Jerusalem Talmud Gittin Chapter 2

הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמַר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב כּוּלֹּו וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם כּוּלֹּו פָּסוּל. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם פָּסוּל. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם פָּסוּל. וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם כָּשֵׁר. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. נִיחָא בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב. כְּלוּם קִיּוּמוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט אֶלָּא בְחוֹתְמָיו. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִי יוֹדָה פוֹסֵל בַּטּוֹפְסִין. וּדְרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְיֵשׁ טוֹפְסֵי גִיטִּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁהוּא גֵּט אִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא גֵּט אִשָּׁה. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב כּוּלֹּו בְּפָנָיו עַד שֶׁיִּתְחַתֵּם כּוּלּוֹ בְּפָנָיו. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חָנִין. אִם הָיָה נִכְנַס וְיוֹצֵא מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא נִתְיַיחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים בֵּין כְּתִיבָה לַחֲתִימָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. פָּסוּל. מִפְּנִי שֶֶׁאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְיַיחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים בֵּין כְּתִיבָה לַחֲתִימָה. כָּשֵׁר. רַב חִסְדָּא בָּעֵי. חֶצְייוֹ מִתַּקָּנָה וְחֶצְיוֹ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְיַיחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. פָּסוּל. מִפְּנִי שֶׁאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְיַיחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים שָׁעָה אַחַת. כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. רִּבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי. אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם בְּעֵד אֶחָד. וּשְׁנַיִם מֵעִידִין עַל חֲתִימַת הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בַּבְלָיָיא. אֵין כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא זֶה. רִבִּי אַבָּא לֹא אָמַר כָּךְ אֶלָּא. אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם בְּעֵד אֶחָד וַאֲנִי הוּא הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. נַעֲשֶׂה כְנוֹגֵעַ בְּעֵדוּתוֹ. הָיָה מְחוּתָּם בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְאָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. אִילֵּין תְּרֵין חוֹרָנָא לֵינָא יְדַע מָה עִסְקֵיהוֹן. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. אָמַר לָעֲשָׂרָה. חִתְמוּ בַגֵּט. וְהוּחְתְּמוּ מִקְצָתָן הַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָן לְמָחָר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. וְהַשְּׁאָר עַל תְּנַאי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּחְתְּמוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. אֲבָל בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר אַף רַבָּנִן מוֹדוֹי שֶׁהוּא כָשֵׁר. רִבִּי חְנַנְיָה דְּרִבִּי אִמִּי אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר. אֲבָל בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אַף רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹדֶה שֶׁהוּא פָסוּל. מָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אִם בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר רִבִּי יוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר אֲפִילוּ בְּקַמַּייתָא. אַיְיתֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי לְרִבִּי יוֹנָה חֲמוֹי וְתַנָּה לֵיהּ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. פָּסוּל. רִבִּי יוּדָן מַכְשִׁיר. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. לִישָׁן מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. בְּזֶה רִבִּי יוּדָן מַכְשִׁיר. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. אִם בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר כְּהָדָא לֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כִשְׁנַיִם. אֵימָתַי עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כִשְׁנַיִם. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵעִיד עַל הַכְּתִיבָה וְעַל הַחֲתִימָה. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִסְתַּכֵּל בֵּיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָמָּה אַתְּ מִסְתַּכֵּל בִּי. וַאֲפִילוּ יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי אִימִּי עַד לֹא יַחְזוֹר בֵּיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲפִילוּ מִן דְּחָזַר בֵּיהּ אַתְיָיא הִיא. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא כְּתִיבָה בִשְׁנַיִם וַחֲתִימָה בִשְׁנַיִם. חֲתִימָה בִשְׁנַיִם כּוֹחָהּ מְיוּפָּה וּכְתִיבָה בִשְׁנַיִם אֵין כּוֹחָהּ מְיוּפָּה.

