Gittin 81b — the Talmud in English

For Beit Shammai hold: A person makes his intercourse intercourse of promiscuity,

and as long as he did not explicitly say that he was having intercourse for the sake of betrothal, we do not say that his intercourse at the inn was for the sake of betrothal. Therefore, she does not require a second get from him.

And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not make his intercourse intercourse of promiscuity,

and certainly he had intercourse with her for the sake of betrothal, and it follows that she was betrothed in the presence of witnesses; therefore, she requires a second get from him.

But if they did not see

witnesses

that she had intercourse

at the inn,

according to everyone she does not require a second get from him,

for we are not concerned that perhaps he had intercourse with her there.

And we raise an objection:

We learned

in our Mishna:

And Beit Hillel concede

Beit Hillel

that if she was divorced from betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, since he is not attached to her.

And if

you say that Beit Hillel require a second get only

when they saw that she had intercourse, what difference is there to me whether [she was divorced] from betrothal, and what difference is there to me whether [she was divorced] from marriage?

For we saw that she had intercourse, and since according to Beit Hillel a person does not make his intercourse intercourse of promiscuity, why should she not require a get from betrothal?

And we answer:

Rather, the Mishna

certainly speaks

when they did not see that she had intercourse.

Therefore, only when she was divorced from marriage do Beit Hillel hold that presumably he had intercourse with her, but not when she was divorced from betrothal.

And Rabbi Yohanan, who said

that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically when they saw that she had intercourse, does not intend to say that this is what the Mishna holds; rather, he himself holds

like this tanna,

who establishes the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai differently from our Mishna.

As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning

the case

when they did not see that she had intercourse,

for then everyone concedes

that she does not require a second get from him.

Concerning what did they disagree? —

Concerning

the case

when they saw that she had intercourse.

For Beit Shammai say: A person makes his intercourse intercourse of promiscuity.

And Beit Hillel say: A person does not make his intercourse intercourse of promiscuity.

And we inquire:

And our Mishna, which we established as speaking when they did not see that she had intercourse, in what do

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

disagree?

And we answer: It is a case where

there are witnesses of seclusion,

but there are no witnesses of intercourse,

who saw them secluded at the inn, but the witnesses did not see her having intercourse.

Beit Shammai hold: We do not say “

They are indeed witnesses of seclusion, and they are indeed witnesses of intercourse,”

for even though they saw her secluded with him, this is no proof that he had intercourse with her; therefore, she does not require a second get from him.

And Beit Hillel hold: We say “

They are indeed witnesses of seclusion, and they are indeed witnesses of intercourse,”

for since witnesses saw them secluded, it is as though there is here testimony also concerning the intercourse, because since they are accustomed to one another, they certainly did not separate from one another. And since a person does not make his intercourse intercourse of promiscuity, certainly he had intercourse with her for the sake of betrothal; therefore, she requires a second get from him.

And from now the conclusion of the Mishna is understood:

And they concede that if she was divorced from betrothal, she does not require a second get from him.

For since he is not attached to her,

everyone concedes that they do not

say “

They are indeed witnesses of intercourse,”

and they are not concerned that perhaps he had intercourse with her.

And we raise an objection:

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that Beit Hillel concede that when they did not see that she had intercourse she does not require a second get from him?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is according to an undisputed Mishna.

And we established the Mishna,

which was taught without qualification, without a disputant, as saying that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is

when they did not see that she had intercourse,

and how could Rabbi Yohanan disagree with an undisputed Mishna? And we answer:

They are amoraim, and according to Rabbi Yohanan.

The amoraim disagreed concerning Rabbi Yohanan’s view. And Rabbah bar bar Hannah [who cited Rabbi Yohanan’s view in our sugya] holds that Rabbi Yohanan never said that the halakha is according to an undisputed Mishna; therefore, he holds like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who disagrees with our Mishna in explaining the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

Mishna:

The Sages instituted that kohanim who divorce their wives should divorce them with a “linked get,” because kohanim are quick-tempered, and they would write a get quickly for their wives, and later regret it, and could no longer take them back, for a kohen is forbidden to [marry] a divorced woman. Therefore, the Sages instituted for them that they should divorce their wives with a linked get, which is not convenient to write quickly, and perhaps in the meantime the husband would be reconciled.

