Gittin, Daf Yod, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today is a continuation of yesterday s sugya which asked which tanna of the baraita is the author of the mishnah.

 

מַנִּי אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי

אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט אִשָּׁה נָמֵי לָא

וְאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אִי דְּאַחְזוּק אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי אִי דְּלָא אַחְזוּק אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט אִשָּׁה נָמֵי לָא

 

Who is the author of our mishnah?

If it is the first opinion (of the baraita) then other documents as well [should be valid].

If it is Rabbi Elazar then even a woman s get should also not be valid.

And if it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel then if they clung to it, also other documents [should be valid] and if they do not cling to it, then also not a get.

 

The mishnah allows for gittin with the signatures of Samaritans but not other documents. The first opinion in the baraita should validate all documents. So this opinion does not match the mishnah.

Rabbi Elazar, on the other hand, should not validate a woman s get, because he seems to completely disqualify Samaritans.

And to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel it should all depend on whether the Samaritans cling to this mitzvah. If they do, then all documents should be valid. If not, then no documents should be valid.

I might express this difficulty in another way why does the mishnah validate gittin but not other documents? This is a position that is difficult to line up with any of the positions in the baraita.

 

וְכִי תֵּימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא וּדְאַחְזוּק בְּהָא וְלָא אַחְזוּק בְּהָא אִי הָכִי מַאי אִירְיָא חַד אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי נָמֵי אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד כּוּתִי בִּלְבָד

 

And if you were to say that it is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the Samaritans clung to this but not to that, if so, then why only one [Samaritan witness], two should also be valid. Why does Rabbi Elazar say: They only validated one Samaritan witness.

 

Theoretically we could have said that the mishnah accords with Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. He could say that the Samaritans clung to the rules of divorce but not other legal matters (meaning they did not observe them as they were supposed to). The problem with this is that Rabbi Elazar said that the document is valid only if they have one Samaritan witness. This statement is also difficult to understand if one, why not two?

 

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וּכְגוֹן דְּחָתֵים יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבַסּוֹף דְּאִי לָאו דְּכוּתִי חָבֵר הֲוָה לָא מַחְתֵּים לֵיהּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ

 

It is indeed the view of Rabbi Elazar, and a Jew signs at the end. For if the Samaritan was not a colleague the Jew would not have let him sign before him.

 

The Talmud answers that our mishnah can accord with Rabbi Elazar (from the baraita). Rabbi Elazar would generally disqualify Samaritans. But if a Jew signed after the Samaritan then we can assume that the Samaritan was valid meaning he knew the laws of gittin. Thus the Jew s signature can validate the presence of a Samaritan on the document.

 

אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי

אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן רַוְוחָא שְׁבַק לְמַאן דְּקַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ

הָכָא נָמֵי רַוְוחָא שְׁבַק לְמַאן דְּקַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ

 

If so, then other documents [should also be valid].

Rather, we have to fear that he left space above for someone older than him.

Here too we could say he left space for someone older than him.

 

The problem with the explanation above is that this should mean that all documents are valid, not just gittin.

The Talmud tries to explain that maybe if the Jew signs below he was simply leaving space for an older witness to sign first, in a place of greater honor. This could explain why other documents are not valid.

But then we come back to the same problem again if the appearance of a Jew below doesn t imply that he knew the Samaritan above, then how can we validate a get with a Samaritan witness.

 

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת עֵדֵי הַגֵּט אֵין חוֹתְמִין זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה

מַאי טַעְמָא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם כּוּלְּכֶם

 

Rav Papa said: That is to say the witnesses on a get do not sign except in each other s presence.

What is the reason? Rav Ashi said: It is a decree less the husband tell them you are all my witnesses.

 

Rav Papa answers that witnesses to a divorce cannot sign unless all witnesses are present. Thus the Jew must have seen the Samaritan witness and by signing after him, he was testifying that he is valid. But this is not true for other documents in all other cases, a witness can sign without the presence of the other witnesses.

Rav Ashi explains why witnesses don t sign unless all other witnesses are present lest the husband say, you are all my witnesses to a group of people. In such a case, if anyone fails to sign the get, it is not valid. Therefore, the rabbis mandated that in all cases, all signees must be in front of each other.