Gittin 67a — the Talmud in English

They said to the scribe, “Write,” and to so-and-so and so-and-so, “Sign.”

And because of the shame

shame

of the scribe,

lest he think that they do not accept him as a witness and he be ashamed by this,

they are concerned, and they have one of those witnesses sign together with the scribe

the agents will be concerned for the scribe’s shame and will have only one of the agents sign together with the scribe,

but the husband did not say

that they should do

so

and the get is invalid. Yet they will validate it improperly! And since a mishap can result if they permit the scribe’s signature on a get, every get on which the scribe has signed as a witness must be invalidated, so that scribes will not sign on the get.

Rather, you are compelled to say that Rabbi Yosei holds that even when the husband says to the witnesses in the language “Say,” they cannot be agents to say to another, and there is no possibility that they should become agents to tell the scribe to sign the get. If so, the scribe signs only when he hears from the husband himself that he commands him to do so. And for this reason, the Mishna, which holds like him, validated the get on which the scribe signed, since there is no concern that he signed without the husband’s command.

And if so, it is again difficult for Shmuel: how does he hold that there is a possibility that the get is valid when the scribe wrote the get at the command of the agents? After all, he holds like Rabbi Yosei, and according to Rabbi Yosei there is no agency for conveying words alone.

And we answer: In truth, Rabbi Yosei holds that when the husband says to the witnesses in the language “Say,” they become agents to convey the husband’s commands. And in this manner Shmuel was uncertain whether “Write,” which the husband said to the witnesses, means the writing of the get itself, in which case it is invalid if another wrote it, or perhaps it means only the signing of their handwriting, and the get is valid when written by the scribe, since this is considered as though he said, “Tell the scribe to write the get.” In that matter Rabbi Yosei concedes that the agency is effective, and the get was written at the husband’s command in accordance with the law.

And according to this, it is not difficult how the Mishna validated, according to Rabbi Yosei’s view, a “scribe signed” get, and did not fear the destruction that could result from this,

since the master said

below, in our passage, concerning when the husband said to the witnesses in the language, “Tell the scribe and he shall write,” and, “Tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they shall sign,” that although the get is

valid,

but

even so

initially

one should not do this in Israel,

if so

it is uncommon

for the husband to command the witnesses to tell others to write and sign on the get.

And since according to Rabbi Yosei it is uncommon for the scribe to sign on a get without having heard a command from the husband himself, since even when the husband says to the agents in the language “Say,” the get is not valid initially, the Mishna therefore validated a get on which the scribe and an additional witness signed. There is no need to decree that this get be invalid because of an uncommon case.

And we object: Indeed, there is no concern in a get that contains the scribe’s signature and an additional witness that perhaps the husband said to two people: “Tell the scribe and he shall write, and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they shall sign,” since this is uncommon.

But still,

let us be concerned lest he said to them

to them, the husband,

to two

to two witnesses:

“Tell the scribe and he shall write, and you sign,”

for in this manner they did not decree that it is prohibited to do so initially.

And since this is so, that it is common for the husband to tell them to tell the scribe to write,

and

there is concern that

those went because of the scribe’s shame

that the witnesses went because of the scribe’s shame,

and had the scribe sign together with one of them,

and had the scribe sign on the get together with one of them,

but the husband did not say so,

and this is an invalid get.

And why did the Mishna validate a get containing the scribe’s signature and an additional witness, and not decree against it because of this concern!?

And we answer:

They say,

they said in explanation that one may say:

This also

also in this manner, in which he commands the agents to tell others only concerning the writing of the get, [there are those who hold that] the get is

valid,

but initially

it is not to be done.

And if so, it is something uncommon; therefore one does not decree and prohibit a get containing the scribe’s signature and an additional witness.

And we object:

This works out according to the one who says

that if the husband says to the witnesses in this manner, and they act according to his command, it is

valid

but initially

it is not to be done,

so there is no concern about this manner in a get containing the scribe’s signature and an additional witness.

But according to the one who says

the one who disagrees and says that if the husband says to the witnesses in this manner, and they act according to his command, it is

valid and it is to be done

initially,

what is there to say?

