Commento su Gittin 1:10

המביא גט ממדינת הים – All [areas] that are outside of the land of Israel are called, “countries aboard.”

Introduction This mishnah teaches that messengers who deliver divorce documents from abroad must declare that the document was written and signed in their presence. In the Talmud there are two explanations for this requirement. The first is that if the husband comes to protest the get, saying that he did not send it, the people who heard the messenger testify that he saw it written and signed will be able to disregard a husband’s potential appeal. This is especially important if his wife had already remarried and had children. If her get is invalidated, her subsequent children would become mamzerim. The reason why the testimony of the messenger is only necessary if he comes from abroad is that in such a case it would be more difficult to find the original witnesses. Furthermore, in the ancient world travel was often dangerous, and the original witnesses could not always travel to testify concerning the validity of the get. The testimony of the messenger makes it easier to uphold the validity of the get, in essence a service for the woman. The other opinion in the Talmud, which is really an additional opinion, is that outside of the Land of Israel they were not knowledgeable in writing gittin. Therefore, someone who came from abroad had to testify that it was written properly. Those which were written in the Land of Israel did not need such testimony.

צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – There are those who give the [following] reason, because there aren’t Torah scholars found in countries abroad, and they don’t know that one must write the Jewish bill of divorce for [the express purpose of] the [specific] woman. Therefore, the agent states, “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” And of itself, we ask him [the agent] if it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was written for her sake [alone], and he answers in the affirmative; [on the other hand,] there are those who say that the reason [that he must say that the Jewish bill of divorce was written in his presence and signed in his presence], because caravans [bearing numbers of people] are not found [traveling] from there to here, for if the husband would coביןme and raise a complaint [contesting the legality of the action] saying: “I did not write it,” witnesses would be found to recognize the signatures of those who witnessed [the writing of the Jewish bill of divorce]. But the Rabbis believed the agent as if he were two [witnesses], and furthermore, the complaint of the husband would have no effect.

One who brings a get from abroad [to the Land of Israel] must declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” This section was explained in the introduction.

בין קדש ובין ברד – (As is written in Genesis 16:14): “[Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi;] it is between Kadesh and Bered.” And the Aramaic (Onkelos) translation of this is: "מן הרקם ומן החגר" .

Rabban Gamaliel says: even one who brings it from Rekem or from Heger. Rabbi Eleazar says: even one who brings it from Kefar Ludim to Lud. The sages, however, say: declaration “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed” is required only from one who brings a get from abroad or who takes it there. The tannaim in this section, Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Elazar and the other sages disagree with regard to the applicability of the halakhah in section one. According to Rabban Gamaliel, even if a messenger brings a get from towns such as Rekem or Heger which lie on the border, he must recite the formula. This is either because it is hard to bring the witnesses from these towns to testify, or because people who live on the border do not know how to properly write gittin. Rabbi Elazar adds that even if the two cities lie adjacent but one is in the land of Israel and one is not, such as Kefar Ludim, which is outside and Lud which is inside, one must still recite the formula. However, the sages disagree and hold that the formula must be recited only by one who brings a get from abroad, or one who brings one back from there. The reason that someone bringing a get from Israel to a different land must recite the formula is lest the original witnesses cannot be found in order to uphold the get.

אפילו מכפר לודים – which is considered outside of the land of Israel.

One who brings [a get] from one province to another province in foreign lands is also required to declare, “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even from one hegemony to another hegemony. Just as the messenger must make the declaration that the get was written and signed in his presence when bringing the get to and from Israel, so too must he make the declaration when bringing the get to and from provinces outside of the land. The reason is that the original witnesses may be difficult to find if there is a need to uphold the get. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel adds that even within one province, if he is switching hegemonies, places ruled by different governors, all within the Roman empire, he must make the declaration.

ללוד – which is near it and it is from the land of Israel.

מהגמוניא להגמוניא – there were in one town two jurisdictions jealous of each other (Gittin 4a).

מרקם למזרח – from Rekem until the end of the world to its east is called outside the land of Israel. But Rekem itself is judged as being in the eastern part of the world and not in the land of Israel.

