Gittin 86a — the Talmud in English

And what Rava instituted, that it is necessary to write

and forever

he comes

to exclude

to exclude

from what he asked him

from what he asked

Rava of Rav Naḥman —

a husband

who said

to his wife:

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

what is the law? And Rav Naḥman answered him: Since he severed her from himself for today, he severed her from himself 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 a rumor should not emerge concerning the bill of divorce; rather, he should write in the bill of divorce that he divorces her forever:

We learned in the Mishna —

the substance of a bill of manumission: “Behold, you are a free woman; behold, you belong to yourself.”

Rav Yehuda instituted

Rav Yehuda instituted a formulation

in the deed of sale of a slave

in a deed of the sale of a slave —

“This slave,

the slave before us

is justified for his enslavement,

his status has been decided as enslavement, and there is no appeal concerning the sale,

and he is exempt

and he is separated and removed

and free

and cleared

from all freedom

from every freedom

and from accusations

and from charges

and from appeals

and from the appeals of

the king and the queen

the king and the queen concerning the sale, for he committed no transgression on account of which he would be registered for the monarchy to be killed; for if he had been registered for the monarchy, his status would be death, and the purchase would be void as an erroneous purchase.”

And he further writes in the deed of sale:

“And no mark of a person is upon him,

for there is no mark or sign upon him of the sort that masters customarily make on their slaves as a sign that he belongs to them,

and cleansed of every blemish

and there is no blemish in him that would cause an erroneous purchase.

And

so too he is cleansed

of an ulcer that emerges until a new and old [unclear: the phrase is difficult]

and there was no ulcer in him that was destined to return within two years, in the manner of an ulcer that heals and returns within two years, and on account of the ulcer he is repulsive to stand before [him] , and since he stipulated thus, if an ulcer is found in him, the purchase is void as an erroneous purchase.

What is its cure?

What is the cure for this ulcer?

Abaye said —

he should take

ginger

ginger,

and silver dross

the waste of silver slag that comes out of it at the time it is dug from the mountains,

and sulfur

sulfur,

and wine vinegar

and vinegar made from wine,

and olive oil

and oil made from olives,

and white naphtha

and white naphtha,

and he should smear it with a goose feather

and smear it on the ulcer with a goose feather.

Mishna:

In this Mishna several laws of bills of divorce that are invalid by rabbinic law are explained.

Three bills of divorce are invalid

by rabbinic law, and initially she may not marry by virtue of them; but, after the fact, the Sages did not invalidate the child of the woman who married by virtue of such a bill of divorce,

and

they said that

if she married, the child is fit .

.

a. The husband wrote the bill of divorce

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

And the bill of divorce is valid by Torah law, since his handwriting [or his signature on the bill of divorce] is considered like a hundred witnesses signed on the deed of divorce, for the admission of a litigant is equivalent to a hundred witnesses. However, the Sages invalidated it and required that there be witnesses to this.

b.

There are witnesses upon it, and

however,

there is no date in it.

That is, the husband violated the enactment of the Sages, who required him to write a date in the bill of divorce, for the reasons explained above [17b], and gave her a bill of divorce in which there is no date.

c.

There is a date in it, and

however,

there is only one witness in it.

And in the Gemara it will be explained what bill of divorce is being discussed, whether in his own handwriting or in the scribe’s handwriting, and why the bill of divorce is valid by Torah law despite the fact that two witnesses are required for a bill of divorce.

These are three bills of divorce that are invalid, and if she married, the child is fit.

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

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

but she gave it to her in the presence of witnesses,

this is sufficient by Torah law, because delivery witnesses effect the divorce; therefore

it is valid

the bill of divorce, to marry by means of it even initially. And what the Sages required signing witnesses for was only so that the woman would have the possibility of marrying at all times by means of the signed bill of divorce, and the woman would not remain unable to marry if the delivery witnesses died or went overseas, and the husband came and protested that he had not divorced her

. And

in a bill of divorce given with delivery witnesses without signing witnesses,

she collects

her marriage settlement by means of it even

from encumbered property,

which had been encumbered for her marriage settlement and which the husband sold to other people, because

that

according to Rabbi Eliezer,

the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world:

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that there are three bills of divorce invalid by rabbinic law, such that if she married, the child is fit.

And the Gemara is astonished: Is it the case that there are only three bills of divorce that are invalid by rabbinic law and, if she married, the child is fit,

and are there no more?

But there is the “old bill of divorce,”

concerning which it was explained above that the Sages invalidated it, and if she married she need not leave, and if so, the child is fit.

And the Gemara answers:

There

in the case of one who married with an old bill of divorce, there is no need to teach us that the child is fit, since if she married with it, she

need not leave

her husband, and the Sages decreed concerning it only that she should not divorce with it initially; therefore it is obvious that they did not prohibit the child, for they permitted her to remain with her husband.

