Gittin 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

And what Rava instituted—that one must write

“ule’alam”

—comes to

exclude

what was

asked of him

—what

Rava asked Rav Naḥman:

a husband

who said

to his wife:

“Today you are not my wife, but tomorrow you are my wife,”

what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman answered him: Since he severed her connection to him for today, he severed it from him entirely, and she is divorced forever. And concerning this Rava came to teach us that, nevertheless, it is preferable not to write this, so that no aspersion be cast upon the get; rather, he should write in the get that he divorces her forever:

We learned in the Mishna:

“The essential wording of a bill of manumission is: ‘You are a free woman; you belong to yourself.’”

Rav Yehuda instituted

a formula

in a deed of sale of a slave

—in a deed recording the sale of a slave:

“This slave,

the slave before us,

is justified for servitude,

his status has been determined as that of a slave, and there is no appeal whatsoever against the sale,

and is separated

and set apart

and removed

and free

from all emancipations

—from every form of freedom—

and from accusations

and allegations,

and from appeals

and objections by

the king and queen

against the sale; he has committed no offense on account of which he would be listed for execution by the monarchy, for had he been listed for execution, his sentence would have been death, and the sale would have been void as a sale made in error.”

He further writes in the deed of sale:

“And no mark belonging to a person is upon him,

meaning that he bears no mark or sign of the sort that masters customarily place on their slaves as an indication that the slave belongs to them,

and he is free of every blemish,

and he has no blemish that would cause the sale to be a sale made in error.

And

he is likewise free

of a boil that emerges until the end of two years, whether new or old,

and he has no boil that is likely to recur within two years, as is the way with a boil that heals and returns within two years, and because of the boil it is repulsive to stand before him ; and since he stipulated this, if a boil is found on him, the sale is void as a sale made in error.

What is its remedy?

What is the treatment for this boil?

Abaye said

: He should take

ginger

—zangibil—

and martakha,

the waste from silver dross that emerges from it when it is mined from the mountains,

and sulfur

—sulfur—

and wine vinegar

—vinegar made from wine—

and olive oil

—oil made from olives—

and white naphtha

—white naphtha—

and smear it with a goose feather

—and apply it to the boil with a goose feather.

Mishna:

This Mishna explains several laws concerning gets that are invalid by rabbinic ordinance.

There are three invalid gets

by rabbinic ordinance. One should not, ab initio, marry on the basis of them; however, after the fact, the Sages did not disqualify the offspring of a woman who married on the basis of such a get,

and

they said that

if she married, the offspring is fit

.

a. If the husband wrote the get

in his own handwriting, and there are no witnesses on it.

The get is valid by Torah law, since his handwriting [or his signature on the get] is considered equivalent to one hundred witnesses signed on the deed of the get, for the admission of a litigant is equivalent to one hundred witnesses. However, the Sages invalidated it and required witnesses to attest to it.

b.

There are witnesses on it, and

yet

it contains no date.

That is, the husband violated the Sages’ ordinance requiring him to write a date in the get, for the reasons explained above [17b], and gave her a get without a date.

c.

It contains a date, and

yet

it contains only one witness.

The Gemara will explain which get is being discussed—one written by the husband or one written by a scribe—and why the get is valid by Torah law despite the fact that a get requires two witnesses.

These are the three invalid gets, and if she married, the offspring is fit.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no witnesses on it

at all, and it is not even the husband’s handwriting, but rather the scribe’s handwriting,

but she received it in the presence of witnesses,

this suffices by Torah law, because witnesses of delivery effect the divorce, and therefore

it is valid

for her to marry on the basis of it even ab initio. The reason the Sages required witnesses of signature was only so that the woman would always be able to marry by means of a signed get, and would not remain unable to marry if the witnesses of delivery died or went overseas, whereupon the husband might come and claim that he had not divorced her

. And

with a get given in the presence of witnesses of delivery but without witnesses of signature,

the woman collects

her ketuba by means of it even

from liened property,

property that had been pledged for her ketuba and that the husband sold to other people, since

according to the view that

follows Rabbi Elazar,

witnesses sign the get only for the betterment of the world:

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that there are three gets invalid by rabbinic ordinance, and that if she married, the offspring is fit.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Are there only three gets that are invalid by rabbinic ordinance and whose offspring, if she married, is fit,

and are there no others?

But there is the “old get,”

which the Sages invalidated, as explained above, and if she married, she need not leave him; therefore, the offspring is fit.

The Gemara answers:

There,

in the case of a woman who married with an old get, there is no need to teach us that the offspring is fit, since once she married with it,

she need not leave

her husband. The Sages decreed only that she may not be divorced with it ab initio; therefore, it is obvious that they did not prohibit the offspring, for they permitted her to remain with her husband.