And this is the order of writing a “linked get”: The scribe writes one or two lines, folds the writing over the blank margin beneath it, and sews it. And one witness signs on the back. He then writes two or more lines on the inside, folds them over the blank paper, sews them, and the second witness signs on the back. And so he continues writing and folding and sewing until the completion of the get.

Each fold is called a “knot.” And one witness signs on the back of each knot. And if there is a knot on which no witness has signed on the back, this is a “bald get,” and it is invalid.

One who married a woman who had been divorced from her previous husband, who was a kohen, with a bald get, and

took her in marriage with a bald get —

she shall leave

the woman

this one and that one,

her first husband, the kohen, and her second husband, who took her in marriage after she was divorced with this get,

and all these ways apply to her,

they impose upon her all those stringencies enumerated in the Mishna above [79b].

A bald get —

everyone may complete it!

Even invalid witnesses, such as a relative, a slave, or a robber, may complete the signatures on the knots that are not signed, and thereby the get becomes valid. For the entire invalidity of a bald get is because presumably the husband summoned witnesses according to the number of knots, and we are concerned that perhaps he said to them, “All of you sign.” In such a case, if one of them did not sign, the get is invalid.

Therefore, when we know with certainty that the husband did not summon witnesses according to the number of knots, the get is valid. From now on, we have no concern except that when the get will later come before a court, they may invalidate it because of lack of knowledge. For they will think that the husband summoned witnesses according to the number of knots and said to them, “All of you sign,” and not all of them signed; therefore, they will hold that the get is invalid, even though in truth it is valid.

Therefore, in order to prevent the invalidation of the get because of lack of knowledge, where the husband did not summon witnesses according to the number of knots, the signatures on the knots may be completed even by invalid witnesses, and thereby we have removed the concern that another court will invalidate the get in the future,

[these are] the words of ben Nannes.

Rabbi Akiva says: They may complete it only with relatives,

because they are invalid only for this testimony concerning their relative, but

they are fit to testify elsewhere.

But robbers and slaves, who are invalid for every testimony in the world, cannot complete the signatures on the empty knots.

And what is a

“bald get”? —

Every linked get

whose knots are more numerous than its witnesses,

so that knots remain unsigned by witnesses; in these places the get is “bald.”

Gemara:

And we inquire:

What is the reason for the bald get

being invalid? And we answer:

A decree on account of “all of you.”

Perhaps the husband summoned witnesses according to the number of knots and said to them: “All of you sign!” And if one of the witnesses did not sign as the husband commanded, it is invalid; therefore every bald get is invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

A bald get—everyone may complete it,

the words of ben Nannes. Rabbi Akiva says: They may complete it only with relatives who are fit to testify elsewhere.

And we inquire:

And Rabbi Akiva, what is the reason that a slave may not

complete it?

For if you say that the reason is that if we validate him for completing a bald get, we must be concerned

that they will come to say,

that people will come to err and say that a slave is

fit for testimony,

then this is difficult: How did we validate a relative? For

a relative too, they will come to say

that he is

fit for testimony

concerning his relatives; and why did Rabbi Akiva validate a relative?

Rather, necessarily Rabbi Akiva is not concerned that people may come to validate those invalid for testimony, since everyone is expert in the laws of testimony and knows who is and who is not invalid for testimony. If so, why does he invalidate a slave for completing a bald get? Rather, perhaps you will say:

A slave—this is the reason

that he is invalid to sign on a bald get:

perhaps they will come to remove him from [the category of] lineage,

for if we validate him to sign on a get, they will say that he is not a slave and will come to marry him to a daughter of Israel.

If so,

a robber, who

is a person of valid lineage,

is he,

for he is permitted to [marry] a daughter of Israel,

should be validated

to complete a bald get.

And

why, then, did we learn

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva says: They may complete it only with relatives who are fit to testify elsewhere?

And it is proven that only

a relative, not,

may complete it, but

a robber may not!

