The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Tractate Gittin, has been sponsored by our good friend and loyal student of the Daf Yomi, Mr. Haim Idana, and his dear wife. May God protect them and keep them in life. He has dedicated this tractate according to the following principle: Our Rabbis tell us that when one studies something, the study can avert that matter from occurring. We would therefore like to study Tractate Gittin so that it will remain in the realm of learning and never come to fruition in actuality. May he, his dear wife, and all of the Jewish people be blessed with peace in the home and success and prosperity in all that they do. Amen.
We begin today’s page with the bottom two lines. We return to a well-known case from our Mishnah: the collective get. The Mishnah describes a get called a klal, in which the names of five couples who are divorcing are written together: So-and-so to So-and-so, So-and-so to So-and-so, and so on. The witnesses sign at the bottom, and the document is then given to each couple. Each woman receives the document, and all five divorces are valid.
We therefore said that in the case of a collective get, the document is valid. However, the language of the Mishnah indicates that if each couple is written in a separate section, then only the last couple—the couple closest to the witnesses—will be divorced. The other couples will not be divorced. The Gemara now asks: What is the precise case of a collective get, and what is the precise case of separate sections?
Rabbi Hanan explains that a single date written for all of them is the case of a collective get. In other words, the document says that on a particular date, the following men came before us to divorce their wives, and all of their names are then listed. The text of the get follows, and the witnesses sign. As long as there is one date for all of them, the document is considered a collective get.
By contrast, if the document says that on one date so-and-so came before us, on another date so-and-so came before us, and on another date so-and-so came before us, then the witnesses’ signatures apply only to the last couple. The reason is that the witnesses sign at the bottom, and each section is written separately.
What is the exact formulation of a collective get? It is not enough merely to list the couples one after another. The document must say that we—meaning the witnesses or the court—divorced the wives of these men: So-and-so and So-and-so, So-and-so and So-and-so, and so on. All of the men must be included together in one general statement. That is how the collective get works.
In other words, all five men came before us to divorce their wives, and all five are included in one statement. The witnesses sign, and there is one date for everyone. Nevertheless, one might argue that the witnesses are signing only for the last couple written, because each couple appears separately. Why, then, do we say that the witnesses’ signatures apply to everyone?
The Gemara answers by comparing this case to another statement. Sometimes a person writes an instruction such as, “Ask how so-and-so is doing,” and then signs at the end. We say that the signature applies not only to the instruction but to the entire document. The wording connects the various elements. Here, too, the couples are connected by the conjunction “and,” so the witnesses’ signatures apply to everyone.
The Gemara then asks why it is necessary to teach that separate dates result in a problem. It is already obvious that the witnesses’ signatures apply only to the last couple. The answer is that there is an additional problem: if each section has a different date, the get was written on one date but signed on another date. A get written on one day and signed on a different day is invalid.
For example, the document may say that one man came before us on Sunday, another came on Monday, and another came on Tuesday, while the witnesses sign on Wednesday. The sections referring to Sunday and Monday were signed on a different day from the dates written in them, and those sections are invalid in any event. The last section may have been written and signed on the same day, but the other sections are invalid because of the difference between the date of writing and the date of signing.
Rabbi Hanan’s teaching is therefore necessary even when all of the couples have the same date. If there is one date for all of them, but the couples are written as separate sections rather than being included in one collective statement, only the last couple is covered by the witnesses’ signatures. When the couples are included together in one general statement, the witnesses’ signatures apply to everyone.
Reish Lakish offers another formulation. Even when there is one date for all of them, if the couples are not included in one collective statement, the document is considered a series of separate sections. What, then, is the case of a collective get? It is where the document says, “We divorced the wives of So-and-so and So-and-so,” including all of the men in one general statement.
One might understand this as though all of the women had been placed into one get, as if the document were being used for a mass divorce. That would not work; each couple must still be specified individually. The document must say, “So-and-so to So-and-so, So-and-so to So-and-so,” and so on. The general statement at the beginning ensures that the witnesses’ signatures cover all of the couples, while the individual statements specify which man is divorcing which woman.
The Gemara challenges this distinction by asking why two women cannot be divorced at the same time. We find that two Canaanite slaves can be emancipated at the same time. A person can say to two slaves, “All of my property belongs to you,” thereby freeing them both. Since each slave acquires a share in the other slave, each one ultimately emancipates the other’s share as well. We see, then, that two slaves can be freed together.
