Gittin, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 1

Introduction

At the end of last week s daf we learned that if the get is signed by names that are obviously not Jewish, the get is valid, because the court will know that it was given to the woman in front of valid witnesses. This week s daf begins by asking what names are obviously not Jewish.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא כְּגוֹן הוֹרְמִיז וַאֲבוּדַיָּנָא בַּר שִׁיבְתַּאי וּבַר קִידְרֵי וּבָאטִי וּנְקִים אוּנָּא

What are the cases of obvious names? Rav Papa said: Such as Hormiz, Avudayana bar Shivtai, and Bar Kidri and Bati, and Nekim Una.

Don t give these names to your kids, unless you want everyone to think they re not Jewish. Nekim Una Goldberg. Hmmm.

אֲבָל שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין מוּבְהָקִים מַאי לָא אִי הָכִי אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין אֲבָל שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין מוּבְהָקִין לָא

But if the names are not obvious, then the get is not valid? If so, instead of teaching, they were only pronounced [to be invalid] when done by ordinary persons. Let it make a distinction and teach it within it: When is this so? When the names are obvious, but if the names are not obvious it is not valid.

The Talmud raises a difficulty. R. Shimon distinguishes between a case where the court signed the get (valid) versus cases where the get was signed by ordinary people (invalid) But if the Talmud s resolution is correct, then instead of teaching this way, the mishnah should have made a distinction about divorce documents done by the non-Jewish court if the names of the signatures are obviously not Jewish, then it is valid. But if they are not obviously not Jewish (like Samuel, a fine name for both Jews and non-Jews) then the get is not valid.

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין אֲבָל בְּשֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין מוּבְהָקִין נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט וּפְסוּלִין

This is actually what it means to say: When is this so? When the names are obviously [not Jewish], but if the names are not obviously gentile, it is as if it was done by ordinary people and it is invalid.

The Talmud s first resolution is simply to reread the mishnah. The mishnah (as it has been rewritten) says that the get is valid if the names are obviously not Jewish.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְגִיטֵּי מָמוֹן וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ גִּיטֵּי מָמוֹן דִּפְסוּלִים אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט

And if you want you can say that the last clause refers to monetary documents, and this is what it says: They only mentioned that monetary documents were invalid when they were done by ordinary persons.

The second resolution is to cut the last words off of R. Shimon s statement and claim that they emend the first opinion s statement. R. Shimon simply validates divorce documents. The first opinion holds that monetary documents written in non-Jewish courts are invalid if done by ordinary individuals. They are valid only if done by the court. The idea is that a court will make sure that the money was paid before the document was written. Therefore, the document is only for proof and the signatures don t matter quite as much. But ordinary individuals might allow a document to be written before the money is paid. Therefore, we can t rely on non-Jews who sign the document.