Kommentar zu Gittin 2:11

המביא – נחתם חציו – one of the witnesses signed in my presence.

Introduction This mishnah returns to discussing one who delivers a get from abroad and is obligated to say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Today’s mishnah deals with one who can only recite part of the formula. I should note that the Talmud provides a very complicated explanation for this mishnah. I have tried to explain according to the words of the mishnah without the Talmudic explanation.

נכתב חציו וכו' פסול – and specifically the final half. But [if the agent said}: “in my presence, the first-half was written, which is the [the section containing the] name of the man and [the name of] the woman and the time (i.e. date), it is valid. And [regarding] the first half as well, it is not necessary for him [the agent] to see the writing itself, but if he heard the sound of the reed/writing pen alone passing over the paper at the time of the writing [of the Jewish bill of divorce], nothing further is necessary.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. In all of these cases one person brings the get, and he cannot recite the full formula. Even if he can recite nearly the whole formula but cannot honestly say that the entire get was written and fully signed by two witnesses in his presence, the get is invalid. As we learned above in 1:3, that this get is invalid means that in order for the woman to use this get to remarry, the witnesses themselves must verify their signatures or two witnesses must testify that they recognize both signatures. The testimony of the one who brought the get is not sufficient in and of itself.

אחד אומר בפני נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול – at the time when the Jewish bill of divorce leaves from under the hand of one of them (i.e., the agents), and since the Rabbis required for the agent who brings the Jewish bill of divorce to say both [things] (i.e. that the Get was written in my presence and that the Get was signed in my presence), but if the Jewish bill of divorce leaves the hands of both of them (i.e., the agents), it is considered valid. For two [individuals] who brought a Jewish bill of divorce, they do not need to say, “in our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed.”

If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. In this case, one messenger testifies that the get was written in his presence but cannot say that it was signed in his presence, and the other person with him says that the get was signed in his presence but cannot say that the get was also written in his presence. Since there is no complete declaration made by any one messenger, the get is not valid. Again, this means that it remains invalid until its signatures are validated.

שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול – At the time when the Jewish bill of divorce leaves under the hand of one of them, but if it leaves the hand of both of them, it is valid.

If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. In this case two people bring the get and both can testify that the get was written in their presence, but neither can say that it was signed in their presence. A third person says that it was signed in his presence. The first opinion states that the get is still invalid, and still needs to be upheld by validating the signatures. Rabbi Judah holds that the get is already valid since there is full testimony by two witnesses on the writing. To Rabbi Judah, the writing is the essential part of the making of the get and if two testify that the writing was done properly, the get is valid. This is not through their being deliverers of the get, but rather through their being witnesses. However, one person saying that the writing was done properly is not valid, because one person is not full testimony in Jewish law.

ור' יהודה מכשיר – And even if the Jewish bill of divorce leaves the hand of one of them, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid. In this case two testify that they saw the get signed. This is essentially upholding the signatures on the get and it always makes the get valid. Again, these two function as witnesses.

בלילה ונחתם ביום כשר – since the daytime goes after the [previous] night, and this is not in advance/early.

Introduction It is necessary to write the date inside a get. Our mishnah deals with a cases where the get was written on one day but signed on the night that follows, which is considered the following day according to the Jewish way of reckoning days and nights. In this case, the get’s date will not match the date upon which it is finalized.

ביום ונחתם בלילה פסול – since it is early. And the Sages instituted the time in Jewish bills of divorce, decreed, less a person would be married with his sister’s daughter (niece}, and she will commit an offense against him, and he has compassion upon her that she not be strangled to death, and he gives her a Jewish bill of divorce without the time included, and when they testify against her in the Jewish court, she takes out her Jewish bill of divorce and states that she was a divorcee and was a free (literally, “open”) woman at that time.