Introduction In this mishnah the tannaim continue to debate the definitions of what is inside the land of Israel and what is considered “abroad”, such that a messenger who brings a get from there must state, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Whereas in the previous mishnah, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer debated the borders, in this mishnah Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir, who lived two generations later, debate. We should note that the Hebrew word for “abroad” is literally translated, “the province of the sea.” This may mean a place accessible by sea travel but it may also mean coastal towns contiguous with the land of Israel. Often people would travel to coastal towns by sea, so there would be difficulty in bringing witnesses from there to the hinterland. Furthermore, these towns were usually more populated by Greek speakers, who settled on the coasts to control the trade. Jews, or at least Aramaic speaking, less Hellenistic Jews, tended to live inlands. Hence, the rabbis feared that those who live on the coast, “abroad”, do not know how to properly write a divorce document.

Rabbi Judah says: From Rekem eastwards, Rekem being like the east; from Ashkelon southwards, Ashkelon being like the south; and from Acco northwards, Acco being like the north. Rabbi Meir says: Acco counts as the land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce. Rabbi Judah defines cities that he considers outside of the land of Israel, at least for issues of divorce. Rabbi Meir disagrees with him concerning Acco.

ואם יש עליו עוררים – that the husband complains that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] is forged.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with which messengers must recite the formula “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.”

יתקיים בחותמיו – if the witnesses will testify on their own signatures, or other witnesses who recognize their signatures [of the original witnesses], it is valid. And in our times, a person who brings a Jewish bill of divorce whether from the land of Israel or from outside the land of Israel must give it to her [the wife] in the presence of two [witnesses] and must say: ”It was written my presence and signed in my presence.” And if the signatures of the witnesses are recognized in the location where the Jewish bill of divorce is delivered and the Jewish bill of divorce is validated through its signatories, there is no need to say: “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

One who brings a get within the land of Israel need not declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” If there are those who protest [its validity] it must be established through the signatures. A messenger who brings a get from one place within the land of Israel to another place need not say the formula “In my presence” etc. The formula is only mandatory for cases where it will be difficult to locate witnesses to validate the get. Within the borders of the land of Israel this will not be difficult. Furthermore, it was only people outside of the land who did not know how to write and sign gittin, and therefore the messenger had to testify to its validity. Within the land there was no such concern. If someone should come and protest the get, saying that it is false, the court could summons the witnesses.

ואינו יכול לומר – [it was written in my presence and signed in my presence] for example, that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was given to her when he was lucid but he was not able to say: “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence” until he became a deaf-mute.

If one who brings a get from abroad is not able to declare “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, if there are witnesses on it, its validity can be established through its signatures. This section discusses a messenger who did not see the get written and signed, and therefore cannot state, “In my presence…” In such a case, the default procedure is to validate the get through the witnesses who have signed on it. In this case the woman receiving the get cannot remarry until its validity has been proven. In contrast, in the above case, if the get is brought within Israel, she may remarry without validating the get. She only needs to validate if others protest its validity.

שוין למוליך ומביא – to state “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

Introduction Today’s mishnah begins to compare the laws concerning bills of divorce with those concerning writs of emancipation for slaves. These comparisons will continue until the end of the chapter. In Aramaic the word “get” means document and not necessarily just a divorce document. The word can refer to either divorce or emancipation documents, as well as other documents. Furthermore, there is some similarity to the two situations (marriage in the ancient world and slavery) and between the ways that the two documents (divorce and emancipation) are written. However, we should not think that the comparison between divorce and emancipation is complete. The major difference is that a man may sell his slave but he may of course not sell his wife.

Both bills of divorce and writs of emancipation are similar [concerning a messenger] who takes them [abroad from the land of Israel] to one who brings them [from abroad to the land of Israel]. The rules which we learned above concerning the declaration that a messenger must make upon presenting a get also apply to a messenger delivering a writ of emancipation. Whether he brings the get from Israel to a foreign land or brings it to Israel, the messenger bringing either document must say “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.”

This is one of the ways in which bills of divorce are similar to writs of emancipation. This section introduces the similarities between the two documents which will be discussed in the following mishnayoth.