MISHNAH: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, “it was written before me,” but not “it was signed before me,” or “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”, “it was written before me but signed only partially before me”, “it was partially written before me but signed completely before me”, it is invalid. If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”, it is invalid; if two people say, “it was written before us” but only one says, “it was signed before me,” it is invalid; but Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid. If one says, “it was written before me” but two say, “it was signed before us,” it is valid. HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. One understands “it was written before me” but not “it was signed before me”, but “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”? Is not a bill of divorce validated by its signatures? That must follow Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates forms. 24:1 ) can only be fulfilled if the bill was written specifically for that wife from the first letter to the last. . Following Rebbi Jehudah outside the Land as for one who divorces in the Land of Israel. Are there forms of bills of divorce outside the Land for divorces outside the Land? It is necessary for him to know that it is a bill of divorce and that he be appointed as an agent; he would not know that it was a bill of divorce unless it was written completely before him. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: It is permitted that he enter and leave is accepted in the Babli, 6a . . Rebbi Yose asked: If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me’, it is invalid.” That is, because one said, “it was written before me” and another, “it was signed before me”; this implies that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”, it is valid. Rav Ḥisda asked: half of an institution and half as biblical decree? If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me’, it is invalid.” That is, because one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”; this implies that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband for an hour,” it is valid. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Abun asked: If he said “it was written and one witness signed before me,” and two testify about the signature of the second witness. Rebbi Immi the Babylonian said, nothing can be more valid than this. Rebbi Abba did not say so but: If he said “it was written and one witness signed before me, and I am the second witness.” He is like a party interested in his testimony. If there were four signatures and he said, “it was written and signed by two witnesses before me; I do not know anything about the other two.” That is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who disagreed: If he said to ten people, sign the bill of divorce, and some signed on that day and some the next day. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid, for the remainder are only because of the condition. Rebbi Joḥanan said it is invalid unless all sign on the same day. Rebbi Immi said, where do they disagree? If the document is presented by him personally. But if it is presented by another person, even the rabbis will agree that it is valid. Rebbi Ḥananiah agrees with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, where do they disagree? If the document is presented by another person. But if it is presented by him personally, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree that it is invalid. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected to Rebbi Immi: If the document is presented by him personally, does Rebbi Jehudah declare it valid even in the first case? Rebbi Immi brought his father-in-law Rebbi Jonah who stated for him: If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”, it is invalid, but Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid shows that R. Jehudah accepts the bill if different people testify to writing and signing, showing that R. Ze‘ira’s objection is unjustified. . Rebbi Abin said, the formulation of a baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: In that case , Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid. But it is difficult following Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the document is presented by another person, that is when they do not treat the messenger as two. When do they treat him as two? When he testifies to both writing and signing. Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is presented by him personally. Rebbi Ze‘ira was looking at him. He asked, why are you looking at me? Even if it is presented by another person. It meansthat Rebbi Yasa before he changed his mind followed Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Mana said, even after he changed his mind it can be explained following him. There is a difference between two witnesses to the writing and two witnesses to the signing. Signing before two [witnesses] is empowered, writing before two is not empowered.

נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם בַּלַּיְלָה וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר. בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה פָסוּל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל הַגִּיטִּין שֶׁנִּכְתְּבְוּ בַיּוֹם וְנֶחְתְּמוּ בַלַּיְלָה פְּסוּלִין חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים. נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם כוּל׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. מֵעַתָּה תָחוּשׁ לַגִיטִּין הַבָּאִין מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם שֶׁמָּא נִכְתְּבוּ בַיּוֹם וְנֶחְתְּמוֹ בַלַּיְלָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. זֶה זִיּוּפוֹ מִתּוֹכוֹ וְזֶה זִיּוּפוֹ מִדָּבָר אַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא בַלַּיְלָה. אֲבָל לְמָחָר אוֹף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לֹא שַׁנְיָיא. הוּא לַיְלָה הוּא לְמָחָר הוּא לְאַחַר כַּמָּה. הֵיי דֵן הוּא לְמָחָר. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי מָנָא. חַד אָמַר. לְמָחָר. וְחָרָנָא אָמַר. מָחֳרָא דְמָחָר. וְקַשְׁיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל דְּרֵישׁ (לָקִישׁ). כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן (בֶּן לָקִישׁ) כְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים כָּשֵר. כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אַחֲוֵי דְרִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה. כָּאן בְּרוֹצֶה לְחַתְּמוֹ וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ רוֹצָה לְחַתְּמוֹ. אָמַר לָעֲשָׂרָה. חִתְמוּ בַגֵּט זֶה. וְחָתְמוּ מִקְצָתָן הַיּוֹם וּלְמָחָר מִקְצָתָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. וְהַשְּׁאָר עַל תְּנַאי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּחְתְּמוּ כּוּלָּן בוֹ בַיּוֹם. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לָעֲשָׂרָה. חִתְמוּ בַגֵּט. וְחָתְמוּ מִקְצָתָן הַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָן לְמָחָר. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין וְכַשְּׁרוּן וְחָשׁוּן. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִן דְּרַבָּנִין וּפְלִיגָא עֲלוֹי עַל דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִן דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּפְלִיגָא עֲלוֹי מִן דְּרַבָּנִין.