If [a get was] written by day and signed on the [same] day, written by night and signed on the [same] night, written by night and signed on the day [following], it is valid. In all of these cases the get is valid since it was written and signed on the same day. Since the day follows the night in Jewish counting of days, if it was written at night and signed the following day, this still counts as being written and signed on the same day.

ור"ש מכשיר – (a Jewish bill of divorce written in the daytime and signed at night), for Rabbi Shimon thinks (i.e., “holds”) that the Sages established [putting] the time in the Jewish bill of divorce because of the usufruct [involved], for if the time would not be [stated] in the Jewish bill of divorce, the husband would sell the usufruct (the wife’s estate of which the husband has fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration – while married] of his wife after the divorce, and when she would claim against him in court, he would claim that he sold it prior to the divorce. And Rabbi Shimon validates this when it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was written during the day time and signed at night, even though it is in advance. For he holds that from the time that he desired to divorce her even though he had not [yet] divorced her, from then on, the husband does not have [access to] the usufruct, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If it was written by day and signed on the night [following], it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon validates it, for Rabbi Shimon used to say that all documents written by day and signed on the [following] night are invalid except bills of divorce. However, if it was written by day and then later signed that night, the date written in the get does not match the actual date on which it was signed. The reason why documents must be written and signed on the same day is that documents can be used to collect collateral. A debt document creates a lien on another person’s property. For instance, if Reuven borrows 1,000 dollars from Shimon on the first of the month of Av, Shimon now has a lien on all the property that Reuven owned on that date. If Reuven subsequently gives or sells property to a third party and then defaults on his loan, Shimon may collect from the third party. However, Shimon’s lien takes priority only over other debts created after Shimon loaned the money. For this reason, documents whose dates precede their finalization, done in their signing, are invalid, lest someone try to defraud a third party. Since all other documents whose dates precede their finalization are invalid, divorce documents are as well. According to Rabbi Shimon, money is never collected based on the date written in the get. A woman collects her ketubah based on the date written in the ketubah. Therefore, the get which was written during the day but only signed at night is valid. Even though other documents whose date precedes their signing are invalid, gittin are valid.

בדיו – “Almidar” in Arabic

Introduction The first section of this mishnah discusses what can be used to write a get. The second section deals with what gittin may be written on.

סיקרא – Red color

They write [a get] with any material, with ink, with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper or with anything which is lasting. It may not be written with liquids or with fruit juice or with anything that is not lasting. The writing materials in the first part of this section are lasting and those in the second part are not lasting. The get should not be written with something that can easily be erased. We should note that since parchment and paper were scarce and expensive in the ancient world, people often reused paper, scratching off the previous layer and starting afresh.

קומוס – resin/sap of the tree

They write [a get] on anything: on an olive leaf, on the horn of an ox and he must give her the ox, or on the hand of a slave--and he must give her the slave. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: they do not write [a get] on anything living or on food. The get need not be written only on a scroll, as seems to be prescribed in the Deuteronomy 24:1. Rather it can be written on nearly any material. The one condition is that there must be no step between the writing of the get and its being given to the woman. This is the reason that if the get is written on the horn of an ox, he must give her the ox, or if on the hand of the slave, he must give her the slave. He cannot cut the ox’s horn off and give it to her, for that would be an added step. This halakhah is derived from the verse “And he writes her a bill of divorcement and puts it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1). The writing must lead directly to the giving. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says it may not be written on anything that is still alive (like the horn of an ox or the hand of a slave) or is food. The Torah says it should be written on a scroll. While Rabbi Yose the Galilean does not require it to be written on a scroll, he says that it must be somewhat similar to a scroll, which is neither alive nor serves as food.

קנקנתום – Vidriolov in foreign tongue

על העלה של זית – detached

ונותן לה את הפרה – as he is not able to cut it after it is written, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:3); “[then this latter man rejects her,] writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her [and sends her away from his house;…” which is not requiring other than writing and giving [the Jewish bill of divorce], excluding the situation which is requiring the writing [of the Jewish bill of divorce], cutting it [from where it was written] and giving it [to the woman].