חוץ מגיטי נשים – that if there was upon it [a Jewish bill of divorce] one witnesses who is a Cuthean/a member of the sect of the Samaritans (on occasion, this word is used in place of גוי/non-Jew; עכו"ם /idol worshiper or מין/sectarian as a result of censorship), it is valid, if both of the them are Cutheans, the first teacher of the Mishnah disqualifies them for Jewish bills of divorce, but Rabban Gamaliel relates a story where he validated [it], even where both of them [the witnesses] were Cutheans. But nowadays, they [the Rabbis] decreed [against] the Cutheans as they were [to be considered] as non-Jews in all matters, making no distinction between other documents and Jewish bills of divorce, for even if one witness was a Cuthean, it [the document] is invalid.

Introduction The first section of this mishnah deals with documents whose signators are Samaritans. The Samaritans were a Jewish splinter group whose history is somewhat blurry. For more information on the Samaritans, see the introduction to Nedarim 3:10. The second section of the mishnah deals with documents pertaining to Jews which were validated in non-Jewish courts. This was certainly a common phenomenon in the mishnaic periods. The Greco-Roman court system was well-developed, as were their laws. As subjects, if not always citizens, of the Roman Empire, Jews would have had some legal recourse to Roman courts and justice. Therefore, the rabbis had to discuss the validity of documents which were upheld in these courts.

בערכאות של גוים – that the witnesses would offer their testimony before the sitting judge in the place where their matters of justice take place. But this is where they knew that judge and of those witnesses who do not accept bribes. And this specifically [refers to] loan documents and documents of sale where the witnesses saw funds exchanged. But documents of admission and Jewish bills of divorce, and any thing which is a legal matter in their [i.e., Roman] gentile offices, everything is invalid.

Any document which has upon it the signature of a Samaritan is invalid, except for bills of divorce or a writ of emancipation. It happened that a bill of divorce was once brought before Rabban Gamaliel at Kefar Otnai and its witnesses were Samaritan, and he declared it valid. The mishnah teaches that all documents which have upon them signatures of people known to be Samaritans are invalid, except for bills of divorce or writs of emancipation. According to Albeck, Samaritans were suspected by the rabbis of lying with regard to issues of money, and therefore they could not serve as witnesses for matters such as loans and acquisitions. However, they were evidently not suspected of lying in matters of divorce or emancipation and hence they could serve as witnesses in these matters. Furthermore, they were assumed to be knowledgeable enough in matters of divorce and emancipation. Indeed, according to the mishnah, Rabban Gamaliel once allowed even two Samaritans to serve as witnesses on a get. This occurred at Kefar Otnai, in the southern Galilee.

רבי שמעון אומר כשרים – they were not mentioned in the Jewish academy (Bet Midrash) to be invalidated.

All documents which are accepted in the courts of non-Jew, even if those who signed on the documents are non-Jews, are valid except bills of divorce and of writs of emancipation. Rabbi Shimon says: these also are valid; they were only pronounced [to be invalid] when done by ordinary persons. This section of the mishnah deals with documents that were upheld by non-Jewish courts or even signed by non-Jews. In this case, these documents are generally valid with the exception of divorce and emancipation documents. Monetary documents are valid, because non-Jews are trustworthy to adjudicate monetary matters. However, since they do not know the laws of Jewish divorce and emancipation, bills of divorce and writs of emancipation could not be upheld in non-Jewish courts, nor could those who signed them be non-Jewish. Rabbi Shimon partially disagrees with the opinion in the previous clause. According to him, the earlier opinion that said that divorce and emancipation documents done in non-Jewish courts are invalid, referred only to those done by courts which lack knowledge of the laws. However, if the court was an expert court, they may even draw up divorce and emancipation documents, even though they are not Jewish.

אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט – through non-Jewish commoners who are not judges, but the Halakha does not follow like [the opinion of] Rabbi Shimon.

רצה לחזור בשניהן – before it [the Jewish bill of divorce or the bill of manumission] reaches the hand of the woman and/or the slave.

Introduction The topic of this mishnah is a man who instructs a messenger to give a get to his wife, or a writ of emancipation to his slave, and then changes his mind or dies before the document is delivered.