The Gemara answers that the case of the slaves involves two separate documents given simultaneously. There is no difficulty when each slave receives an individual document. Our discussion concerns one document in which several couples are listed together. If one simply writes, “So-and-so to So-and-so, So-and-so to So-and-so,” without the collective statement and without individually establishing the relationship of each couple, the document is not valid for everyone. This is why the wording must be repeated for each couple.
A teaching was brought in support of Rabbi Yohanan. Five couples were written in one document, each man paired with his wife, with one date for all of them. As long as there is one date for all of them and the couples are included together, the document is valid, and it is given to each woman. But if there is a separate date for each couple, it is not valid for all of them. The signatures apply only to the last couple.
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira adds that if there is space between the sections, the document is invalid, even when there is one date for all of them. If there is no space between the sections, the document is valid. His position is that even different dates do not necessarily invalidate the document, provided that there is no space separating the sections. If there is space, the date interrupts the document and prevents the signatures from applying to the earlier sections.
Reish Lakish taught that when each section has its own date, the document is invalid even if there is no space between the sections, because the dates themselves interrupt the document. The Gemara questions why Reish Lakish needed to discuss the case of a separate date for each couple. According to him, even when there is one date, the document is invalid if the couples were not included in one collective statement. Why, then, did he introduce the more complicated case of separate dates?
The answer is that Reish Lakish teaches two requirements. There must be one date for all of them, and all of the couples must be joined together in one collective statement. If the couples are divided by separate dates, the dates themselves interrupt the document, and only the last section is valid. Thus, even in a document with one date, if the couples are not joined together at the beginning, only the last couple is covered by the signatures.
We now continue with the next Mishnah. The Mishnah discusses two gittin written next to one another on the width of a scroll. One get is written on the right and another on the left. Two Hebrew witnesses sign in a way familiar to us: they write their own names first and their fathers’ names afterward. Thus, one witness writes, “Reuven son of Yaakov,” under the right-hand get, while the name Reuven appears under the right get and the name Yaakov appears under the left get. The second Hebrew witness does the same, writing “Kehat son of Levi.”
There are also two Greek witnesses. Although they are Jewish, the Jews of Greece had a different convention for signing their names. If a person was named Yosef son of Shimon, the Greek style wrote the father’s name first and the son’s name afterward. Thus, “Yosef son of Shimon” means that Shimon is the son and Yosef is the father. Similarly, in the example of Yasse’el son of Naftali, Naftali is the son and Yasse’el is the father.
Accordingly, if we arrange the signatures mentally, the right-hand get has the two Hebrew witnesses’ names, while the left-hand get has the two Greek witnesses’ names. The Mishnah says that the first set of witnesses written with the get is valid. If the Hebrew witnesses signed first, the right-hand get is valid. If the Greek witnesses signed first, the left-hand get is valid.
This is because the witnesses’ names must appear in the proper relationship to the get. If the Hebrew witnesses signed first, Reuven son of Yaakov and Kehat son of Levi are written on the right, and the Greek witnesses’ names are separated from the right-hand get by the Hebrew signatures. The right-hand get is therefore valid. If the Greek witnesses signed first, the left-hand get is valid for the same reason.
The diagrams associated with this Mishnah can be misleading if one does not pay attention to which case they illustrate. The picture in one place represents the next case, not necessarily the first case under discussion. The basic rule is that whichever type of witness signed first determines which get is valid: Hebrew witnesses first make the right-hand get valid, while Greek witnesses first make the left-hand get valid.
The Mishnah then discusses a case in which there is one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness on each side. For example, Reuven son of Yaakov appears in the Hebrew style, and Yosef son of Shimon appears in the Greek style. Since a Greek witness begins with the father’s name, his name may appear on the opposite side from the name of the person signing. Thus, each get can end up with one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness.
On the right-hand get, Reuven son of Yaakov provides the Hebrew witness, while Yosef son of Shimon provides the Greek witness. Yosef is the father, and Shimon is the son, so the Greek signature is arranged in the opposite direction. On the left-hand get, Kehat son of Levi provides the Hebrew witness, and Yasse’el son of Naftali provides the Greek witness. Seemingly, each get has two witnesses.