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר וכו' – Since the All-Merciful (i.e., the Torah) refers to a Jewish bill of a divorce as a ספר/bill [of divorcement] (Deuteronomy 25:1, 3); just as a bill (book) is unique and has no life-spirit in it and does not eat, so too everything which has no life-spirit in it and does not eat. And the Rabbis state that if he wrote it [the Jewish bill of divorce] in a document as you stated, here where it the word "ספר"/bill – it comes [to refer not to the writing material but merely to] the act of writing the words (formula of divorce (see Gittin 21b). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

אין כותבין במחובר – because it is missing “cutting.”

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with what a get may be written on.

כתבו על המחובר וכו' – This is how it should be said: If he wrote [the Jewish bill of the divorce] the blank form of the document [of the Jewish bill of divorce] on something attached, which is the entire Jewish bill of divorce except for the place of the man and the place of the woman and the time (i.e., date).

They do not write [a get] on something still attached to the ground. As we explained in yesterday’s mishnah, there can be no steps done to the get in between it’s having been completed and its being given to the woman. In yesterday’s mishnah that meant that if written on the horn of a cow, the husband has to give her the cow. Cutting off the cow’s horn and giving her the horn would not be valid. Today we learn that the get cannot be written on something still attached to the ground, for then the husband would have to cut it down in order to give it to his wife. He cannot give her the land to which the get is attached, because land cannot be transferred from hand to hand.

תלשו וחתמו – that is to say, that he [the scribe] wrote that part of the document that makes it binding, which is the place of the man and the place of the woman and the time (i.e., date).

If he wrote it on something still attached, and then detached and signed and given to the wife, it is valid. Rabbi Judah invalidates it until it is both written and signed on something detached from the ground. In this case, he wrote the get on something that was still attached to the ground, but then he detached it before he gave it to her. According to the first opinion, the signing of the get is the essential part, and therefore, as long as it was done on something detached from the ground, the get is valid. Rabbi Judah, however, holds that it is invalid unless it is written and signed on something which is already detached from the ground.

כשר – For since the part of the document that makes it binding was written on [something] detached, even though the blank form of the document was written while it was attached, it is valid.

Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: they do not write [a get] on a sheet from which writing has been erased nor on semi-finished parchment, for it can be faked. But the sages validate [such a get]. As I stated in yesterday’s mishnah, in the ancient world paper/parchment was scarce and expensive. Therefore they would reuse paper. There were types of materials which were rough and meant for reuse. Rabbi Judah ben Batera invalidates such writing materials for gittin, since they can be forged. Someone might erase one person’s name and write in another’s and the forgery would not be recognizable. However, the Sages say that we are not concerned about forgeries in the writing of the get. The Talmud explains that it is the witnesses who see the get being given to the woman who are critical. They will read the get when it is given to the woman and if afterwards someone tries to forge the get, these witnesses will be able to testify as to what was really written on it.

על נייר המחוק – because he can go back and erase it until [the names of the witnesses] and write upon it what he wants and no one would recognize anything, for the signature of the witnesses is written over an erasure.

דיפתרא – its erasure is not recognized. דיפתרא – that is, [prepared] with salt and flour, but not prepared with gall-nut juice.

וחכמים מכשירין – [The Sages validate] only in Jewish bills of divorce alone, as they think that the witnesses who deliver the Jewish bill of divorce [to the woman] make it [the divorce] final. For the Jewish bill of divorce that is delivered in the presence of the witnesses is the essence of the Jewish divorce, and not the witnesses who signed it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce]. But on other documents, we rely upon the witnesses who signed it [i.e., the document]. The Sages admit that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] cannot be written either on a blotted-out paper or on something prepared with gall-nut juice. And the Halakha is according the Sages.