But

here,

in the case of the three gets in our Mishna, the Sages decreed that if she married with them,

she must leave

her husband. Therefore, the Mishna comes to teach the novel point that nevertheless the offspring is not disqualified by rabbinic ordinance.

However, this answer does not accord with everyone.

For

this works for the one who says: “Here, she must leave,”

since the Mishna properly teaches only with regard to these three gets that the offspring is fit, despite the fact that she must leave her husband.

But for the one who says

that also

here,

in the case of a woman who married with these three gets,

she need not leave, what can be said?

Why did the Mishna mention only these three gets and not also an old get?

And we answer:

There,

in the case of a woman who was divorced with an old get,

she may marry

with it

ab initio,

and therefore it is obvious that the offspring may not be prohibited.

But

here,

she may not marry ab initio with these gets; rather, only if she married with them

after the fact

need she not leave. Therefore, the Mishna had to teach us that nevertheless the offspring is entirely fit.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

But there is a “torn get,”

which we learned above that the Sages invalidated; why is it not taught here as a fourth get?

And we answer:

There,

in the case of a torn get, the Sages decreed that

the offspring is a mamzer.

Whereas

here,

the Mishna lists the three gets that are invalid, but

the offspring is fit.

The Gemara nevertheless continues to object:

This works for Rabbi Meir,

if you establish our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds that the offspring of a torn get is a mamzer by rabbinic ordinance, since the form of writing the get was altered, in accordance with the principle stated by Rabbi Meir: “Anyone who alters the formula that the Sages established for a get causes the offspring to be a mamzer [by rabbinic ordinance].” The Mishna properly did not list it here, because here the offspring is fit even according to Rabbi Meir.

But according to the Rabbis,

if you establish our Mishna in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that even with a torn get the offspring is fit,

what can be said?

And we answer as above, in the difficulty concerning an old get:

There,

in the case of a torn get,

she must leave,

even according to the Rabbis.

Here, she need not leave.

The Gemara again raises the difficulty stated above concerning an old get:

This works for the one who says: “Here, she need not leave.”

But for the one who says: “Here, she must leave,” what can be said?

And we answer: Our Mishna is dealing with an ordinary get, but

with a

get

written in a folded format, it does not deal.

The Gemara again raises a difficulty:

But there is

a get that is invalid by rabbinic ordinance because of

“the welfare of the monarchy,”

as explained above!?

And we answer as above:

There,

in the case of a get invalid because of the welfare of the monarchy,

she must leave. Here, she need not leave.

The Gemara again raises a difficulty:

This works for the one who says: “Here, she need not leave.”

But for the one who says

that also here

she must leave, what can be said?

And we answer: This one

establishes it

—our Mishna—

in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

According to him,

there,

because the form of writing the get was altered,

the offspring is a mamzer.

Here,

where the form of writing was not altered,

the offspring is fit.

The Gemara now discusses the fact that wherever the Mishna states a number, this serves to exclude other cases, indicating that only those listed are included and that other matters are not included. Accordingly, one must ask:

What does the enumeration in the first clause

—“three invalid gets”—

come to exclude?

And what does the enumeration in the latter clause

—“these are the three invalid gets”—

come to exclude?

The Gemara explains:

The enumeration in the first clause

comes to exclude those cases that we mentioned

: an old get, a torn get, and a get lacking the phrase concerning the welfare of the monarchy.

The enumeration in the latter clause

comes to exclude that which was taught:

“One who brings a get from overseas,

for which the Sages instituted that he must say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.’

If

he gave it to her but did not say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,’

and she married another man,

he must take her out, and the offspring is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.”

he must remove her from him, and the offspring is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.”

And the Sages say: The offspring is not a mamzer.

What should he do? He should take it from her, and then return and give it to her in the presence of two witnesses, and say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” We learned in the Mishna:

“He wrote it in his own handwriting, and there are no witnesses on it”

[this is a get valid by Torah law but invalid by rabbinic ordinance, and the offspring is entirely fit]. The Gemara now cites a statement of Rav explaining the Mishna and discusses to which part of the Mishna Rav referred:

Rav said: “His own handwriting”

—the husband’s—

we learned

in our Mishna

.

The Gemara analyzes this:

With regard to which?

To which matter in the Mishna did Rav say this?

If you say

that he said his statement

with regard to the first clause,

in which we learned: “He wrote it in his own handwriting, and there are no witnesses on it,” meaning that there is not even one witness—

This cannot be said, because

it is obvious

that the case concerns his own handwriting, since

“his own handwriting,” it teaches

explicitly in the first clause, and without it there would be no witness at all.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it refers to

the middle clause,

in which we learned: “There are witnesses on it, and it contains no date”; Rav said, “His own handwriting.”

This too is impossible! For

“there are witnesses on it”

is what we learned, and there is no need for his own handwriting!

Rather, Rav said it with regard to the latter clause

.

For it teaches:

“It contains a date, and it contains only one witness.”