MISHNAH: If it was written during daytime and signed during daytime, in the night and signed in the night, in the night and signed during daytime, it is valid. During daytime and signed in the night it is invalid. Rebbi Simeon declares it valid since Rebbi Simeon says that all documents which were written during daytime and signed at night are invalid except for women’s bills of divorce and to return the dowry to his wife starts with the date of delivery of the bill. . HALAKHAH: “If it was written during daytime and signed during daytime,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is invalid because of the usufruct 1, 6d, Note 26. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish told him, then you should also be suspicious of the bills of divorce brought from overseas; maybe they were written during daytime and signed in the night! He answered him, there the forgery is intrinsic, here it is extrinsic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this only for the night; but on the next day even Rebbi Simeon will agree. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no difference, whether night, or the next day, or after many days. What is the next day? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana, one said the next day, the other said the day after the next. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan about Rebbi Simeon (ben Laqish) 7c, Note 62. is difficult! So says Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: It turns out that Rebbi Simeon (ben Laqish) 7c, Note 62. agrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as Rebbi Eleazar said, even if there are no witnesses signed on it, it is valid, so Rebbi Simeon said, even if there are no witnesses signed on it, it is valid. Rebbi Samuel, the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: Here, if he wants the document to be signed, there if she does not want the document to be signed. If he said to ten people, sign the bill of divorce, and some signed today and some the next day. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for the remainder [are signing] only because of the condition. Rebbi Joḥanan said it is invalid unless all sign on the same day. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: There was a case that one said to ten people, sign the bill of divorce, and some signed on that day and some the next day. The case came before the rabbis who reluctantly declared it valid. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan from the position of the rabbis and disagrees with Rebbi Simeon. This supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from the position of Rebbi Simeon and disagrees with the rabbis.

בַּכֹּל כּוֹתְבִין בַּדְּיוֹ בַּסִּיקְרָא וּבַקּוֹמוֹס וּבַקַּלְקַנְתּוֹם וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רוֹשֵׁם. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא בַמַּשְׁקִין וְלֹא בְּמֵי פֵירוֹת וְלֹא בְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל קַיָימָא. עַל הַכֹּל כּוֹתְבִין עַל הֶעָלֶה שֶׁלַּזַּיִת וְעַל הַקֶּרֶן שֶׁלַּפָּרָה וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ אֶת הַפָּרָה. וְעַל הַיָּד שֶׁלָּעֶבֶד וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ אֶת הָעֶבֶד. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים אַף לֹא עַל הָאוֹכְלִין. בַּכֹּל כּוֹתְבִין כול׳. וְכָתַב לֹא חָקַק. וְכָתַב לֹא מַטִּיף. כָּתַב לֹא הַשּׁוֹפֵךְ. כָּתַב לֹא חוֹקֵק. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפילוּ חוֹקֵק. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא חוֹקֵק. בְּפוֹלֵט מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב. כְּגוֹן הָדֵין דֵּינָרָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ חוֹקֵק. כְּגוֹן הָדֵין פִּינַקְסָא. כָּתַב לֹא הַמַּטִּיף. רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. חַד אָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא עִירֵב אֶת הַנְּקוּדוֹת. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ עִירֵב אֶת הַנְּקוּדוֹת. כָּתַב לֹא הַשּׁוֹפֵךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. אִילֵּין בְּנֵי מַדִּינְחָא עֲרֵימִין סַגִין. וְכַד חַד מִינְהוֹן בָּעֵי מִשְׁלְחָה כְתַב מִסְטֵּירִיֹן לְחַבְרֵיהּ הוּא כְתַב בְּמֵי מֵילִין. וְהַךְ דִּמְקַבֵּל כְּתָבֵיהּ שְׁפִיךְ דְּיוֹ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֲפַץ וְהוּא קוֹלֵט מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב. עָשָׂה כֵן בַּשַּׁבָּת מָהוּ. תַּמָן תַּנִּינָן. כָּתַב עַל גַּבֵּי כְּתָב פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרֵי תְּרַוֵּיהוּ. וְהוּא שֶׁכָּתַב דְּיוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי דְּיוֹ וְסִיקְרָא עַל גַּבֵּי סִיקְרָא. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב דְּיוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי סִיקְרָא וְסִיקְרָא עַל גַּבֵּי דְּיוֹ חַיָיב. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם מוֹחֵק וּמִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב. עֵדִים שֶׁאֵינָן יוֹדְעִין לַחֲתוֹם. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. רוֹשֵׁם לִפְנֵיהֶן בַּדְּיוֹ וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין בַּסִּיקְרָא. בַּסִּיקְרָא וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין בַּדְּיוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן עֲסוּקִין בְּהִילְכוֹת שַׁבָּת אָנוּ מִתִּירִין אֶת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אָלָּא מֵבִיא נְיָיר חָלָק וּמְקַרֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶן וְחוֹתְמִין. וְלֹא כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא. אֶלָּא מַרְחִיב לִפְנֵיהֶן אֶת הַקֶּרַע. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לִינָן אָמְרִין. רוֹשֵׁם לִפְנֵיהֶן בַּמַּיִם. אִם בָּא וְעִירֵר עֱרָרוֹ קַיָים. הִקּוֹרֵעַ עַל הָעוֹר כְּתַבְנִית כְּתָב כָּשֵׁר. הָרוֹשֵׁם עַל הָעוֹר כְּתַבְנִית כְּתָב פָּסוּל. הֲרֵי זֶה גִיטֵּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְנֵהוּ לִי. פָּסוּל. עַל מְנָת שֶׁתַּחֲזִירֵהוּ לִי. כָּשֵׁר. וְלֹא דָא הִיא קַדְמִיָיתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לִכְשֶׁתַּדִּינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לִכְשֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בוֹ וּבְמִצְוָותוֹ תַּחֲזִירֵהוּ לִי. כְּהָדָא תֻּרוּנְגָּא הֲווֹן מְצַפְצְפִין תַּמָּן. וַהֲוָה רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב יְהַב תֻּרֻנְגָּא מַתָּנָה לִבְרֵיהּ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ. לִכְשֶׁתִזְכֶּה בוֹ וּבְמִצְוָותוֹ תַּחֲזִירֵהוּ לִי. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. כְּתָבוֹ עַל כּוֹס שֶלְּזָהָב וְאָמַר לָהּ. מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב שֵׁלִּיךְ וּבֵין הַשִּׁיטִּים שֶׁלִּי. וְיֵשׁ כְּתָב. עוֹר הַנִּקְרַע הֲרֵי כָשֵׁר. נִתְקְרַע הֲרֵי זֶה פָסוּל. בִּשְׁלֹּא נִתְקְרַע כְּקֶרַע בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל נִקְרַע כְּקֶרַע בֵּית דִּין. אֵי זֶהוּ קֶרַע שֶׁלְּבֵּית דִּין. בֵּין כְּתָב לָעֵדִים. עַל הֶעָלֶה שֶׁלַּזַּיִת. וְלֹא כִמְקוּרָע הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תַּנָּא בִּינָה שילוח. אֲפִילוּ כוֹתֵב. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי מֶגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתִי. כָּשֵׁר. וְאַתְיָיא כֵּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. אִם פִּירֵשׁ פָּסוּל. וְאִם לֹא פִירֵשׁ כָּשֵׁר. עַל הַקֶּרֶן שֶׁלַּפָּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא כְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהּ. הֲרֵי גִיטֵּיךְ. אֲבֵל אִם אָמַר לָהּ. הֲרֵי גִיטֵּיךְ וְהַשְּׁאָר לִכְתוּבָּתֵיךְ. נִתְקַבְּלָה גִיטָּהּ וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ כְּאַחַת. אָמַר לָהּ. הֲרֵי גִיטֵּיךְ וּכְתוּבָּתֵךְ כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מָסַר לָהּ בַּמּוֹסִירָה מָהוּ. מִידַּת הַדִּין אַתְּ אָמַר נִקְנֶה הַמֶּקַח. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אוֹ שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כּוּלּוֹ בְיָדָהּ. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. סֵפֶר. מַה סֵפֶר מְיוּחָד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִים אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִים. מַה סֵפֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנִין. סֵפֶר. מַה סֵפֶר שֶׁהוּא בְתָלוּשׁ אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בְתָלוּשׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי יָדוֹת הָאוֹכְלִין כְּאוֹכְלִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. כְּתָבוֹ עַל קֶרֶן צְבִי גְּרָדוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ כָּשֵׁר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגְּרָדוֹ וַאֲחַר כָּךְ חֲתָמוֹ. הָא אִם חֲתָמוֹ וַאֲחַר כָּךְ גְּרָדוֹ לֹא. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מְיָישָָׁא. וְהוּא שֶׁכָּתַב עַל זִכְרוּתוֹ שֶלַּקֶּרֶן. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב עַל נַרְתֵּיקוֹ כְּפָרוּשׁ הוּא וְכָשֵׁר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי. אַף לְהֶכְשֵׁר זְרָעִים כֵּן. חָשַׁב שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה עַל הָאוֹכְלִים. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. סֵפֶר. מַה סֵפֶר מְיוּחָד דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִים אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִים. וְהָכָא הוּא אוֹמֵר אָכֵן. אוֹ שַׁנְיָיה הִוא. דִּכְתִּיב וְכָל מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֵׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכָל כְּלִי יִטְמָא. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ חִישֵּׁב שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ לְבוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא הָכָא. דִּכְתִיב כְּלִי.

