Gittin 86b (פו:) — the Talmud in English

And

Rav said regarding this that

specifically

if there was

his handwriting and one witness,

the bill of divorce is unfit ab initio, but the child is fit.

But if there was the scribe’s handwriting and one witness, no!

Rather, the child is also unfit.

According to Rav’s reasoning, the latter clause of the Mishna comes to teach us that one should not say that if there was his handwriting and one witness, she may marry even ab initio. Therefore, Rav said that the latter clause speaks specifically of his handwriting and one witness, and teaches that ab initio this is an unfit bill of divorce [but the child is fit], whereas if it was the scribe’s handwriting and one witness,

And Shmuel said: Even

if there was

the scribe’s handwriting and one witness,

the child is fit.

For we learned

in a Mishna below [87b]:

The scribe’s handwriting and one witness: it is fit.

The Gemara explains Rav’s response to Shmuel’s proof:

And Rav—are the cases comparable?

How could Shmuel compare the statement of the Mishna below to our case?!

For

there,

the reference is to a case in which the scribe signed the bill of divorce together with the witness; this is a completely valid bill of divorce, with the signatures of two witnesses. The proof is that it says there:

She may marry

with it

ab initio.

Whereas

here,

the reference is to a case in which the scribe merely wrote but did not sign, and he is disqualified; she is forbidden to marry on the basis of it, and the child is fit only when she transgressed and married,

after the fact.

And Shmuel

answered Rav’s question: there too, the reference is only to the scribe’s writing and one witness; it is not a case in which the scribe and one witness signed.

As for Rav’s claim that there they taught, “She may marry ab initio,” whereas here the child is fit only after the fact—and it necessarily follows that here the reference is to the scribe’s writing and one witness, while there it is to the scribe’s signature and one witness—

It is not difficult: This

Mishna below speaks

of an expert scribe,

who is proficient in the laws of writing a bill of divorce and will not write the bill of divorce unless he has heard from the husband that he should write it, so that his writing has the status of a witness’s signature.

And this,

our Mishna, speaks

of a non-expert scribe,

who is not knowledgeable in the laws of bills of divorce, and there is concern that he may write the bill of divorce without the husband instructing him to serve as a witness through his writing.

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said

as Rav said:

“We learned: His handwriting.”

Rabbi Elazar said to him: “We learned: There are witnesses on it,”

did we not?

He said to him: “I was referring to the latter clause,”

as explained above.

At times Rav said

that with regard to the three bills of divorce in our Mishna, if she married,

she must leave.

At times Rav said: She need not leave.

How is this to be understood?

If she has children, she need not leave.

If she has no children, she must leave.

Mar Zutra bar Tuvya raised an objection

from the Mishna at the beginning of tractate Yevamot:

A woman who falls before her husband’s brother for levirate marriage, but she is forbidden to the yavam by a prohibition involving forbidden relations, does not enter into levirate marriage and does not require halitza; rather, she is immediately permitted to marry anyone.

Likewise, the rival wife of this yevama, who was married together with her to the deceased brother, does not enter into levirate marriage and does not require halitza, even though she herself is not forbidden to the yavam by a prohibition involving forbidden relations.

And if the women forbidden as forbidden relations were divorced by the brother before his death, the designation “rival wife of a forbidden relation” is removed from their rivals, and they require either levirate marriage or halitza.

And all of them,

all the rival wives of the women forbidden as forbidden relations,

with regard to whom there was

a case involving the forbidden women of

doubtful betrothal or doubtful divorce, these,

the rival wives of the forbidden women,

perform halitza,

lest the forbidden women were never married to the deceased brother, or lest they were divorced from him, in which case their rivals are not rival wives of a forbidden relation and require halitza in order to marry outside the levirate bond,

but do not enter into levirate marriage,

lest the forbidden women were married to the deceased brother, or lest they were not divorced from him, in which case their rivals are rival wives of a forbidden relation and are forbidden to enter into levirate marriage.

What is meant by “doubtful betrothal”?

He threw her

money for

betrothal, and it is uncertain

whether the money landed

closer to her,

in which case she is betrothed, or

it is uncertain

whether the money fell

closer to him,

in which case she is not betrothed;

this is doubtful betrothal.

What is meant by

“doubtful divorce”?

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

There are witnesses on it, but it contains no date.

It contains a date, but there is only one witness on it; it is considered

as though it were

“doubtful divorce,”

and they neither perform halitza nor enter into levirate marriage.

And if you say

that with regard to these three bills of divorce, if she married,

she need not leave,

there is concern that people will think that this bill of divorce is a fully valid bill of divorce [when in fact it is valid only after the fact]. Therefore, if her husband dies and she and her rival wife fall before her husband’s brother, although she herself may not enter into levirate marriage, just as she should not have married her deceased husband,

will her rival wife enter into levirate marriage!?

The Gemara answers:

Let her enter into levirate marriage, and there is nothing wrong with that,

because it is only

a rabbinic concern.