For there is concern in a get containing the scribe’s signature and an additional witness that the husband said to the witnesses in this manner [since this is common], and then the get is invalid.

Rather,

the Gemara retracts and says:

Rabbi Yosei said two things

to invalidate: both when the husband said to three, “Give,” and when he said, “Say to so-and-so and he shall write, and to so-and-so and so-and-so and they shall sign.” In both cases the get is invalid, because Rabbi Yosei holds that words are not transmitted to an agent [one cannot appoint an agent for a statement alone], and even when he says to them in the language “Say,” they do not become agents.

And those amoraim who disagree below, concerning one who says “Say,” whether he may do so initially or only after the fact, disagree according to Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Yosei, in this manner the get is entirely invalid,

and according to this, the words of Rav Hisda, who said above that what we learned in the Mishna, “A get containing the scribe’s signature and an additional witness is valid,” is according to Rabbi Yosei’s view, are well explained. There is no concern that perhaps the agent commanded the scribe to sign and not the husband, since according to Rabbi Yosei agency cannot exist for commanding another to sign on the get, even in the manner in which the husband said to the agent in the language “Say,” and the scribe will not sign without the husband’s command.

And Shmuel,

who said above that the matter requires study as to whether the husband’s statement “Write” means the signing of the witnesses’ handwriting, but concerning the actual writing of the get, it is as though the husband said to them, “Tell the scribe and he shall write,” and the get is valid in this manner—

held like him

like him, like Rabbi Yosei,

in one matter

in one matter: that words are not transmitted to an agent when he did not tell the agent in the language “Say.”

And he disagreed with him

and disagreed with Rabbi Yosei

in one matter,

in one matter: when he says to the agents in the language “Say.” According to Shmuel, if he made them agents to tell the scribe to write, the agency is effective, and this is a valid get.

Therefore, Shmuel was uncertain when the husband said to them in the language “Write” whether he meant the writing of the get itself, and if he gave it to another to write the get it is invalid, or perhaps he meant only the signing of their handwriting on the get. And as long as they themselves signed on it, it is valid, since concerning the writing of the get he is not particular that specifically they write it. It is considered as though he said to them, “Tell the scribe and he shall write,” and if they appointed a scribe to write, their agency is effective and the get is valid.

The substance of the matter,

we learned above:

Shmuel said, Rabbi said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei, who said: Words are not transmitted to an agent.

Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi said before him,

before Rabbi:

Since Rabbi Meir and Hanina of Ono disagree with Rabbi Yosei,

and hold that a statement can be conveyed through an agent who conveys it to another,

what did Rabbi see to say that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei?

He said to him,

Rabbi:

Be silent, my son, be silent. You did not see Rabbi Yosei. If only you had seen him,

if you had seen him, you would have understood why I ruled like him, because

his explanation

his explanation

is with him,

to provide an explanation for all his statements, for he would establish and explain his words.

For it was taught: Isi ben Judah would enumerate the praise of the Sages:

Rabbi Meir —

he was

a sage and a scribe.

Rabbi Judah —

he was

a sage when he wished,

for when he wished to be deliberate and settled in his statements, he was a sage.

Rabbi Tarfon —

he resembled

a heap of nuts.

Like a heap of nuts: if a person takes one of them, all the nuts gather and fall one upon another. So too Rabbi Tarfon: when a student came to ask him something, he would bring him a proof from Torah, from Midrash, from Mishna, halakha, and aggada, all together.

Rabbi Ishmael —

like

a well-stocked shop,

in which wine is always prepared, so that the shopkeeper does not need to tell the customers, “Wait and I will bring you some.” So too Rabbi Ishmael: when a person needed to learn from him, it was immediately available to him, and his learning was arranged in his mouth.

Rabbi Akiva —

he resembled

a sealed storehouse

a storehouse divided into compartments, in order to preserve each kind separately, in an orderly manner.

Rabbi Akiva resembled a poor man who took his basket and went out to the field. When he found barley, he harvested it and placed it in his basket; when he found wheat, he harvested it and placed it in it; and so too when he found beans and lentils. When he came to his house, he arranged each kind separately.