ואפילו חרש שוטה וקטן – [and concerning them – the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor], a Jewish adult stands over them and says to him: Write this for the sake of “so-and-so.” But a heathen and a slave, even if an adult Jew stands over them, ab initio, he should not write the Jewish bill of divorce, because they have the temperament [to write a Jewish bill of divorce], and on their personal knowledge we operate, for even if a Jewish adult says to him: “Write for the sake of “so-and-so” , he should not write other than for himself. But if a heathen or slave wrote the blank form of the document [of the Jewish bill of divorce] and a Jew possessing awareness wrote the part of the document that makes it binding; which is the name of the man and the woman and the time (i.e., date), for all of these require [being written] for their sake (i.e., the man, the woman and the Jewish bill of divorce), the Jewish bill of divorce is valid. And similarly, a when we say in our Mishnah that a deaf-mute, imbecile and/or minor are fit to write a Jewish bill of divorce, these words refer to the blank form of the document, but not the part of the document that makes it binding, is not valid, other than if it is written by an adult Jew who possesses awareness.

Introduction The first section of this mishnah deals with who may write a get, and the second section with who may deliver a get.

חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן – who all lack awareness.

All are qualified to write a get, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor. A woman may write her own get and a man his own receipt [for the ketubah], since the document is upheld only by its signatures. Anyone can write a get including people who were categorically considered not to have “awareness”. These people can write a get even though they would not even understand what they are doing (remember that in the ancient world deaf people were wrongly considered to lack intelligence), because as we see below, the critical issue with the get is that it is signed by valid witnesses. Similarly, a woman may write her own get (this would make for an interesting scenario), and a man may write his own receipt for having paid the ketubah to his wife. Since the get is upheld not by checking who wrote it but who signed it, it matters not who does the writing. Although the woman has written her own get, the witnesses will not sign it unless they are sure that it was written upon the husband’s directive. Similarly, witnesses will not sign a receipt for payment unless they know that the husband paid the money to the wife.

וסומא – [A blind person] is prohibited from bring a Jewish bill of divorce from outside the land of Israel, because he is unable to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” But, to bring a Jewish bill of divorce in the land of Israel, where it is not necessary to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” or even in the Diaspora, if the Jewish bill of divorce is verified through its signatories, or to serve as the agent of the woman to receive her Jewish bill of divorce, for all of these, the blind person is considered valid.

All are qualified to bring a get except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person and a non-Jew. Almost anybody can deliver a get from a husband to his wife. The exceptions are again those people who categorically do not have awareness. In all areas of halakhah, someone who does not have “awareness” cannot act as someone else’s agent. A blind person can also not deliver a get, even though blind people were not considered to lack “awareness”. The Talmud explains this to mean that he cannot deliver a get from abroad to Israel because he cannot say “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Note that blind people were considered to have “awareness”, unlike deaf-mutes who could not really communicate. Non-Jews cannot marry or divorce Jews and therefore cannot serve as agents for delivering a get.

ונכרי – he is not [included] in laws of Divorce and Kiddushin/betrothal for the sake of marriage, and anything of his own person is not worthy, he cannot perform the act of agency for another.

קיבל הקטן – [The minor received] the Jewish bill of divorce from the hand of the husband.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of the end of yesterday’s mishnah which discussed those categories of people who are disqualified from delivering a get.

והגדיל – [became an adult] prior to his delivery of it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] to her [i.e., the wife].

If the minor had received the get [in order to deliver it] and then became of age; or the deaf-mute [received the get and then] his speech was restored; or the blind person [received the get and then] his sight was restored; or the imbecile [received the get and then] his reason returned; or the Gentile [received the get and then] converted, [the get] is invalid. In this case a person received the get while disqualified to deliver it (see yesterday’s mishnah) and then his/her status changed to one who is qualified to deliver the get before he/she delivered it. Since the person was disqualified when receiving the get in order to deliver it, the delivery is invalid, even though by the time the get was actually delivered the person was in a valid category.