And we answer: In truth, the reason for the invalidity of a slave and a robber is that people may come to validate them for testimony. And regarding what we asked, if so, should we also invalidate a relative? One can say that the matter is not comparable. For although we are not concerned that they will err so greatly as to validate even relatives and invalid persons for testimony,

with a slave, this is the reason

that even people expert in the laws of testimony, who know that he is a slave, will come to validate him for testimony.

They will come to say,

since they had him sign on the get, certainly

his master freed him.

A robber too,

they will come to validate him for testimony,

for they will come to say: He repented.

But

concerning a relative, what can one say?

After all,

everyone knows that he is a relative,

and there is no concern that any mishap will result.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbah bar Sheilta said that Rav Hamnuna the Elder said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A bald get

whose

knots were seven and whose witnesses were six,

so that the signature of a witness was missing on one of the knots; or whose knots were

six and whose witnesses were five,

or whose knots were

five and whose witnesses were four,

or whose knots were

four and whose witnesses were three—

up to here is

the dispute between ben Nannes and Rabbi Akiva.

Only in these cases did ben Nannes and Rabbi Akiva disagree over whether the missing signature may be completed also by an invalid witness, or whether it may be completed only by a relative.

But if its

knots were three and its witnesses were two, everyone agrees that it may be completed only with a relative

alone, because a linked get must have at least three witnesses sign on it. This was the Sages’ institution: that the kohen should trouble himself to find three witnesses, and perhaps in the meantime his anger would subside and he would be reconciled; therefore, the third [witness] too must be a fit witness.

And immediately the Gemara asks:

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbah bar Sheilta: Since every three

in a

linked get are equivalent to two in an ordinary get

[ordinary]

in status,

for a linked get is required to have three witnesses sign on it, just as two witnesses are required for an ordinary get, if so,

just as there,

in an ordinary get,

a relative may not, so here too,

in a linked get,

a relative may not.

And why did you say that a relative may sign as the third [witness] in a linked get?

He said to him,

Rabbah bar Sheilta to Rabbi Zeira:

This too was difficult for me,

I too found this difficult,

and I asked Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Hamnuna

asked this

of Rav Adda bar Ahava.

And he said to him,

Rav Adda bar Ahava to Rav Hamnuna:

Set aside the three

witnesses

of a linked get, for they are not from the Torah,

for since the need for a third witness is only rabbinic, he is also fit when he is a relative, provided that he is not one invalid for testimony, such as a robber or a slave.

It was taught likewise,

that according to everyone the third witness must not be one of those invalid for testimony:

As it was taught:

A bald get

whose

knots were seven and whose witnesses were six,

or whose knots were

six and whose witnesses were five,

or whose knots were

five and whose witnesses were four,

or whose knots were

four and whose witnesses were three—up to here is the dispute between ben Nannes and Rabbi Akiva.

For if

a slave completed it, ben Nannes says: The child is fit,

and Rabbi Akiva says: The child is a mamzer.

But

if its

knots were three and its witnesses were two, everyone agrees that it may be completed only with a relative.

Rav Yosef teaches

in the statement of Rabbi Zeira, who said in the name of Rabbah bar Sheilta, that if its knots were three and its witnesses were two, it may be completed only with a

fit

witness, and not even with a relative.

And we raise an objection to Rav Yosef:

But it was taught

in the above beraita that it may be completed with a

relative!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

Teach also in the beraita that it may be completed only with a

fit

witness alone.

Rabbi Yohanan said: A bald get, concerning which we said that it may be completed also with relatives,

можно восполнить

may be validated with only one relative witness

if two signatures were missing on two knots, it may be completed with only one relative witness, while the second must be fit.

But two,

two relatives,

not,

and even if three fit witnesses had already signed on it, no more than one relative may be added. The reason is that perhaps in the future a challenge will emerge against the get, claiming that it is forged, when the witnesses are not present, and witnesses who recognize three of the signatures will come to court to validate the get,

and perhaps

of the three, two are relatives, and the court does not know that they are relatives,

and it will come

the court

to validate

the get

with two relatives and one fit [witness],

and it follows that the get was validated through invalid testimony. Therefore, it may not be completed with more than one relative, so that in every case the get will be validated by two fit witnesses.

Rav Ashi said: The baraita,

the baraita above,

is also precise

that they do not complete with more than one close relative.