Gittin, Daf Heh, Part 1

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to cite tannaitic sources as difficulties or supports for Rabbah and Rava.

 

תְּנַן הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו

וַהֲוֵינַן בַּהּ מַאי וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אִילֵימָא חֵרֵשׁ חֵרֵשׁ בַּר אֵיתוֹיֵי גִיטָּא הוּא וְהָתְנַן הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִים לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן

וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא פִּקֵּחַ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ

לְרָבָא נִיחָא לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא

 

It was taught in a mishnah: One who brings a get from abroad and cannot say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence if there are witnesses on it, it can be upheld by the signatures.

And we asked about this what does it mean and cannot say ? If we say that refers to a deaf-mute, can a deaf-mute deliver a get? But does it not teach, All are valid to bring the get except for a deaf-mute, person lacking sound senses or a minor?

And R. Yosef said: What are we dealing with here? When he (the husband) gave it to him (the agent) when he was of sound senses and he did not have time to say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence and he went deaf.

This goes well for Rava but is a difficulty for Rabbah.

 

The mishnah refers to one who cannot make the declaration. This cannot be a deaf person because a deaf person cannot bring a get deaf people were excluded from many legal matters. Rather, R. Yosef says that the person was appointed an agent when he was of sound senses, i.e. he could hear. But before he was able to deliver the get, he lost his hearing (and evidently his speech as well).

The difficulty for Rabbah is the line in the mishnah that says that the get can be upheld by its signatures. If people outside of Israel do not know the laws of correctly writing a get, then without the declaration being made, how can these signatures help? The witnesses might have signed not knowing that the get must be written with her in mind.

 

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ

אִי הָכִי יָכוֹל נָמֵי

גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ

 

What are we dealing with here? After they learned.

If so, then even if he can make the declaration [they can uphold it by its signatures].

This is a decree lest the situation return to its prior state.

 

The Talmud solves the difficulty by suggesting that this mishnah refers to a time when the people outside of Israel had already learned how to write gittin.

The problem with that is that if this were so, then even if the agent could make the statement, we should be able to uphold the get by its signatures. In other words, if the people outside of Israel now know the rules, then the whole requirement to make the declaration can be waived.

The Talmud answers that we still generally require the declaration lest the people outside of Israel forget the rules [I think you can sense how strained these resolutions are].

 

אִי הָכִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל נָמֵי

פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא וּמִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא גְּזוּר בַּהּ רַבָּנַן

 

If so, then also if he cannot make the declaration [we should be concerned lest the situation return to its former state].

Someone who has sound senses and then goes deaf is an unusual situation, and the rabbis did not make a decree in an unusual situation.

 

If we are concerned that the people outside of Israel forget the rules, then why can we uphold the get through its signatures in a case where a hearing person lost his hearing. The answer is that this is an unusual situation and rabbis, at least at times, do not make decrees for unusual situations. Thus, in this case, the get may be upheld by its signatures.

 

וְהָא אִשָּׁה דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא וּתְנַן הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה גִּיטָּהּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁצְּרִיכָה לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם

שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בִּשְׁלִיחוּת

 

But a woman [bringing her own get] is an unusual situation, and yet it taught: A woman may bring her own get, as long as she can say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.

This is to avoid making distinctions in cases of messengers.

 

The Talmud notes that it is unusual for women to bring their own get, and nevertheless a woman can bring her own get and must make the declaration. This proves that the rabbis did make this decree in an unusual situation.

The answer is that the rabbis did not want to distinguish between one type of agent and another [yet another strained answer].

 

אִי הָכִי בַּעַל נָמֵי אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא גִּיטּוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם

טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם דִּילְמָא אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעַר וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ הַשְׁתָּא מִינְקָט נָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ וְעַרְעוֹרֵי קָא מְעַרְעַר עֲלֵיהּ

 

If so, the husband too [should also be forced to make the declaration]. Why then does it teach, If he brings the get himself he need not say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.

Why did the rabbis say that [the agent] must say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence ? Lest the husband come and protest and disqualify [the get]. Now that he is holding it in his hand, will he also protest its validity.

 

The problem with saying that the rabbis did not want to make different rules for different types of agents is that they did allow a husband to bring a get without making the declaration. So how can we say that they did require a woman to make the declaration so as to not make distinctions?

The answer is that it makes no sense to require a husband to make a declaration about the validity of his get. The whole point of the declaration is to prevent the husband from protesting against the validity of the get. Why would a husband bring a get, declare his wife divorced and then protest against the very get that he brought?