But

here,

with the three bills of divorce in our Mishna, the Sages decreed that if she married with them she

must leave

her husband; therefore the Mishna comes to teach the novelty that nevertheless the child is not invalidated by rabbinic law.

But this answer does not accord with everyone.

For

this works well according to the one who says, “Here, she must leave,”

the Mishna properly innovated only concerning these three bills of divorce that the child is fit, despite the fact that she had to leave her husband.

But according to the one who says

that also

here,

when she married with these three bills of divorce, she

need not leave, what is there to say?

Why did the Mishna mention only these three bills of divorce, and not also an old bill of divorce?

And we answer:

There,

one who was divorced with an old bill of divorce

may marry

with it

initially,

therefore it is obvious that the child should not be prohibited.

But

here,

she may not marry initially with these bills of divorce, but only if she married with them

after the fact,

she need not leave. Therefore the Mishna had to teach us that nevertheless the child is completely fit.

And the Gemara is further astonished:

But there is a “perforated bill of divorce,”

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

And we answer:

There,

in the case of a perforated bill of divorce, the Sages decreed that

the child be a mamzer.

Whereas

here,

the Mishna lists the three bills of divorce that are invalid bills of divorce, but

the child is fit.

But the Gemara still asks:

This works well according to Rabbi Meir,

if you establish our Mishna according to Rabbi Meir’s view, who holds that the child of a perforated bill of divorce is a mamzer by rabbinic law, since he changed the manner of writing the bill of divorce, according to the rule that Rabbi Meir said, “Anyone who changes from the formulation that the Sages instituted in a bill of divorce—the child is a mamzer [by rabbinic law]”; the Mishna properly did not list it here, because here the child is fit even according to Rabbi Meir.

But according to the Rabbis,

if you establish our Mishna according to the Rabbis, who hold that even with a perforated bill of divorce the child is fit,

what is there to say?

And we answer as above, in the question concerning an old bill of divorce:

There,

in the case of a perforated bill of divorce,

she must leave,

even according to the Rabbis.

Here, she need not leave.

And we ask again as above, concerning an old bill of divorce:

This works well according to the one who says, “Here she need not leave.”

But according to the one who says, “Here she must leave,” what is there to say?

And we answer: Our Mishna deals with an ordinary bill of divorce, but

in

a bill of divorce

with a knot, it does not deal.

And the Gemara asks again:

But there is

a bill of divorce invalid by rabbinic law because of

“the welfare of the monarchy,”

as explained above!?

And we answer as above:

There,

in the case of a bill of divorce invalid because of the welfare of the monarchy,

she must leave. Here, she need not leave.

And we ask again:

This works well according to the one who says, “Here she need not leave.”

But according to the one who says

that also here she

must leave, what is there to say?

And we answer: This one who says so

establishes it

for our Mishna

according to Rabbi Meir.

And according to him,

there,

because he changed the manner of writing the bill of divorce,

the child is a mamzer.

Here,

where he did not change the manner of writing,

the child is fit.

And now the Gemara discusses: Since everywhere that the Mishna states “a number,” this comes to exclude, that only those enumerated are included and other things are not included, it is necessary to examine:

The number in the first clause

three bills of divorce are invalid],

what does it exclude?

And the number in the latter clause

these are three bills of divorce that are invalid],

what does it exclude?

And the Gemara explains:

The number in the first clause —

to exclude those that we said:

an old bill of divorce, a perforated bill of divorce, the welfare of the monarchy.

The number in the latter clause —

to exclude that which was taught in a beraita:

“One who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,

for 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 and did not say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,’

and she married another man,

he must remove her, and the child is a mamzer, the words of Rabbi Meir.”

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

And the Rabbis say: The child is not a mamzer.

What should he do? He should take it from her and give it to her again in the presence of two, 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 upon it

this is a bill of divorce valid by Torah law and invalid by rabbinic law, and the child is completely fit]. And the Gemara now brings words that Rav said to explain the Mishna, and the Gemara discusses concerning which part of the Mishna Rav said his words:

Rav said: “His own handwriting”

of the husband,

we learned

in our Mishna.

.

And the Gemara discusses:

Concerning which?

Concerning which matter in the words of the Mishna did Rav say this?

If you say

that he said his words

concerning the first clause,

where we learned in it, “He wrote it in his own handwriting, and there are no witnesses upon it,” that there is not even one witness.

It is impossible to say so, because

it is obvious

that it is speaking of his own handwriting, for

“his own handwriting,” it teaches

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

But rather,

perhaps you will say,

the middle clause,

where we learned in it, “There are witnesses upon it and there is no date,” Rav said, “his own handwriting.”

This too is impossible! For

“there are witnesses upon it”

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

But rather, concerning the latter clause

Rav said.

For it teaches:

“There is a date in it, and there is only one witness in it.”