Gittin 88a (פח.) — the Talmud in English

Here too

it is speaking of a case

where there is space above

in the second column.

And we raise an objection: Since

there

is space below in the first column and space above in the second column, let us be concerned

perhaps he reconsidered his intention

at the outset, after writing half of the get, deciding not to divorce her, and then reconsidered after some time and completed it; consequently, the first half is void and he cannot divorce her with it.

And we answer: It is referring to a case

where he wrote, “Behold, you are” from below,

at the end of the first column,

and “

permitted”

from

the beginning of the second column

above,

as we are not concerned that he reconsidered his intention in the middle of a sentence. Necessarily, the second column was written in one continuous act with the first.

And we challenge this again:

Perhaps [

this

Rashi’s version]

it happened to him,

that he reconsidered his intention in the middle of a sentence.

And we reject this:

We are not concerned with such a remote possibility.

Rav Ashi said:

The ruling that we deem valid a get that began on the first page and continued on the second page applies in a case where

it is known by it,

as there is a recognizable mark on the parchment

from the stretching of the scroll

—the stretching of the parchment around the writing of the get. For this is the manner of parchment makers: They stretch it from the sides, and the impression of the stretching remains along the sides of the get.

Here, since it appears that the scribe reached the end of the parchment, we are not concerned that he cut off the end of the get in the first column; rather, it is all one get.

We learned in our Mishna:

If witnesses signed at the top of the page or on the side, and so on, it is invalid.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

For we find that Rav was

signing on the side?

And we answer:

There

it is speaking

of a case where the heads of the letters

of the signatures

face toward the text

—the direction of the signatures indicates that they continue the text of the document. But our Mishna is speaking of a case where the feet of the signatures face toward the text, in which case it can be said that the signature belongs to another get.

And we challenge this: If so,

but concerning that which it teaches: “If he placed the head of this get alongside the head of that get, with the witnesses in the middle,”

the ruling is

that both are invalid. Let us see with regard to which of the two

gets the head of the signature

faces toward the text

of the

get, and deem it valid;

why, then, are both invalid? And we answer:

There

it is speaking of a case

where they placed

the signatures

like a bolt [like a bar] between the two gittin, in the middle [like this: get/get]. Thus, the signature is associated with neither of the gittin.

And we challenge this:

If so, concerning the latter clause, which teaches: “If the head of this one is alongside the end of that one, with the witnesses in the middle, the one with which the witnesses are read at its end is valid,”

and if, as you say, our Mishna is speaking of a case where the signatures were

placed

between the signatures

like a bolt,

then, even when the head of this one is alongside the end of that one, the witnesses

are not

with

this

get

and are not with that

get

either,

and the phrase “the one with which the witnesses are read” does not apply to either of them. Both should therefore be invalid.

And we conclude:

Rather, Rav

who signed on the side

was signing on legal summonses— -

letters summoning a litigant to court—

he would sign

on the side, but not on gittin or documents, for every signature on the side is invalid.

We learned in our Mishna:

A get that he wrote in Hebrew

and so on;

if the scribe and one witness wrote their signatures, it is valid.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

That which it says, “the scribe wrote,” means that

the scribe also signed; that is what we learned,

that there are two signatures here.

Rav Ḥisda said: This

interpretation, that you say we learned that the scribe signed,

whose opinion is it? It is that of Rabbi Yosei,

who says [above, end of the previous discussion] that instructions cannot be entrusted to an agent. If the husband did not instruct the scribe to sign, he would not sign. But according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that instructions can be entrusted to an agent, the scribe would not sign, because perhaps the agent would tell the scribe to sign without the husband’s instruction, resulting in a mishap.

There was a marriage contract that came before Rabbi Abbahu, whose

template writing they recognized

of the

text

of the form

of the document,

and the handwriting of one witness.

Rabbi Abbahu thought

Rabbi Abbahu

to deem it valid,

as it is implied by our Mishna that a document with the writing of the scribe and one witness is valid.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: We learned that the scribe signed,

and the document is invalid.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he wrote his and her ancestral appellation, it is valid.

The Sages taught:

If he wrote in his signature

his ancestors’ ancestral appellation on gittin,

even though it is not his own family name, it is valid

until

there have passed

ten generations

during which this appellation was not used.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

If

three generations

have not used the appellation, it is valid;

from that point onward, it is invalid.

In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rabbi Ḥanina: “If he wrote his ancestors’ appellation on gittin, it is valid for up to three generations

necessarily?

In accordance with whose opinion?

In accordance with that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Rav Huna said: What is the verse?

Where is there support for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar from

the verse?

As it is stated: “

When you beget children

”—the second generation—“

and children’s children

”—the third generation; from that point onward—“

and you have grown old.”

This indicates that everything is forgotten after three generations.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Eretz Yisrael was not destroyed until seven courts there worshipped idols.

And these are they: Jeroboam ben Nebat, Baasha ben Ahijah, Ahab ben Omri, Jehu ben Nimshi, Pekah ben Remaliah, Menahem ben Gadi, and Hoshea ben Elah.

As it is stated: “The inhabited city has languished, the seven have languished; her soul has expired, her sun has set while it was yet day; she has been shamed and humiliated.”

Rav Ami said: What is the verse

that provides support for the claim that Eretz Yisrael was destroyed on account of the sin of idolatry? As it is stated: “

When you beget children and children’s children,”

and the passage describes their worshipping idols; and the conclusion of the verse is: “I have called heaven and earth to bear witness against you today, etc., that you shall surely perish swiftly from the land, etc.”

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: It is written concerning Hoshea ben Elah [II Kings 17]: “

And he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, only not like the kings of Israel,”

which indicates that he was less wicked than his predecessors.

And it is written: “

Shalmaneser came up against him.”

Is it because he was less wicked that Shalmaneser came up against him?

He said to them: Those border guards

—watchmen—

whom Jeroboam had stationed on the roads so that Israel would not ascend for the pilgrimage festivals, Hoshea came and abolished them,

and permitted them to ascend for the pilgrimage festivals;

and nevertheless Israel did not ascend for the pilgrimage festivals.

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Corresponding to those years during which they could have ascended but Israel did not ascend for the pilgrimage festivals, they shall go into captivity.

Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said, and some say that Rav Ḥisda

said that [Rabbi Yirmeya] said:

Marimar expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written [Daniel 9]: “

And the Lord watched over the evil and brought it upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous.”

But is it

because the Lord our God is righteous

that

the Lord watched over the evil and brought it upon us?

Rather,

the explanation is:

The Holy One, blessed be He, acted charitably toward Israel by exiling the exile of Zedekiah

[at the time of the destruction of the Temple]

to Babylonia while the exile of Jeconiah still existed:

the people of the exile of Jeconiah were Torah scholars,

as it is written concerning the exile of Jeconiah

[II Kings 24]: “And he exiled Jehoiachin to Babylonia, and all the men of valor, seven thousand,

and the craftsmen and the smiths, one thousand.”

And we explain this verse:

“The craftsmen,” for when they

were

opening

themselves to speak words of Torah,

everyone else became like a deaf person.

“And the smiths”: Once they close

a halakha—meaning, they say that they do not know an answer concerning it—

again (they do not) [Rashi’s version:

it has no]

open it up—there are no others who can answer.

And how many

of these went into exile?

One thousand.

Ulla said:

The Lord acted charitably toward Israel

by advancing

the exile

by two years before

the verse “

and you have grown old” was fulfilled in them. “

And you have grown old” has the numerical value of 452, and the exile took place in the year 450 after they entered the Land; had they remained for another two years, “for you shall surely perish” would have been fulfilled in them.