Gittin 88a — the Talmud in English

here too

it is speaking of

there being space above

in the second column.

And we object: since

and

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

perhaps he reconsidered

at the outset, after writing half of a get, not to divorce her, and then reconsidered after some time to complete it, and the first half is thereby null, and he will not be able to divorce with it.

And we answer: for example,

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

at the end of the first column,

and “

permitted”

from

the beginning of the second column

above,

for we are not concerned that he reconsidered in the middle of a sentence. And necessarily the second column was written in a single stroke together with the first.

And again we refute:

perhaps [

thus (

Rashi’s version)]

it happened to him,

that he reconsidered in the middle of a sentence.

And we reject this:

we are not concerned to such an extent.

Rav Ashi said:

the matter in which we validate a get that began on the first page and continued on the second page is speaking of a case

where it was recognizable in it,

that it was discernible in the parchment,

the stretching of the scroll—

the stretching of the parchment around the writing of the get, for this is the way of those who make parchment: to stretch it from the sides, and an impression of the stretching remains at the sides of the get.

And 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 at the side, and so forth—it is invalid.

And we object:

is that so, and

did we not find that Rav was

signing at the side?

And we answer:

there

it is speaking

when the heads

of the letters of the signature were

toward the writing—

for the direction of the signature shows that it is a continuation of the writing of the document. But our Mishna is speaking when the feet of the signature are toward the writing, for it may be said that the signature belongs to another get.

And we refute: If so,

but regarding that which it teaches: “he surrounded the top of this get beside the top of that get, and the witnesses were in the middle,”

the law is

that both are invalid. And let us see with which of them

the two gittin, the head of the signature is

toward the writing

of the get,

and let it be valid,

and why are both invalid? And we answer:

there

it is speaking

that they cast

the signatures

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

другое чтение: «как перекладину»] между двумя разводными документами, посередине [так: документ / документ]. Поэтому подпись не относится ни к одному из них.

And we object:

if so, regarding the latter part, which teaches: “the top of this one beside the end of that one, and the witnesses in the middle—the one with which the witnesses are read at its end is valid,”

and if, as you said, our Mishna is speaking of a case in which he

cast

the signatures

like a crossbar,

then also when the top of this one is beside the end of that one, the witnesses

are not

with

this

get

called, and they are not with that

get

called,

and “the one with which the witnesses are read” is fulfilled with neither of them, and both of them should have been invalid?

And we conclude:

rather, Rav

who signed at the side

on diskei—

letters summoning one to judgment—

would sign

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

We learned in our Mishna:

a get that he wrote in Hebrew

and so forth,

the scribe’s signature and one witness’s signature are valid.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

that which it says, “the scribe’s signature,” means that also

the scribe’s signature, we learned,

that there are two signatures here.

Rav Hisda said: this

that you say, “we learned the scribe’s signature,”

whose opinion is it? It is Rabbi Yosei’s,

who says [above, end of the sugya], “words cannot be transmitted to an agent,” and if the husband had not instructed the scribe to sign, he would not sign. But according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that words can be transmitted to an agent, the scribe should not sign, for perhaps the agent will tell the scribe to sign without the husband’s instruction, and a mishap will result from this.

That marriage contract that came before Rabbi Abbahu, whose

writing they recognized

of the

text

form

of the document,

and the handwriting of one witness’s signature.

Rabbi Abbahu thought

Rabbi Abbahu

to validate it,

as is implied by our Mishna, that the scribe’s signature and one witness’s signature are valid.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: “We learned the scribe’s signature,”

and the document is invalid.

We learned in our Mishna:

if he wrote his nickname and her nickname, it is valid.

The Sages taught:

if, in his signature, he wrote

the nickname of his ancestors on gittin,

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

until

there have passed

ten generations

during which they did not use this nickname.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

if

three generations

did not use the nickname, it is valid;

from then onward it is invalid.

In accordance with whose opinion does this statement of Rabbi Hanina go: “If he wrote the nickname of ancestors on gittin, until three generations

it is valid”? Necessarily,

in accordance with whose opinion?

In accordance with 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 sons”—

the second generation—“

and sons’ sons”—

the third generation; from then onward,

and you have grown old.”

Thus, everything, after three generations, is forgotten.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The Land of Israel was not destroyed until seven courts had worshiped idolatry in it.

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

As it is stated: “The sevenfold dweller has languished, she has breathed out her soul; her sun has set while it is still day; she has been ashamed and humiliated.”

Rav Ami said: What is the verse

that provides support that the Land of Israel was destroyed on account of the sin of idolatry? As it is stated: “

When you beget sons and sons’ sons,”

and the passage describes that they will worship idolatry, and the conclusion of the verse is: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, and so forth, for you shall surely perish quickly from the land, and so forth.”

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

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

which implies that he was less wicked than his predecessors.

And it is written: “

Against him came up Shalmaneser.”

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

He said to them: Those pardesaot

—guards—

that Jeroboam stationed on the roads so that Israel would not go up on pilgrimage, Hoshea came and abolished them

and permitted going up on pilgrimage,

and nevertheless Israel did not go up on pilgrimage.

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Corresponding to those years during which they could go up and Israel did not go up on pilgrimage, they shall go into captivity.

Rav Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva, and some say Rav Hisda

[in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya]: Marimar expounded:

What is the meaning of that which is written

[Daniel 9]: “

And Hashem hastened over the evil and brought it upon us, for righteous is Hashem our Elohim.”

And is it

because Hashem our Elohim is righteous

therefore

Hashem hastened over the evil and brought it upon us?

Rather,

the explanation is:

the Holy One, blessed be He, performed charity with Israel, for He exiled the exile of Zedekiah

[at the time of the destruction of the Temple]

to Babylonia, while the exile of Jeconiah still existed:

for 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 Babylon, and all the men of valor, seven thousand,

and the artisan and the smith, one thousand.”

And we interpret this verse:

The artisan, for when

they

opened

to speak words of Torah,

everyone became like deaf-mutes.

The smith: once they close

a halakha—saying that they do not know an answer concerning it—

again (they do not) [Rashi’s version:

it has no]

open it—others who are able to answer.

And how many

of these went into exile?

One thousand.

Ulla said:

Hashem performed charity with Israel

by advancing

the exile

by two years before

the year in which was fulfilled for them

“and you have grown old.” “

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