Nevertheless, the Mishnah says that both gittin are invalid. The reason is that the witnesses’ names can be read in different ways, and we cannot determine which witnesses intended to sign for which get. Each side appears to have one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness, but the arrangement does not provide a sufficiently clear connection between the witnesses and the documents.
Rashi explains the arrangement. Two gittin were written side by side across the width of a scroll. The Hebrew witnesses wrote their names in the ordinary Hebrew manner, with the person’s name first and the father’s name second. The Greek witnesses wrote according to their custom, with the father’s name first and the person’s name second. As a result, a witness’s name may appear under one get while the father’s name appears under the other.
The Gemara begins by examining the first case. If Reuven son of Yaakov and Kehat son of Levi are written in the Hebrew manner, the right-hand get is considered valid, while the left-hand get appears to have only “son of Yaakov” and “son of Levi” under it. The Gemara asks why “son of Yaakov” could not itself be the signature of a witness. We learned that a person may sign using the name of his father, writing “son of so-and-so,” and that can be considered a valid signature.
If so, perhaps the right-hand get has Reuven as one witness and “son of Yaakov” as a second witness, while the left-hand get has “son of Yaakov” and “son of Levi.” Why should only the right-hand get be valid? Perhaps “son of Yaakov” is an independent signature, and both gittin should be valid.
The Gemara answers that the document was written as “Reuven son of Yaakov,” with “Reuven son” on one side and “Yaakov” on the other. The word “son” is written with Reuven, so “Yaakov” cannot be interpreted as a separate signature reading “son of Yaakov.” It is part of the complete signature “Reuven son of Yaakov.”
The Gemara then considers another possibility. Perhaps the witness signed the right-hand get as Reuven and the left-hand get by writing only Yaakov, using his father’s name as another signature. A person may sign many documents, so why could he not sign one as Reuven and another as Yaakov?
The Gemara responds that a person does not abandon his own name and sign with his father’s name. Why would someone named Reuven sign another document only as Yaakov? The Gemara nevertheless considers whether Yaakov might have been used as a symbol rather than as the witness’s name. We learned that some Rabbis used a distinctive symbol as their signature: Rav drew a fish, Rabbi Hanina drew a palm tree, Rav Chisda used the letter samekh because of his name, and Rabbi Oshaya used the letter ayin because it appeared in his name. Perhaps this witness used the word Yaakov as his personal symbol.
The Gemara rejects this possibility as well. It would not be appropriate for a person to choose his father’s name as his identifying symbol. Therefore, the word Yaakov is understood as part of the complete name “Reuven son of Yaakov,” and only the right-hand get is valid in that arrangement.
The Gemara asks a more basic question. Why should we try to validate Reuven on one side and “son of Yaakov” on the other? Let us simply read the document according to the plain arrangement. The Hebrew witnesses are on the right, and the Greek witnesses are on the left. Why should both gittin not be valid—one because of the two Hebrew witnesses and the other because of the two Greek witnesses?
The Gemara answers that there is no inherent problem with the get being written in one script and signed by witnesses using another convention, or with the opposite arrangement. A get may have Hebrew witnesses, and it may have Greek witnesses, provided that they are Jewish and valid witnesses. Therefore, the presence of Hebrew signatures on one side and Greek signatures on the other is not itself the problem.
Perhaps the concern is that there is a separation between the text of the get and the Greek signatures. The Greek witnesses’ names appear below the fathers’ names of the Hebrew witnesses. The Gemara answers that a space between the get and the signatures is not necessarily a problem if the space is filled in. Even if one fills the space with the names of relatives or other invalid witnesses, the get remains valid as long as the space is not empty.
This can be compared to the laws of a sukkah. Three handbreadths of empty space invalidate the sukkah, while invalid roofing can occupy four handbreadths before it invalidates the sukkah. We see that empty space is more severe than material that fills the space, even if the material itself is invalid. Similarly, in the case of the get, the intervening names fill the area between the get and the Greek witnesses. Since there is no empty space, the Greek witnesses should be able to validate the left-hand get.
The Gemara concludes that this is indeed the position of Zeiri: both gittin are valid. The right-hand get is valid because of the Hebrew witnesses, and the left-hand get is valid because of the Greek witnesses. Why, then, does our Mishnah say that only the get associated with the witnesses who signed first is valid?
