Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 5a

Shall we say it refers to a deaf-mute? But can a deaf-mute be the bearer of a Get, seeing that we learn, 'All persons are qualified to be bearers of a Get except a deaf-mute, a lunatic, and a minor'? And this difficulty was solved by R. Joseph, who said that we are dealing here with a case in which he gave the woman the Get while he was still in possession of his faculties, but before he could say the formula was struck deaf and dumb. Now this conforms with the view of Raba, [does it not,] but conflicts with that of Rabbah?¹  — [This Mishnah was formulated] after the rule [of 'special intention'] had become generally known. If that is the case, even if the bearer is able to repeat the formula, [what need is there for him to do so]? — This was a precaution in case there is a return of the abuse. If that is the case, even if the bearer is not able to repeat the formula [it should still be required]? — For a man to be suddenly struck dumb is an exceptional occurrence, and the Rabbis did not take precautions against such exceptional cases. [Is that so?] For a woman to be the bearer of her own Get is very exceptional, and yet we learn:²  The wife can act as bearer of her own Get [to a specified Beth din], and she is equally required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'? — The reason for this is to avoid making any distinction between bearer and bearer. If that is so, the same rule [should apply to the] husband; why then has it been taught: If the husband brings the Get personally, he is not required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'? — The reason why the Rabbis insisted on this declaration in the first instance was to provide against the danger of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate the Get. In this case, seeing that he brings it himself, is it conceivable that he should raise objections against it?

Come and hear: Samuel put the following question to R. Huna: If a Get is brought from foreign parts by two bearers, are they required to declare, 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed', or are they not? And [R. Huna] answered that they are not required, because should they declare, 'In our presence he divorced her,' would their word not be accepted? This conforms, [does it not,] with the view of Raba and conflicts with that of Rabbah? — This Mishnah was formulated after the rule [of 'special intention'] had become generally known. If that is so, even if there is only one bearer, [the declaration should not be required]? — This was a precaution in case there is a recurrence of the abuse. If that is so, the same precaution should be taken when there are two bearers? — For a Get to be brought by two persons is exceptional, and the Rabbis did not take precautions against exceptional cases. [Is this so?] For a woman to be the bearer of her own Get is very exceptional, and yet we learn: The wife can act as bearer of her own Get, but she is equally required to declare, 'In my presence, etc.'? — The reason for this is to avoid making any distinction between bearer and bearer. If that is so, the same rule should apply to the husband; why then is it taught, If the husband brings the Get personally, he is not required to declare, 'In my presence, etc.'? — The reason why the Rabbis insisted on this declaration in the first instance was to provide against the danger of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate the Get. In this case, seeing that he brings it himself, is it conceivable that he should raise objections against it?

Come and hear: If the bearer of a Get from foreign parts gave it to the wife but did not declare, 'In my presence etc.', if the genuineness of the signatures [attached to the Get] can be established, it is valid, and if not it is invalid. From this we deduce that the purpose of requiring this declaration is to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult.³  This conforms, [does it not,] with the opinion of Raba and conflicts with that of Rabbah? — This Mishnah was formulated after the rule [of 'special intention'] became generally known. But you yourself have maintained that it is necessary to take precautions in case there is a recurrence of the abuse? — We are dealing here with the case where the woman has remarried.⁴  If so, how can you say, 'From this we deduce that this requirement is intended to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult'? The reason why we allow the validity of the Get to be established through its signatures is because she has remarried? — We must read the passage thus: '[The Get is valid if the signatures can be confirmed.] And should you think that if she has remarried we should be more strict and force [her husband] to put her away, we must bear in mind that the purpose of requiring this declaration is to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult. The whole reason

1. [For according to Rabbah even if the signatures are authenticated it does not follow that the Get was written with 'special intention'.]
2. Infra 23b.
3. It saves the trouble of securing a witness to attest the signatures.
4. And her disregard of the precaution does not warrant the enforcement of a separation.

why it is required is as a precaution against the risk of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate [the Get]. Seeing that here the [first] husband is raising no objection, shall we go out of our way to do so?'