Levi said: In all cases, she need not leave.

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said: In all cases, she need not leave.

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said to the sons of Rabbi Halafta of Huna: This is what your father said,

two halakhot:

The first, concerning the matter of bills of divorce here:

In all cases, she need not leave.

And

the second, concerning another matter, the water of the ashes of the red heifer:

A grasshopper among the sheaves does not disqualify the water of purification.

That is, if an animal or bird drinks from the water of purification, the water becomes disqualified, because when the water enters the mouth of the animal or bird, it loses the status of water of purification. Since animals and birds customarily return some of the water in their mouths to the vessel, all the water becomes disqualified.

But the grasshopper drinks and does not return any of the water in its mouth to the vessel. Therefore, if it drank from the water of purification, the water does not become disqualified.

What is a “grasshopper”?

Abaye said: A didavta that is among the crevices,

a large fly, resembling a locust, found among the sheaves.

Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina raised an objection

from the Mishna in tractate Para, in which we learned:

All birds

disqualify the water of purification, except for a dove, because it sucks

and does not return any of the water in its mouth to the vessel.

And if it is so, let the Mishna teach: Except for a dove and a grasshopper.

The Gemara answers: As for a grasshopper,

the matter is not unequivocal for him;

it is not certain that every grasshopper does not disqualify the water,

for a large one does not disqualify it, whereas a small one does disqualify it,

and therefore the tanna did not teach it.

And how small

is a grasshopper considered small?

Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say Rabbi Ami: Up to the size of an olive:

we learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: Even though, etc. Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

When I stated this before Shmuel, he said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar

even with regard to documents.

The Gemara is astonished:

And

if

Rav held

that

with regard to documents it is not

said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

the Mishna explicitly teaches, “And he collects from liened property,”

and this law of collection applies to every document.

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

Rabbi Elazar stated two principles:

witnesses of delivery are effective both with regard to a bill of divorce and with regard to every document; however:

Rav agreed with him in one matter,

with regard to a bill of divorce,

but disagreed with him in one matter,

with regard to other documents.

And Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said likewise: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

And Rabbi Yannai said: It does not even have the scent of a bill of divorce!

The Gemara is astonished:

And

does

Rabbi Yannai not accept the view of Rabbi Elazar!?

This is what he is saying: According to the Rabbis, it does not even have the scent of a bill of divorce.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, likewise said:

Reish Lakish said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, and Rabbi Yohanan said: It does not even have the scent of a bill of divorce.

Shall we say that Rabbi Yohanan does not accept the view of Rabbi Elazar!?

This is what he is saying: According to the Rabbis, it does not even have the scent of a bill of divorce.

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent word to Mari bar Mar:

Ask Rav Huna: Is the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, or is the halakha not so?

Meanwhile,

in the interim,

Rav Huna died.

His son Rabba said to him: This is what Father said [

Rav Huna]

in the name of Rava:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

And our Rabbis, who were expert in matters of halakha [

Rav Hama bar Gurya], said

in the name of our master [

Rav],

they said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

For Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

There are those who say: And our colleague [

Rav Hisda],

who was expert in matters of halakha, and the students of our master, in the name of our master, said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

For Rav Hisda said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.

Mishna:

Two men who sent two bills of divorce,

whose husbands’ and wives’ names

were identical, and the

two bills of divorce became intermingled, so that it was unknown which bill of divorce belonged to each one:

The agent gives

the

two of them to this woman, and the two of them to that woman.

Therefore, if one of them was lost, the other,

which remained in the agent’s possession,

is void.

For it is not known which divorcing husband and divorced woman this bill of divorce belongs to.

Five men who wrote a “general” document within the bill of divorce: “So-and-so divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so [divorces so-and-so].” And the witnesses are below.

All of them are fit, and it is given to each and every one of the women.

If he was writing a “form” [

as will be explained in the Gemara]

for each and every one, and the witnesses are below, the one with which the witnesses’ signatures are read is fit:

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

Who is the tanna,

who is the tanna of our Mishna who holds that both bills of divorce may be given to each of the women, despite the fact that it is unknown by which bill of divorce she is divorced?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This tanna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar.

For if it were Rabbi Elazar, since he said, “Witnesses of delivery effect the divorce,” they do not know by means of which of them she is being divorced,

and this is not a giving for her sake, meaning a clearly identified giving by which she is divorced through this particular bill of divorce; and since according to Rabbi Elazar the witnesses of delivery give the bill of divorce its validity, the requirement of giving for her sake applies to the giving.

Abaye said: You may even say that it is Rabbi Elazar.

Say that Rabbi Elazar requires the writing

of the bill of divorce

to be for her sake.

Does he require giving

to be for her sake!?

We learned in the Mishna:

“Five men who wrote a general document, etc.” What are the circumstances of a “general” document? What are the circumstances of a “form”?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

If one

date was mentioned for all of them, this is a “general” document.

And if

a date was mentioned for each and every one, this is a “form.”