The Gemara answers that our Mishnah is concerned that the witnesses may alter their ordinary writing conventions. They may see how the previous witnesses signed and imitate that arrangement. A Greek witness, who normally writes the father’s name first and the son’s name second, may decide to follow the Hebrew witnesses and write the son’s name first. If that happens, all of the names could end up appearing under one get, leaving the other get without the necessary witnesses.
That is the concern of our Mishnah. The problem is not that Hebrew and Greek witnesses cannot both be valid, nor that one style of signature cannot be used for one get and another style for the second. The concern is that the witnesses may follow the style they see before them rather than their own customary method of signing. Since we cannot know which arrangement they will follow, the Mishnah validates only the get associated with the witnesses who signed first.
The Gemara then returns to the case in which each side appears to have one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness. Zeiri would say that both gittin are valid, because each has one witness of each type. Our Mishnah, however, remains concerned that the witnesses may change their customary method of signing. In that case, three witnesses may end up associated with one get and only one with the other, which would invalidate the arrangement.
To understand how this could happen, consider the first Hebrew witness, Reuven son of Yaakov, signing under the right-hand get. The Greek witness sees the Hebrew style and may imitate it, writing his own name first rather than following the Greek convention. At that point, one witness may appear on the right and one on the left. The next Hebrew witness may sign under the left-hand get, creating two witnesses there, while the final Greek witness may again alter his customary arrangement in a way that places his signature under the right-hand get. The result can be three witnesses on one side and only one on the other.
Since we cannot determine which witnesses followed their ordinary custom and which imitated the signatures before them, the Mishnah rules that both gittin are invalid in the one-and-one case. The Rabbis were concerned that the witnesses might alter their writing conventions, resulting in an uneven distribution of the signatures.
We now turn to the next Mishnah. If part of a get was written in one column and the remainder was written in the adjoining column, and the witnesses signed beneath the second column, the get is valid. Most of the document was written in the first column, but it was completed in the second column, and the witnesses signed at the bottom of the second column. Since the witnesses are properly connected to the conclusion of the get, the document is valid.
The Mishnah next discusses witnesses who signed at the top of the page, on the side of the page, or on the back of the get. In an ordinary get, these signatures invalidate the document, because the witnesses must sign in the proper place at the end of the text. A folded get, however, has a different arrangement: when a get is folded, the signatures may appear on the outside fold. But in the ordinary, unfolded get, signatures at the top, side, or back are invalid.
The Mishnah then discusses two gittin joined at their upper ends. The two documents are arranged as mirror images, with the heads of the gittin facing one another. The witnesses sign in the space between them. Since the witnesses are not connected to the end of either get, both gittin are invalid.
By contrast, if the bottom of one get is joined to the bottom of the other, and the witnesses sign between the two documents, the arrangement can be valid. The witnesses’ signatures are technically located at the end of the gittin. The get that is valid is the one in relation to which the witnesses’ names can be read in the proper direction—the direction in which witnesses ordinarily sign their names.
The Mishnah also discusses two gittin written one above the other, both upright and facing in the proper direction. In that case, the upper get is valid, because the witnesses’ signatures appear at the bottom of the upper get. The lower get does not have signatures properly connected to its text.
Finally, the Mishnah returns to several cases that we have encountered previously. If the get was written in Hebrew but the witnesses signed according to the Greek convention, or if the get was written in one manner and the witnesses signed according to another convention, the get may still be valid. The Mishnah also discusses a case involving the writing of the scribe and one witness, returning to the earlier question of whether the writing of the scribe itself can be relied upon or whether the scribe’s signature is considered the equivalent of a witness’s signature.
The Mishnah teaches that a signature reading “son of so-and-so” can be valid even when the word “witness” is not written. In earlier times, people were precise and used short forms. They would write only what was necessary. If a person signed “son of so-and-so,” that was understood as a valid signature.
The Mishnah further discusses a case in which a person writes his family name or surname instead of his father’s name. For example, instead of writing the name of the person’s father in the get, the person writes the family name by which he is known. According to one interpretation, the get is valid because people used such names as recognized identifiers.
Others explain that the term refers to a nickname. Even if the person signs using a nickname by which he is commonly known, the get is valid. The principle is that the witnesses and the parties must be identifiable, but the name need not necessarily be written in the precise form used in the person’s formal name. These final cases will be analyzed further in the Gemara.