MISHNAH: One writes with anything, with ink, with vermilion, with gum, and with copper sulfate, and anything that leaves a record. One does not write with drinks, or fruit juice, or anything not permanent. One writes on anything, on a leaf of the olive tree, on a cow’s horn if one delivers the cow to her 12:5 (13d 1. 29); the readings from there are noted ש . , on a slave’s hand if one delivers the slave to her. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, one does not write on anything living nor on food. HALAKHAH: “One writes with anything,” etc. 12:5 (13d 1. 29); the readings from there are noted ש . “He shall write. 24:1 : “He shall write her a scroll of divorce and deliver it into her hand.” ”, not engrave. “He shall write”, not dropping points. “He shall write”, not pouring. “He shall write”, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. “He shall write”, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. “He shall write”, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of the writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? There, we have stated 12:5 . : “Writing on top of writing is not prosecutable.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink or vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is guilty. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis from there: He is doubly guilty, once for erasing and once for writing. If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied. The reading of the two texts in Giṭṭin , “because they are not occupied”, does not make sense. The meaning is also confirmed by the parallel in the Babli, 19a . with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings an blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not have been the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana said, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be accepted. If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing it is valid. If somebody sketches on skin deals with the laws of Sabbath and characterizes the first writing as incurring guilt, because permanent, and the second as not prosecutable, because not permanent. In the Tosephta, Giṭṭin 2:4 , Šabbat 11:8, the terms “valid, invalid” and “guilty, not prosecutable” are switched. in the form of writing it is invalid. “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give it to me,” is invalid. 24:1 requires that the bill of divorce be “given into her hand”, i. e., be legally in her power. . “On condition that you return it to me,” is valid. Is that not the prior case? Rebbi Yose said, after you went to court. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “after you have acquired all the rights for which it was made, return it to me.. 24:1 . ” Similar to that: Etrogim (a word of Indian origin) designates all citrus fruits. It was used for citrus medica , rabbinic Hebrew etrôg , which was identified as the “fruit of the tree of splendor” mentioned in Lev . 23:40 together with palm branches, brook willows, and a branch of the thick-leaf tree (traditionally the myrtle). were scarce over there. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog to his son and said to him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me. 23:40 reads: “You shall take for yourselves on the first day palm branches …”. The prescribed ritual can only be fulfilled if the four kinds mentioned are the personal property of the celebrant. Therefore, if a person gives his “four kinds” to another person for the celebration, it cannot be a loan but must be “a transfer of ownership on condition that it be returned.” In Babylonian sources ( Sukkah 41b , Tosephta Sukkah 2:11 ) the conditional transfer of ownership is a tannaïtic institution. . Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it on a golden cup and said, the writing is yours but the space between the lines belongs to me? Is that writing? Torn leather is valid, if it was torn it is invalid. If it was not torn by the tear of a court, but if it was torn by the tear of a court. What is the tear of a court? Between the text and the witnesses. was paid under the supervision of the court, the court will tear the bill of divorce to make sure that the divorcee cannot use the bill to collect the ketubah a second time in the jurisdiction of another court. Since the witnesses have to sign immediately after the text, to avoid the fraudulent insertion of additional text, a document in which the signatures are separated from the text is automatically invalid. “On a leaf of the olive tree.” Is that not like torn? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Bina bar Shila stated: Even if he only wrote: “I X am divorcing my wife,” it is valid. This follows what Rebbi Ila said, if he detailed it is invalid, if he did not detail it is valid. “On a cow’s horn.” The Mishnah in case he says to her, here is your bill of divorce. But if he says to her, here is your bill of divorce and the remainder is for your ketubah , her bill of divorce and the payment of her ketubah were received together. There is a small problem here which is not mentioned in either Talmud: A bill of divorce can be given to a wife against her will but the ketubah can be delivered in merchandise, instead of coin, only with her consent. Since transfer of property of an animal always requires an act of acquisition, the husband who writes the bill of divorce on the horns of a cow gives up his right to unilateral divorce. . If he said to her, here is your bill of divorce and the payment of your ketubah together was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b , the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi. ? Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: If he delivered the halter to her, what? In commercial law, the buy is acquired, do you say so here was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b , the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi. ? Or is it a difference since it is written: “he shall deliver into her hand,” until it is completely in her hand! What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is not food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is detached, so everything detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food. The question is whether R. Yose the Galilean will forbid these inedible stalks as materials for bills of divorce since they are subject to the impurities of foodstuffs. ? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers must be attributed to R. Yose the Galilean since for the rabbis the entire deer could have been given to the wife. The antlers are inedible bony structures attached to the living deer just as stalks are inedible wooden structures attached to fruits. , shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to him, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. 24:1 : “he writes and hands over to her” that no necessary action may intervene between signing and delivery of the document. . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath 5:2, Note 67 . it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce 2:3, Note 136–141 . ? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dropped from the animal on food reads: Any fluid which at the start is desired, even if at the end it is not desired, or if at the end is desired, even if at the start it was not desired, fulfills the condition “that it be given” (i.e., it prepares for impurity by the terms of Lev . 11:38 : “If water be given on seeds … it shall be impure for you”.) For the anonymous rabbis it is obvious that drops from water which was desired for the animal will prepare food for impurity by this Mishnah. But R. Yose the Galilean, who disqualifies animals as writing materials for bills of divorce, might equate animals to things connected to the soil which are disqualified for bills of divorce in Mishnah 4 , and for objects of desire which act in impurity as explained in the following. . There, Rebbi Yose said “a scroll”, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written. 11:34 . , “any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure”. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: “a vessel” 8(2): “I could think also [if it rained] into cisterns, ditches and caves? It is written: ‘a vessel’; since one of the characteristics of a vessel is that it is separated from the ground, so only things separated from the ground.” Everybody agrees that water collected in cisterns, etc., does not prepare for impurity; the reason for this has nothing to do with the controversy over writing materials. .

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע. כְּתָבוֹ בִּמְחוּבָּר תְּלָשׁוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ כָּשֵר. וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹסֵל עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתִיבָתוֹ וַחֲתִימָתוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּתִירָא אוֹמֵר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל הַנְּיָיר מָחוּק וְלֹא עַל הַדִּיפְתְּרָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵיף וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע כול׳. לֵית הָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ בַּטּוֹפֶס כָּשֵׁר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ כַּטּוֹפֶס פָּסוּל. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בָּעֵי. כְּתָבוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ. חִיבְּרוֹ וּתְלָשׁוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי. כְּתָבוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ חִיבְּרוֹ תְלָשׁוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. מַה אָמְרִין בָּהּ רַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּגִיטִּין. אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָרוֹת אוּף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֶה. דִּי פָתַר לָהּ שְׁטָר עַל הֶחָלָק וְעֵדִים עַל הַמַּחַק. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לֹא שַׁנְיָיה הִיא. בֵּין בְּגִיטִּין בֵּין בִּשְׁטָרוֹת הִיא הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. דִּי פָתַר לָהּ שְׁטָר עַל הֶחָלָק וְעֵדִים עַל הַמַּחַק. וְקַשְׁיָא. אָמַר לו. עַל דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אִם בְּעֵדִים עַל הַמַּחַק בְּדָא חֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. חֲכָמִים שֶׁהֵן בְּשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דִּי פָתַר לָהּ שְׁטָר עַל הַמַּחַק וְעֵדִים עַל הֶחָלָק. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זֶה וְזֶה עַל הַמַּחַק. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. נִיכַּר הוּא אִם נִמְחַק פַּעַם אַחַת וְאִם נִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים.

