as a judge as well; or whether there is no need for such concern, since everyone knows that a woman is disqualified from serving as a judge!

The Gemara cites 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 deliver the get in the presence of two:

One who brings a get from overseas and gives it to her without saying, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”—he must divorce her

her second husband, who married her on the basis of this get.

And the child

born to her from him

is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

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

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

What should he do,

this agent?

He should take it

[the get]

from her—

from her.

And he should return and give it

to her

in the presence of

two. And he should say

when he gives it

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

And the Gemara is astonished:

And

according to

Rabbi Meir,

only

because he did not say

the agent

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

therefore

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

But the get is valid, and it was written in his presence; he merely failed to say “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence” as the Sages ordained. Is it possible that solely for this reason he must divorce her and the child is a mamzer? The Gemara answers:

Yes—

that is—the view of

Rabbi Meir

here is

in accordance with his own reasoning—

according to his reasoning and method elsewhere as well.

For Rav Hamnuna said in the name—

in his name—

of

Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say

a general principle:

“Anyone who alters the formula that the Sages instituted for bills of divorce

the law is:

‘He must divorce her and the child is a mamzer!’”

The Gemara brings two incidents:

A man named

Bar Hedia wished to bring a get

he wished to bring a get from overseas as an agent. When he reached the city where the get had to be written,

he came before Rabbi Ahi

to ask his question before a great scholar named Rabbi Ahi,

who was—

he was—

appointed over bills of divorce

in that city. And Rabbi Ahi

said to him: You must attend to every single letter

and see that it was written in accordance with the requirements.

He came before

but when he came to ask before

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

who were also great scholars,

they said to him—

they answered him:

You do not need to

do as he said. It is sufficient for you to be present when only one line is written.

And if you would say—

and if you were to say [to yourself],

“I will act

stringently”—

I will follow Rabbi Ahi’s instruction and attend to every single letter in order to be stringent—

you will thereby

in this act

cast aspersions—

a mark of invalidity—

upon the earlier bills of divorce,

that had been sent until then without this stringency. And the second incident:

Rabba bar bar Hana brought a get

he brought a get from overseas.

Half of it 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 him.

He said to him

Rabbi Elazar

said to him: Even if the scribe wrote in it

[in the get]

only one line—

a single line—

“for her sake,”

thereafter

from that point onward

he does not need

the agent to stand by and watch.