Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 18a

and puts it in his pocket, thinking that he may yet make friends with his wife¹  [and eventually gives it to her], what is the ruling? — He replied: A man does not meet trouble half way.²  Said Rabina to R. Ashi: In the case of writs of divorce from 'foreign parts' which are written in Nisan and do not reach their destination till Tishri, what good have the Rabbis done with their regulation?³  — He replied: People hear of such documents.⁴

It has been stated: From what point do we commence to count [the three months] from a divorce?⁵  Rab says: From the time [the Get] is delivered; Samuel says: From the time it is written. R. Nathan b. Hoshia strongly demurred to this opinion. According to Samuel, are people to say, [he asked,] here are two women in the same house,⁶  one of whom may marry and the other may not? — Said Abaye to him: [That is so]: the one like the other must go by the date of her Get.⁷  It has been taught in accordance with Rab and it has been taught in accordance with Samuel. It has been taught in accordance with Rab: If a man sends a Get to his wife and the bearer lingers on the road three months, she has to wait three months from the time the Get is delivered to her, nor do we concern ourselves lest it should have become an 'old Get',⁸  because the husband has not been alone with her in the interval. It has been taught in accordance with Samuel: If a man entrusts to a third party a Get for his wife, and says to him, 'Do not give it to her till three months have passed', she is at liberty to marry from the moment he has given it to her, nor do we concern ourselves lest it should have become an 'old Get', since he has not been alone with her in the interval.

R. Kahana, R. Papi and R. Ashi acted on the principle that the Get is valid from the time of writing; R. Papi and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua that it is valid from the time of delivery. The law is that it is valid from the time of writing.

It has been stated: From what point does a Kethubah [marriage settlement]⁹  fall under the law of the Sabbatical year?¹⁰  Rab says: From the moment when the woman takes part payment and converts [the rest into a loan];¹¹  Samuel says: [From the moment when] she takes part payment even though she does not convert [the rest into a loan], or converts [the whole into a loan] without taking part payment. It has been taught in accordance with Rab and it has been taught in accordance with Samuel. It has been taught in accordance with Rab: From what point does a Kethubah fall under the law of the Sabbatical year? From the moment when the woman takes part payment and converts [the rest into a loan]; if she takes part payment and does not convert [the rest into a loan], or converts [it all into a loan] and does not take part payment, it does not fall under the law of the Sabbatical year; she must both take part payment and convert the rest into a loan. It has been taught in accordance with Samuel: ['The fines] for violation,¹²  for wife-slander,¹³  and for seduction,¹⁴  and a wife's Kethubah, if converted into loans, are subject to the law of the Sabbatical year, but otherwise are not subject. From what point are they regarded as converted into loans? From the time [the case is] brought into court.' Samuel said: A Kethubah is on a par with a deed drawn up by the Beth din. Just as a deed drawn up by a Beth din may be written by day and signed on the following night,¹⁵  so a Kethubah may be written by day and signed on the following night. The Kethubah¹⁶  of R. Hiyya b. Rab was written by day and signed the following night. Rab himself was present and made no objection. Are we to infer from this that he is of the same opinion as Samuel? — They were engaged on that matter during the whole of the interval; [and in such a case it is permissible], as it has been taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: This rule [not to sign documents on the following night] applies only where [the parties concerned] were not engaged on that matter during the whole of the interval; but if they were so engaged, the document so signed is valid.

R. SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID. Raba said: What is R. Simeon's reason? — He was of opinion that so soon as the husband makes up his mind to divorce the wife, he is not entitled any more to the increment from her property. Resh Lakish said: R. Simeon declared [the Get] valid only if it was signed on [the night] immediately [following], but if it was not signed till ten days afterwards it is not valid.

1. Lit., 'if he should pacify her, she would be appeased.'
2. I.e., such a case is hardly likely to occur. Unless a man is intent on divorcing his wife he does not as a rule write a writ of divorce.
3. Because even with the date the husband will now find it easy to shelter the wife in case of misconduct, and, further, the date places at a disadvantage persons who in the interval between the writing and the giving of the Get have inadvertently bought the increment of the wife's property from the husband, as she can now recover this from them. V. Tosaf. s.v.
4. And know that the Get was given long after it was written, and in those cases, evidence as to the date of delivery is decisive.
5. A divorced woman was required to wait three months before remarrying to make sure she was not with child. V. Yeb. 42a.
6. Two wives of one man who gave them both writs of divorce on the same day before going abroad, but one Get bore an earlier date than the other.
7. Lit., 'For this one, her Get affords proofs, and for this one her Get etc.'
8. If after writing a Get and before delivering it the husband has intercourse with his wife, such a Get is called an 'old Get' and is not valid; v. infra 76b.
9. V. Glos.
10. V. Deut. XV. The Sabbatical year brought release from the obligation to repay loans, but not the kethubah.
11. By drawing up a bond in which the balance is recorded as a loan.
12. V. Deut. XXIII, 28, 29.
13. Lit., 'fine'. V. Deut. XXIII, 13-19.
14. V. Ex. XXII, 15, 16.
15. As it is only a record of a decision arrived at by the court.
16. V. Glos. s.v. (b).

since there is a possibility that he made it up with her [in the interval].¹  R. Johanan, however, says that even if it was signed ten days later [it is valid, because] if he had made it up with her, people would have got to know.

It has been stated: If a man said to ten persons, 'Write a Get for my wife', according to R. Johanan, two of them sign as witnesses and the rest [simply] because he made it a condition,²  while according to Resh Lakish, all of them sign as witnesses. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that he did not say to them 'all of you [write]'? [This cannot be] because we have learnt: If he says to ten persons, 'Write a Get for my wife' [without saying 'all of you'], one writes and [only] two sign!³  — We suppose then that he used the words 'all of you'. What is the practical difference between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish?⁴  — The practical difference arises where two of them signed on the same day and the rest ten days later. According to the authority [R. Johanan] who said [that the rest only sign] because he made it a condition, [the Get is] valid, but according to the authority who says [that they all sign] as witnesses, [the Get is] invalid. Or again [there is a difference] where, for example, one of the persons [who signed it] was found to be a relative or in some way disqualified [from acting as witness]. According to the authority who said [that the rest sign] because he made it a condition, [the Get is] valid, but according to the authority who says [that they all sign] as witnesses [it is] invalid.⁵  If [the relative or disqualified person] signs first, some say [that the Get is] valid and some that [it is] invalid. Some say [it is] valid because [the person thus signing may be regarded as fulfilling] the condition. Some say [it is] invalid because [otherwise] a precedent may be set for the signing of documents in general.

A certain man said to ten persons, [All of you]⁶  write a Get for my wife, and two signed on the same day and the rest ten days later. [The question of its validity] came before R. Joshua ben Levi. He said:

1. Cf. p. 66, n. 3.
2. The fulfilment of which he insisted upon, because it was his intention to shame her in the presence of all these people.
3. V. infra 66b.
4. Since all have in any case to sign.
5. According to Sanhedrin 9a, if there are a hundred witnesses and one of them is a relative or otherwise disqualified, the evidence is not accepted.
6. These words are not in the text, but, as Rashi points out, they are necessary for the sense, because if they were not used, according to all authorities it is necessary for only two to sign.