MISHNAH: One does not write on anything connected to the ground. If he wrote on anything connected, detached it, signed, and delivered it, it is valid, but Rebbi Jehudah declares it invalid unless both writing and signing took place when it was detached. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, one writes neither on erased papyrus nor on διφθέρα 2:6, Note 151 . The hide does not absorb the ink which can be wiped off without leaving a trace. because these can be falsified but the Sages declare valid. HALAKHAH: “One does not write on anything connected to the ground,” etc. This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. Samuel bar Abba asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected it again, detached it, and delivered it to her; what does Rebbi Jehudah say? Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Abin asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected again, signed, and detached it, and delivered it to her; what do the rabbis say I 26a, quotes an identical text for both questions, one addressed to R. Jehudah and one to the rabbis. Rashba ( Novellae ad 21b, end) reads in the question addressed to the rabbis: If he wrote it when detached, attached, signed, detached, and delivered it, what do the rabbis say? In this case the obvious answer is: invalid. The text as it stands can be interpreted to mean that the bill was written when detached, including date, both names, and the statement that it was a divorce document which freed the wife to marry any man, but that the witnesses signed when it was attached to the ground. Then it would be invalid for R. Meïr and valid for R. Eleazar the Tanna. ? 26d (Note 52); the variant readings are given by ע . While medieval authors cannot be expected always to quote exactly, the text is quoted as support for the Geniza readings. Rebbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? About bills of divorce. But for contracts even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it makes no difference; they disagree both about bills of divorce and contracts. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: If the witnesses [sign] on the erasure, do the Sages declare it valid? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: The Sages follow the argument of Rebbi Eleazar, for he explains that the document is on the erasure and the witnesses on a smooth surface. Samuel said, everything is on the erasure 163a ) in the name of Rav. . Does not Rebbi Jehudah say it correctly? Rebbi Abba said, it is recognizable whether there was an erasure once or twice 164a . .

הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁירִין לִכְתּוֹב אֵֶת הַגֵּט אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹטֶה חֵרֵשׁ וְקָטָן. הָאִשָּׁה כוֹתֶבֶת אֶת גִּיטָּהּ וְהָאִישׁ כוֹתֵב אֶת שׁוֹבְרוֹ שֶׁאֵין קִיֻים הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְחוֹתְמָיו. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט חוּץ מְשּׁוֹטֶה חֵרֵשׁ קָטָן וְסוֹמֶא וְנָכְרִי. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁירִין לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַגֵּט כול׳. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה פִיקֵּחַ עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וְהָכְתִיב וְכָתַב לָהּ. לִשְׁמָהּ. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיח תָּרְפּוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט עִמּוֹ. וְאַתְיָיא כַּיי דָּמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ בַטּוֹפֶס פָּסוּל.

MISHNAH: Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce, even an insane, a deaf-and-dumb, or a minor. The wife may write her bill of divorce and a man his receipt, for the certification of the bill of divorce is only effected by its signatures. Everybody is acceptable to bring the bill of divorce except an insane, a deaf-and-dumb, a minor, a blind person, or a Gentile. HALAKHAH: “Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if a sane person watches over them. Rebbi Joḥanan asked (27b). : But is it not written: “He shall write for her,” in her name. 24:1 ) can only be fulfilled if the bill was written specifically for that wife from the first letter to the last. ? Samuel said, it is necessary that one reserve the essential text for him. This follows what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid.

קִיבֵּל הַקָּטָן וְהִגְדִּיל. חֵרֵשׁ וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ. סוֹמֶא וְנִתְפַּתַּח. שׁוֹטֶה וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה נָכְרִי וְנִתְגַּיֵיר פָּסוּל. אֲבָל פִּיקֵּח וְנִתְחָרַשׁ וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה פִּיתֵּחַ וְנִסְתַּמָּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתַּח שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּא וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה כָּשֵׁר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּדַעַת כָּשֵׁר. קִיבֵּל הַקָּטָן וְהִגְדִּיל כול׳. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אַבָּא. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. עֶבֶד שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט פָּסוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי אַסִּי. אִילוּלֵא רִבִּי בָּא כְּבַר הָיִינוּ לְהַתִיר אֶת אֶשֶׁת אִישׁ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ רִבִּי אַסִּי הָדָא דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ מִילֵּיהוּן דְּרַבָנִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל הָעֶבֶד גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר וְאַל יְקַבֵּל גֵּט כְּוָותֵיךְ. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא אַל יְקַבֵּל. הָא אִם עָבַר וְקִיבֵּל כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְכֹהֶנֶת הָיְיתָה וְלֹא חָשׁוּ לָהֶן מִשּׁוּם רֵיחַ פְּסוּל.

