Rabba’s reason why the agent has to say “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara tries to align which tanna subscribes to Rabba’s reason that the agent needs to say the get was written and signed before him.
To appreciate the Gemara, we have to understand the
disagreement concerning what effectuates the get and dissolves the marriage. Is it the witnesses who signed the get that dissolves the marriage? Or is
it the witnesses who witnessed the get
being delivered to the woman dissolves the marriage? Rabbi Meir holds it is the
witnesses sign the get while Rabbi
Eliezer holds it is the witnesses who witness the get being delivered. We shall see that this debate will continue
throughout our entire massekhet.
Neither seem to be good candidates. Rabbi Meir would
hold that the agent would only have to say it was signed in my presence. Rabbi
Eliezer would hold that the agent would only have to say it was written in my
presence.
“If
it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he requires
signing for her sake; however, he does not require that the writing
must be for her sake. As we learned in a mishna (21b): One may not
write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the
ground, e.g., a leaf attached to a tree. However, if he wrote it on
something that is attached to the ground, and then he detached it,
signed it, and gave it to her, it is valid. This indicates that the
essential stage of writing a bill of divorce is when it is signed by witnesses.
The Gemara says that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion, as an unattributed ruling in
the mishna typically follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
“If
it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with
Rabbi Meir and requires that the writing must be for her sake, he
does not require that the signing must be for her sake. And if
you would say that actually the mishna is in accordance with
the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when Rabbi Elazar does not require signing
for her sake, he means by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law he
requires that bills of divorce must be signed for her sake; but that
is untenable, as the Sages listed three bills of divorce that are valid
by Torah law but are invalid by rabbinic law, and when he disputes that
ruling Rabbi Elazar does not require that the signing must be for
her sake.
"As we learned in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman married another man after having received one of these bills of divorce the offspring is of unflawed lineage. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would render their child as one born from an adulterous relationship [mamzer]. And these three are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but there are no signatures of witnesses on the document; and if there are the signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it; and if there is a date written on it but it has only one witness signed on it. These are the three invalid bills of divorce concerning which the Sages said: And if she married, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.
“The mishna continues: Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he gave it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written to her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Elazar maintains that witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband could contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. In any case, it can be seen from this mishna that according to Rabbi Elazar the signatures of the witnesses are not an essential part of a bill of divorce. Consequently, it does not need to be signed for her sake, even by rabbinic law. ” (Sefaria.org translation)
This analysis continues on tomorrow’s
daf.
No comments:
Post a Comment