יחזור – But the agent cannot provide their needs for their benefit since it [the document] is something to their detriment and they lose their food/support.

If a man says: “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, if he wants he may change his mind on either document, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: he may change his mind in the case of the get but not in the case of the writ of emancipation, since a benefit may be conferred on a person not in his presence but a disability may be imposed on him only in his presence; for if he does not want to maintain his slave he is permitted, but if he does not want to maintain his wife he is not permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: behold, he disqualifies his slave from eating terumah [by emancipating him] in the same way that he disqualifies his wife [by divorcing her]? They said to him: [the slave is disqualified] because he is the priest’s property. According to Rabbi Meir, the husband may change his mind after instructing an agent to give a get to his wife or a writ of emancipation to his slave. The Sages disagree and say that he may change his mind only with regard to the get. He may not change his mind with regard to the freeing of the slave. The reason is that there is a principle that one may confer benefit on another person not in that person’s presence, but one may not confer a disability on a person not in that person’s presence. In our situation, the woman/slave is not in the husband/master’s presence at the moment and that is why the husband is instructing a messenger. For the woman, divorce is a considerable disability for she loses her guaranteed source of income. Should the husband not want to provide maintenance for his wife (food, clothing etc.) he does not have the right to do so. He may not say to her, take whatever income you make and use it for your own maintenance. In contrast, the slave has no such guarantee. A master may say to his slave that he must provide his own maintenance. Note that a master may not tell his slave to work for the master and the master will not provide maintenance. The master may only stop providing maintenance, if he allows the slave to work for his own maintenance. Nevertheless, the slave’s income is not guaranteed as is that of the wife, therefore it is a total disability for him not to be freed. Since this is so, the master may not retract freeing his slave once he has told a messenger to do so. Rabbi Meir responds that in some ways freeing a slave is a disability and therefore, just as he can retract in giving the slave his manumission, so too he can retract from divorcing his wife. The disability for the slave is that if he was owned by a priest, he could eat terumah. Upon emancipation, he loses such a right. The sages respond that the slave’s eating terumah is not a “benefit”; rather it is something he is allowed to do because the master owns him. Indeed, the priest could sell his slave to an Israelite and thereby disqualify him from eating terumah without freeing him. Therefore, loss of terumah is not truly a disability to the slave.

וחכמים אומרים: בגיטי נשים – He (i.e., the husband) can retract (his Jewish bill of divorce),

If a man says, “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, and dies [before they are given], they do not give [the documents] after his death. [If he said], “Give a maneh to so-and-so” and died, the money should be given after his death. In this case, the husband/master dies before the document is given. The mishnah teaches that in cases of divorce and emancipation, the messenger should not give the document after the husband/master’s death. A get and a writ of manumission do not go into effect until they are given. Since a dead man cannot divorce his wife or free his slave, the documents cannot be given after his death. In contrast, when a dying person gives a present, his mere statement transfers ownership. Therefore, the present should be given even after the giver’s death.

אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים – but he cannot retract in his bill of manumission of slaves. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי – Therefore, when he (i.e., the owner) frees him (i.e., his slave), he does not cause him to lose his support/food, but he is not permitted to feed his wife; therefore, if he divorces her, she causes her to lose her support/food.

מפני שהוא קנינו – That is to say, since he {i.e., the slave] eats the heave-offering/Terumah when the slave is the servant of a Kohen/Priest, it is only because he is the purchase-property of the Kohen/Priest, since regarding the cattle of Kohen/Priest which can eat the veches of Terumah/heave-offering, but it is not a a perfect comparison. Therefore, when he frees him (i.e. the slave), even though he causes him to lose the ability to eat Terumah/heave-offering, it is not an obligation for the slave [to do so].

לא יתנו לאחר מיתה – The Get/Jewish bill of divorce does not take effect until it reaches her hand, and if it reaches her hand, he has died, and there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death. And similarly, the document of manumission, when it reaches his (i.e. the slave’s) hand if he died, his ownership over him is broken.

יתנו לאחר מיתה – even though he (i.e., the now deceased owner) did not say, “this Maneh”/weight equivalent to fifty silver shekels, since the words of someone who is on his death bed are regarded as if they are written and transmitted.