[An identical] difference of opinion [had already been recorded] between R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi,¹  one of whom held that the reason [for requiring the declaration] was because the Jews outside the Land of Israel were not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', and the other that it was because witnesses could not easily be found to confirm the signatures. We may conclude that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who gave the reason, 'because they are not familiar with the rule of "special intention",' from the following incident. R. Simeon b. Abba once brought a Get before R. Joshua b. Levi, and said to him: Am I required to declare, 'I was present when it was written and present when it was signed'? and he replied: You need not make the declaration. It was only required in former generations, when the rule of 'special intention' was not generally known, but not in these times when the rule is known. We may therefore conclude [that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who gave this reason]. [Was this a good ruling,] seeing that Rabbah accepts Raba's reason also, and further that, as we have said, precaution should be taken in case there is a recurrence of the abuse? — There was another man with him,²  although he is not mentioned [in the passage quoted] out of respect for R. Simeon.

It has been stated: [On the question] how many persons must be present when the bearer of the Get gives it to the wife there was a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Haninah, one holding that a minimum of two were required and the other a minimum of three. It may be concluded that it was R. Johanan who held that two were sufficient, [from the following incident]. Rabin son of R. Hisda brought a Get before R. Johanan, and the latter said to him: Go and give it to her in the presence of two persons, and say to them, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.' We may therefore conclude [that R. Johanan held two to be sufficient]. May we assume that the point on which R. Johanan and R. Haninah diverge is that the one who held two persons to be sufficient considered the reason for requiring the declaration to be the general ignorance of the rule of 'special intention',³  while the one who insisted on three considered the reason to be the difficulty of finding witnesses?⁴  — [Can this be so?] We have found that it is R. Joshua who assigns as the reason ignorance of the rule of 'special intention', and so it must be R. Johanan who assigns as the reason the difficulty of finding witnesses. How then can it be R. Johanan who here says that two persons are sufficient? Moreover [is it not a fact] that Rabbah also accepts Raba's reason? No. [The reason of the declaration is because] we need witnesses who should be available to validate the Get, and the point at issue here is whether it is permitted to an agent to act as a witness and a witness as a judge. The authority who says that two persons are sufficient holds that an agent may act as witness and a witness may act as judge,⁵  whereas the one who insists on three holds that while an agent may act as witness, a witness may not act as judge. But has it not been laid down that in the case of evidence required only by the Rabbis⁶  [but not by the Torah] a witness may act as judge? No. The real point at issue is this, that one authority held that since a woman is qualified to bring the Get there is a danger [if only two persons are required] that we may rely upon her,⁷  while the other held that everyone knows that a woman is not qualified [to complete a Beth din], and therefore there is no danger.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: If the bearer of a Get from foreign parts gave it to the wife without declaring, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,' if she marries again the second husband must put her away and a child born from the union is a mamzer.⁸  This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Rabbis say that the child is not a mamzer. What should be done [to rectify matters?] The bearer should take the Get back from the woman, and then present it to her in the presence of two persons, declaring at the same time, In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed. [Are we to suppose then that] according to R. Meir, because the bearer failed [in the first instance] to make this declaration, the second husband has to put away the woman, and the child is a mamzer? — Yes: R. Meir in this is quite consistent; for so R. Hamnuna has told us in the name of 'Ulla, that R. Meir used to affirm: If any variation whatever is made in the procedure laid down by the Sages for writs of divorce, the second husband has to put the woman away and the child is a mamzer.

Bar Hadaya once desired to act as bearer of a Get.⁹  Before doing so he consulted R. Ahi, who was a supervisor of writs of divorce.¹⁰  Said R. Ahi to him: You must watch the writing of every letter of the document. He then consulted R. Ammi and R. Assi, who said to him: This is not necessary, and if you think to be on the safe side, you must consider that by doing so you will be discrediting previous writs of divorce.¹¹  Rabba b. Bar Hanah once acted as bearer of a Get¹²  of which half had been written in his presence and half not. He consulted R. Eleazar, who told him that even if only one line of it had been written with 'special intention' that was sufficient. R. Ashi said:

1. Two Amoraim of an earlier generation than Rabbah and Raba.
2. And therefore Raba's reason did not apply.
3. And therefore it is sufficient if two can testify to the delivery of the Get, after having heard the bearer make, in their presence, the proper declaration.
4. And therefore we require three persons to be available (in case the husband comes and challenges the Get), since the confirmation of signatures must take place in the presence of three, constituting a kind of Beth din; (v. Keth. 21b).
5. And therefore the bearer of the Get may join with the two witnesses of the delivery to form a Beth din.
6. Under which category comes the confirmation of signatures. V. Keth. l.c.
7. To form a third or to enable us to dispense with a third.
8. The product of an incestuous union. V. Glos.
9. From Babylon to Palestine.
10. An expert officer was appointed to see that the procedure was in conformity with all the regulations. (Rashi).
11. The bearers of which were not so particular.
12. See p. 15 n. 4.