Gittin, Daf Yod, Part 6

 

Introduction

The Talmud asks how the mishnah can rule that all types of financial documents drawn up in Gentile courts are valid. Does this really make sense?

 

גְּמָ׳ קָא פָּסֵיק וְתָנֵי לָא שְׁנָא מֶכֶר לָא שְׁנָא מַתָּנָה

בִּשְׁלָמָא מֶכֶר מִכִּי יָהֵיב זוּזֵי קַמַּיְיהוּ הוּא דִּקְנָה וּשְׁטָרָא רְאָיָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּאִי לָא יָהֵיב זוּזֵי קַמַּיְיהוּ לָא הֲווֹ מַרְעִי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ וְכָתְבִין לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא

אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה בְּמַאי קָא קָנֵי לָאו בְּהַאי שְׁטָרָא וְהַאי שְׁטָרָא חַסְפָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא

 

 

Gemara: [The mishnah] rules without any equivocation: It does not matter whether it was a sale or a gift.

This makes sense with a sale, for from the time in which he (the buyer) gives him (the seller) the money, he acquires the object, and the document is merely for proof. For had he not given the money, he (the seller) would not have put himself in a bad position and written up the document.

But when it comes to a gift, how does the purchaser acquire it with this document? This document is just a shard.

 

It makes sense to validate sales documents written up in Gentile courts because we can assume that the document was not written up unless the purchaser had already given the money to the seller. The seller would not allow the document to be signed unless he had given the money.

But with gifts, there is no money exchanged. So this document, signed by invalid witnesses, why should it be acceptable?

 

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא תָּנֵי חוּץ מִכְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים

 

Shmuel said: The law of the kingship is the law.

And if you want you can say: Teach: Except for documents like divorce documents.

 

There are two solutions to the difficulty. Shmuel explains that the law of the land is considered the law, and therefore financial documents drawn up in Gentile courts are indeed valid according to Jewish law.

The second solution is to add a letter to the end of the clause in the mishnah. Instead of reading, except for divorce documents it would read except for [documents] like divorce documents. This would include gift documents which are not just proof that something was done, but the very mechanism by which it is done.

 

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין וְכוּ׳ וְהָא לָאו בְּנֵי כְרִיתוּת נִינְהוּ

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא יָרַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְשִׁיטָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי

 

Rabbi Shimon says: these also are valid; they were only pronounced [to be invalid] when done by ordinary persons.

But they are not subject to the [Jewish] laws of divorce?

R. Zera said: R. Shimon descended to the method of R. Elazar who said that witnesses of the transfer of the get terminate [the marriage].

 

The Talmud raises a difficulty against R. Shimon from the mishnah how can Gentile witnesses sign a get when they cannot get a Jewish divorce (or a Jewish marriage). Generally, one cannot testify to something if they are not also able to participate in that type of arrangement.

R. Zera answers that R. Shimon holds like R. Elazar the key witnesses are those that witness the transfer of the get from the husband to the woman. So the witnesses in the get cannot disqualify it because they are not even necessary.

 

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּמְזוּיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ שֶׁפָּסוּל

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן בְּשֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין

 

But did R. Abba not say that R. Elazar agrees that if [the signatures] are forged, that it is invalid.

What are we dealing with here? With names that are obviously not Jewish.

 

The problem with saying that the witnesses to the transfer of the get are what is essential is that R. Shimon agrees that if the signatures are invalid, the get is invalid. In other words, a get with no witnesses is better than a get with invalid witnesses.

The Talmud answers that the names of the Gentiles on the get are obviously Gentile names. Anyone who sees the get will know that these signatures are not what validates the get. It is as if such a get has no signatures on it.