MISHNAH: If the minor received it and became an adult, the deaf-and-dumb and started talking, the blind and became seeing, the insane and became sane, the Gentile and converted, it remains invalid. 24:1 requires that the husband hand the divorce document over to his wife, he can be represented in this transaction only by a duly appointed representative. But since an incompetent person cannot be a representative, nor a Gentile be an agent in a Jewish religious transaction, any such delivery could not be considered as the husband’s. . But if a hearing person became deaf-and-dumb, then regained his hearing, a seeing person became blind, then regained his vision, a sane person became insane, then regained his sanity, it is valid. This is the principle: Whenever the beginning and the end was in full competence, it is valid. HALAKHAH: “If the minor received it and became an adult,” etc. There came a case before Rebbi Immi that a slave brought a bill of divorce; [he declared it] valid. Rebbi Abba said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that if a slave brought a bill of divorce, it would be invalid? Rebbi Assi said, if not for Rebbi Abba, we would have permitted a married woman! Even if you say that Rebbi Assi did not accept what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, did he not accept what the rabbis said? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave could accept a bill of manumission [for delivery] but he should not accept [a bill of divorce] as we do 1:3 , 60a 1. 50. Since a slave cannot legally marry, he cannot divorce and like a Gentile is barred from acting in a divorce proceeding. R. Immi, who initially accepted the bill of divorce, must have held with R. Meïr that the slave’s hand is his master’s hand ( Qiddušin 1:3 , 60a 1. 49). . They thought, he formulated “he should not accept,” therefore, if he transgressed and accepted, it would be valid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: It happened that she was a Cohen’s wife. 21:7 ), in all cases in which there may be the slightest doubt about the validity of a divorce given by a Cohen, the court will force the husband to give a second, unquestionably valid divorce. and they were not afraid of a hint of invalidity.

אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר מֵת בַּעֲלָהּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּיטָּהּ חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעֲלָהּ. מַה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה. שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ. הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מֵבִיאָה אֶת גִּיטָּהּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נִתְחַתֵּם. אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר. מֵת בַּעֲלָהּ כול׳. אֲפִילוּ נִכְתַּב וְלֹא נֶחְתַּם מַאֲמִינִין אוֹתָהּ. שֶׁאִילּוּ לֹא אָמְרָה. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אַף אַתָּה מַתִּירָהּ לְהִינָּשֵׂא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד לְקַלְקְלָהּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. בְּבֵית דִּין הוּא חָשׁוּד לְקַלְקְלָהּ. שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִירֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָּטֵל אַף הוּא מַחְתִּמוֹ בְעֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִים. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁעָשָׂת עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים בְּרוֹמִי וְנִישֵּׂאת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנִיתָא כְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהּ. אַל תִּיגָּרְשִי אֶלָּא בְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי.

MISHNAH: Even women who cannot be believed if they say that [a woman’s] husband died are trustworthy to bring her bill of divorce: Her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her sister-in-law, and her husband’s daughter 15:4 ; it is assumed that they would not mind tricking her into adultery. . What is the difference between divorce and death? The writing is the proof. A woman may herself bring her own bill of divorce, but she still is required to say that it was written and signed before her. HALAKHAH: “Also those women who cannot be believed if they say that [a woman’s] husband died,” etc. 15:4, explained there in Notes 91–94 . The variants are denoted by י . Would you believe her if it was written but not signed [in her presence]? If she did not say ‘it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence’, would you permit her to remarry? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that parallels what Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests, his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign, is missing here to the effect that if one of these women would recant her testimony she also would not be believed. . Think of it, if she stayed in Rome ten years and remarried was paid to her in full. ! Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah if he said to her, you shall only be divorced [by this document] at place X.