Gittin, Daf Gimmel, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud now gets into what is one of the biggest disputes throughout the Tractate which element of writing the get has to be for her sake the writing (R. Elazar) or the signing (R. Meir). This is a dispute we will examine in greater detail as we proceed.

 

וּלְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ מַאן הַאי תַּנָּא דְּבָעֵי כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ וּבָעֵי חֲתִימָה לִשְׁמָהּ אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר חֲתִימָה בָּעֵי כְּתִיבָה לָא בָּעֵי דִּתְנַן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע כְּתָבוֹ עַל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע תְּלָשׁוֹ חֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ כָּשֵׁר

 

And to Rabbah who said that [the reason for the declaration] is that they are not experts in the laws of for her sake who is the author of the mishnah who requires both writing and signing for her sake? If it is R. Meir, then the signing must be for her sake, but not the writing, as it was taught: One may not write a get on something attached to the ground. If he wrote it on something attached to the ground, and then he plucked it and signed on it and gave it to her, it is valid.

 

The mishnah requires that the messenger declare, It was written and signed in my presence. Rabbah explains that this is due to the requirement that the get be written with her in mind. But why should both the writing and signing be required to be for her sake. R. Meir only requires the signing, not the writing. This is derived from an anonymous mishnah which allows the get to be written on something attached to the ground, as long as the signing occurs after the thing has been detached from the ground. From this mishnah it seems that what is critical is the signing, not the writing. Since the mishnah is anonymous, it is understood to follow R. Meir. So our mishnah, which also requires the writing to be for her sake, cannot be attributed to R. Meir.

 

אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כְּתִיבָה בָּעֵי חֲתִימָה לָא בָּעֵי

 

If the mishnah accords with R. Elazar, writing for her sake is required, signing for her sake is not required.

 

R. Elazar, as we shall learn, takes the opposite stance from R. Meir he requires writing the get for her sake, but is not concerned that the get should be signed for her sake.

 

וְכִי תֵּימָא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא וְכִי לָא בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חֲתִימָה לִשְׁמָהּ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן בָּעֵי וְהָא שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִין דְּרַבָּנַן וְלָא בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חֲתִימָה לִשְׁמָהּ

 

And if you were to say that the mishnah is indeed R. Elazar, and while from biblical law R. Elazar does not require signing for her sake, he does from rabbinic law. But there are three types of gittin that are disqualified due to rabbinic law, and yet R. Elazar does not require signing for her sake.

 

The Talmud negates a possible solution that while R. Elazar would hold that a get not signed with her in mind is biblically valid but rabbinically invalid. However, as we shall see in tomorrow s section, there is a mishnah that implies that R. Elazar does not require the signing to be for her sake even from rabbinic law.