Gittin, Daf Heh, Part 6

 

Introduction

The Talmud brings a baraita that supports R. Yohanan, according to whom the agent can make the declaration in front of two.

 

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם יוֹצִיא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה יִטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם

 

It was taught in accordance with R. Yohanan: One who brings a get from abroad and gives it to her and did not say, It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence [the subsequent husband] must send her out and the child [of such a union] is a mamzer, the words of R. Meir.

But the sages say: The child is not a mamzer. Rather, what should he do? He should take it back from her and give it to her again in front of two and say, It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

 

According to Rabbi Meir, if the agent does not recite the formula, the divorce is invalid. Any subsequent marriage is adultery and therefore the new husband must send her out (he does not have to divorce her because she is not married to him) and their children are mamzerim, the word used for the offspring of a forbidden relationship.

The sages, however, believe that this situation is remediable. He must take back the get and then again give it to her in front of two witnesses and recite the formula. The fact that he does so in front of only two witnesses is supportive of R. Yohanan.

 

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא אָמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם יוֹצִיא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר

אִין רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ חֲכָמִים בְּגִיטִּין יוֹצִיא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר

 

And to Rabbi Meir just because he did not say It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence he must send her out and the child is a mamzer?

Yes, for Rabbi Meir follows his own reasoning, for Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Ula: Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who changes the formula that the rabbis instituted for divorce, must send her out and the child is a mamzer.

 

The Talmud confirms that Rabbi Meir does hold that any deviation in divorce law invalidates the divorce. The results are harsh the subsequent marriage is considered adultery and must be terminated and any offspring are mamzerim. We will see throughout the tractate that indeed R. Meir holds a very strict opinion in terms of gittin.

 

בַּר הֶדְיָא בָּעֵי לְאֵתוֹיֵי גִּיטָּא אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַחַי דַּהֲוָה מְמוּנֶּה אַגִּיטֵּי

אֲמַר לֵיהּ צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לַעֲמוֹד עַל כָּל אוֹת וָאוֹת

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי אָמְרִי לֵיהּ לָא צְרִיכַתְּ

וְכִי תֵּימָא אֶעֱבֵיד לְחוּמְרָא נִמְצָא אַתָּה מוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל גִּיטִּין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים

 

Bar Hedya wished to deliver a get. He came in front of R. Ahai, who was appointed over gittin. He said to him: You are required to stand over each and every letter.

He then came in front of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi who said: This is not necessary. And if you were to say, I will act stringently it will turn out that you cast aspersion over earlier gittin.

 

Bar Hedya is instructed by R. Aha, who seems to be the divorce official in his region, that he must watch over the entire writing of the get in order to be able to testify that it is valid. But when he comes in front of more well-known rabbis, Rabbi Ami and Asi, they say that such stringency is not only unnecessary, but should not be observed. Acting with unnecessary stringency will cause people to doubt the validity of earlier gittin.

It is interesting to note that the divorce official was stringent whereas the rabbis were more lenient. This might be a phenomenon we can sense in other areas of halakhah throughout Jewish history the practitioners are often more stringent than the law actually demands. This is often true, for instance, in matters of kashrut.