Gittin, Daf Tet, Part 6
Introduction
The Talmud continues to ask whether there are not more similarities between divorce documents and manumission documents.
וְהָאִיכָּא לִשְׁמָהּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה הַיְינוּ מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא אֶלָּא לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא
But is there not the case of writing it for her sake .
This works for Rabbah, for this is already in the statement who sends out and brings to . But to Rava this is a difficulty.
Both divorce and manumission documents must be written with the slave or woman in mind. So why is that not listed? To Rabbah, this similarity is already there in the baraita when it refers to the agent s declaration which is made because of the laws for her sake. But Rava doesn t read the mishnah that way, so he should have an additional clause both texts need to be written for the particular person.
וְתוּ בֵּין לְרַבָּה בֵּין לְרָבָא הָאִיכָּא מְחוּבָּר
כִּי קָתָנֵי פְּסוּלָא דְרַבָּנַן דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא קָתָנֵי
Furthermore, both to Rabbah and Rava there is the disqualification of [writing the document] on something attached to the ground.
It taught only disqualifications due to rabbinic law, not those due to biblical law.
There is yet another similarity not mentioned in the baraita the disqualification of writing the document on something attached to the ground.
The Talmud answers the last two difficulties the disqualification of not writing the get for the particular person or writing on something attached to the ground are both biblical disqualifications de orayta. The baraita only listed rabbinic disqualifications.
וְהָא עַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם דִּפְסוּלָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא וְקָתָנֵי
בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה וּכְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי
But what about the disqualification of documents signed in non-Jewish courts which is taught [in the baraita]!
[The baraita refers to a case where] the get was given over in front of [Jewish] witnesses and it accords with R. Elazar who says the witnesses who see the transmission sever the relationship.
The Talmud raises a difficulty on this last resolution the baraita rules that gittin brought in front of non-Jewish courts are disqualified. This disqualification is from the Torah. So why is it in the baraita?
The answer is that the baraita refers to gittin that were given over to the woman/slave in front of Jewish witnesses. To R. Elazar this makes the get kosher from the Torah. The baraita adds that if this is done in a Gentile court, the get is rabbinically invalid.
וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא יָרַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְשִׁיטָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לָא
But since it teaches at the end [of the mishnah that rules that both divorce and manumission documents brought in front of a non-Jewish court are invalid]: R. Shimon says: These two are valid. And R. Zera says: R. Shimon accepted the opinion of R. Elazar who holds that witnesses who see the transmission sever the relationship, the first opinion must not hold that way.
A mishnah that appears in a few pages discusses divorce and manumission documents that come in front of a non-Jewish court. R. Shimon accepts them as valid, and R. Zera says that he does so because of R. Elazar. If so, the first opinion in that mishnah must not hold like R. Elazar, and thus should be understood as ruling that these gittin are biblically disqualified.
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין
They disagree on unambiguous names.
The Talmud rejects the theory that the first opinion in that mishnah disagrees with R. Elazar about whether the get is rabbinically or biblically invalid. Both opinions hold that these documents are only rabbinically invalid. They only disagree if the name on the get is obviously not-Jewish. The first opinion would hold that it is invalid, whereas R. Shimon holds that it is valid. But no one holds that a get brought in front of a non-Jewish court is invalid from the Torah.
וְהָא חֲזָרָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וְקָתָנֵי
But changing his mind is a biblical law and it was taught.
This last difficulty rejects the theory that the baraita taught only rabbinic disqualifications. If the husband or master changes their mind the get is biblically invalid. And nevertheless, this disqualification is in the baraita.
אֶלָּא כִּי קָתָנֵי מִילְּתָא דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתַהּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין לָא קָתָנֵי
וְהָא חֲזָרָה גּוּפַהּ אִיתָא בְּקִידּוּשִׁין
בִּשְׁלִיחוּת בְּעַל כּוֹרְחָהּ דִּבְגֵירוּשִׁין אִיתַהּ וּבְקִידּוּשִׁין לֵיתַהּ
Rather, they taught only matters that are not applicable to betrothal documents. Matters that are applicable to betrothal documents, they did not teach.
But changing one s mind is applicable to betrothal documents.
This refers to a husband who sent a get to divorce his wife against her will, which is applicable in divorce but not in betrothal.
The Talmud now comes up with a new resolution as to what is included in the baraita and what is not. It works as follows:
1) Matters that are not like betrothal documents (a document that says, Behold you are betrothed to me. ) are included. This would be the case of it was written and signed in my presence. This is a requirement for divorce and manumission, but not a requirement for betrothal. Rashi explains that this is a special enactment to facilitate divorce
2) Matters that are similar to betrothal documents, such as the problem of the document being written for her sake or on something attached to the ground, were not taught in the baraita (according to Rava).
But, the Talmud asks, changing one s mind is applicable to betrothal documents. A husband who sends an agent to betroth a woman can change his mind before the agent betroths her. So why is this law included?
The Talmud explains that the baraita is dealing with a case where the husband is divorcing his wife against her will. This can be done, and if the husband changes his mind before the agent gets there, the get is invalid. But one cannot betroth a woman against her will. Therefore, the baraita is indeed referring to similarities between divorce and manumission documents that are not similar to betrothal documents.