פתוח ונסתמא וחזר ונתפתח – even if he was not restored to being sighted, since he was able to see at the time when he received the Jewish bill of divorce, he well is able to serve as an agent for he is able to say: “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” But, since it is required for [the Mishnah] to teach the concluding segment, “and he returned to being sighted,” that he [the agent] must be cognitively aware at the time of the giving [of the Jewish bill of divorce], the Mishnah teaches also at the beginning, “and he returned to being sighted.” But all those who are invalid for testimony through sin, are also invalid to bring the Jewish bill of divorce, for they are not believed to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” But if the Jewish bill of divorce is verified through its signatories, they are valid to bring it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce).

But if a person of sound senses [received the get] and then became a deaf-mute and then recovered his speech; or one with sight [received the get and then] became blind and then recovered his sight; or one who was sane [received the get and then] went insane and then recovered his reason, [the get] is valid. The general principle is that anyone who begins and finishes [his mission] in full possession of his mental faculties is qualified. In this case the person was qualified to deliver the get when it was received and when it was delivered but while in the process he/she briefly entered a status of one who is disqualified. As explained at the end of the mishnah, since the person was qualified at the two critical moments, the reception of the get from the husband and the delivery to the wife, the delivery is valid. The fact that the person was temporarily invalid in-between is immaterial. Note that this section cannot include a person who was Jewish and then apostatized to another religion and then returned to Judaism for in the eyes of Jewish law, a Jew cannot legally convert to another religion.

וחמותה ובת חמותה כו' – [they] are not believed to say that her husband died, because they hate her and intend to disgrace her.

Introduction This mishnah makes reference to Yevamoth 15:4. That mishnah teaches that some women may not testify that another woman’s husband has died. The fear is that these women will intentionally lie in order to trick the woman into remarrying while her husband is still alive, thereby causing an irreparable rupture in their marriage. In our mishnah we learn that although these women are not trusted to testify regarding the death of the husband, they are trusted to deliver a get.

ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – and especially when the husband made a condition with her at the time that he delivered the Jewish bill of divorce to her hand and said to her: You will not be divorced other than in the court of so-and-so, and you will say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” And the court takes it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] from her hand after she said, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” and appoint an agent who will go back and give it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] to her, but the wife whose Jewish bill of divorce leaves her hand in whatever place she happens to be, is [considered to be] divorced. And even if the Jewish bill of divorce’s signatories are not verified, and she does not have to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

Even the women who are not trusted to say “Her husband died,” are trusted to bring her get: her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival wife, her sister-in-law (husband’s brother’s and the daughter of her husband. These five women may dislike or even hate a wife and therefore cannot testify that her husband died (see Yevamoth 15:4). As stated in the introduction, these women may nevertheless deliver a get to a wife, thereby showing to her that she is divorced and allowed to remarry.

What is the difference between the get and death? The writing [on the get] proves [that she is divorced.] In this section the mishnah questions why these women can deliver a get but not testify regarding a husband’s death. The answer is that the get’s validity is ultimately proved by those who wrote and signed the get, and not by the person who delivered it. Although an agent delivering a get is under certain circumstances required to declare “In my presence it was signed and in my presence it was delivered”, this is not truly testimony, but rather a means of allowing the get to be accepted without checking its validity. This is why those who are not allowed to testify can still deliver a get and make the above declaration. In contrast, testifying that a husband has died is truly testimony. Therefore, since we fear that these women may lie, they are not trusted. [Note that women in general are allowed to testify regarding a husband’s death in order to lessen the problem of wives not knowing if their husbands have died.]

A woman may bring her own get but she must say, “In my presence it was signed and in my presence it was delivered.” Theoretically speaking a woman could even bring her own get and this would not be considered testifying about herself, since the writing on the get proves its validity. However, she is still required to state, “In my presence it was signed and in my presence it was delivered”, the statement that is always required when a get is brought from abroad to the land of Israel. This situation could happen if the husband gave her the get outside of Israel but told her that he didn’t want the divorce to be enacted until she reached Israel. A truly Zionist husband!