So too Rabbi Akiva: when he learned from his teachers, he heard a matter of Scripture from his teachers, then he heard halakha, then Midrash, and then aggada. After he heard all the matters, he applied his mind to reviewing them and reciting them until all the matters were arranged in his mouth. He did not say, “I will learn Scripture separately, Midrash separately, and so on,” but learned from whatever came to hand.

But when he became great, he arranged his lessons according to subjects: he arranged the Midrash of Sifrei and Sifra separately and taught them separately to his students; he arranged the halakhot separately and taught them to his students; and the aggadot separately, and so on.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri —

he resembled

the peddler’s basket,

for a peddler who comes to the city has everything that people request from him. So too Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: when a person needed to ask him something from Scripture, he answered him, and likewise concerning Midrash and likewise concerning aggada. And this praise is not similar to Rabbi Akiva’s praise, for Rabbi Akiva learned everything together and only afterward arranged it.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah —

he resembled

a basket of

spices,

in which there are many kinds. And he resembles the peddler’s basket, except that the peddler has more kinds, and ties each one in a separate bundle so that it will be ready for him when they request it from him.

The Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov —

a measure and pure,

for he did not teach much like his colleagues, but what he said in the beit-midrash is pure, for the halakha is always according to him.

Rabbi Yosei —

his explanation is with him,

as was explained above.

Rabbi Shimon —

grinds much,

he studies much,

and produces little

little, as will be explained.

The tan||||nay

the meaning of this, that he “produces little,” is that he

forgets little

little,

and what he produces

that is, those few things that he would forget,

he produces only bran

which is refuse, for he forgot only things concerning which it did not appear to him that the halakha was according to them.

And so Rabbi Shimon said to his students: My sons, study my measures

learn my Torah, since

my measures

my Torah

are contributions

the selected ones

from

among

the contributions of the measures

the selected ones of the principal teachings of the Mishnayot

of Rabbi Akiva.

Therefore my halakhic rulings are “selection after selection.”

The substance of the matter,

we learned above:

If he said to two: “Say to the scribe and he shall write, and to so-and-so and so-and-so and they shall sign,” Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

this get is

valid

but initially

this is not to be done in Israel,

rather, the husband himself must appoint the scribe and the witnesses who will sign on the get.

Ulla said to Rav Nahman, and some say

it was

Rav Nahman

who asked this

of Ulla: Since it is valid, why

initially

“is this not to be done in Israel”?

He said to him:

Because

we are concerned lest she hire

the woman

witnesses

who will say in her husband’s name to the scribe to write a get and to the witnesses to sign it, and the scribe and the witnesses will do so, thinking that the husband commanded this.

And we inquire about this:

Are we concerned

that witnesses will agree to lie for the woman?

But it was taught: Concerning witnesses who signed on a deed of sale of land and on a woman’s get, the Sages were not concerned about this matter,

lest the witnesses signed falsely, without the owners’ consent!

And it is demonstrated from this beraita that there is no concern that witnesses will testify falsely.

And we answer: In the beraita it is speaking of the act of signing a document, and indeed,

an act they do not perform

the witnesses do not perform an act of signing falsely, and there is no concern for this.

But

speech,

to say a false statement to others so that they will act, while the others think that the husband commanded it,

they say

the witnesses say, and there is concern for this.

Another halakhic ruling:

If

he said to two: “Tell the scribe and he shall write, and you sign,”

for in this manner there is no concern lest the woman hire witnesses who will tell others to sign, since the witnesses sign on the get only if they heard from the husband himself.

Rav Hisda said: It is valid, but it is not to be done

initially, as a decree lest people come to validate even the case in which the husband says to the witnesses to tell others to sign, in which case there is concern lest the woman hire witnesses who will tell others in the husband’s name to sign.

Rabba bar bar Hanna said: It is valid, and it is to be done

initially.

Rav Nahman said: It is valid, but it is not to be done. Rav Sheshet said: It is valid, and it is to be done.

Rabba said: It is valid, but it is not to be done. Rav Yosef said: It is valid, and it is to be done.