## Gittin Daf 10a

###### Gittin 10a:1
[Gittin 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:1)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It is possible that even the first *tanna* holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that the witnesses who observe its transmission effect the divorce, and he does not dispute Rabbi Shimon on this point. Instead, **the** difference **between** the first *tanna* and Rabbi Shimon concerns a case where the signatures on the bill of divorce are **unambiguous [*muvhakin*]** gentile **names.** The first *tanna* holds that although a bill of divorce is valid if it was transmitted in the presence of valid witnesses, there is always a concern that it might have been transmitted in the presence of the same gentile witnesses who signed it. Therefore, it is rendered invalid by rabbinic law. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon holds that if it contained names that clearly belonged to gentiles it can be assumed that the bill of divorce was transmitted in the presence of two valid witnesses, and therefore it is valid.


###### Gittin 10a:2
[Gittin 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:2)

וְהָא חֲזָרָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְקָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **But** the *halakha* of **retraction** applies **by Torah law,** as according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the husband can retract his instruction to give the bill of divorce and the master can retract his instruction to give the bill of manumission by Torah law, thereby canceling the agency. **And** yet the *baraita* **teaches** it among the ways in which bills of divorce are equal to bills of manumission. This indicates that the *tanna* does not distinguish between a case that applies by Torah law and one that applies by rabbinic law.


###### Gittin 10a:3
[Gittin 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:3)

אֶלָּא כִּי קָתָנֵי – מִילְּתָא דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין, מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתַהּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין – לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara retracts from the previous explanation in favor of the following: **When** the *baraita* **teaches** the ways in which the two are equal it teaches only **a matter that does not** apply **with regard to** the *halakhot* of **betrothal;** however, **it does not teach a matter that does** apply **with regard to** the *halakhot* **of betrothal.**


###### Gittin 10a:4
[Gittin 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:4)

וְהָא חֲזָרָה גּוּפַהּ אִיתָא בְּקִידּוּשִׁין! בִּשְׁלִיחוּת בְּעַל כּוֹרְחָהּ, דִּבְגֵירוּשִׁין אִיתַהּ וּבְקִידּוּשִׁין לֵיתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But retraction itself is** also applicable **with regard to betrothal,** as one who sent a betrothal document with an agent can retract it. The Gemara says: The *halakha* of agency in the case of betrothal is not the same as that of divorce, as there is a difference **with regard to agency** undertaken to enact a matter **against** the recipient’s **will.** If one appointed an agent for a matter that the recipient does not want, e.g., to betroth a woman against her will or to free a slave against his will, **as with regard to divorce, it is** a valid agency, as a bill of divorce need not be given with the woman’s consent, **but with regard to betrothal it is not** a valid agency, as a woman can be betrothed only with her consent.


###### Gittin 10a:5
[Gittin 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי – פָּסוּל, חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה, וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Any document that has a Samaritan witness** signed **on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission. An incident** occurred in **which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.**


###### Gittin 10a:6
[Gittin 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא תַּנָּא קַמָּא, וְלָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְלָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna?** It is **not** the opinion of **the first *tanna*, nor** that of **Rabbi Elazar, nor** that of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** cited in the following *baraita*.


###### Gittin 10a:7
[Gittin 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:7)

דְּתַנְיָא: מַצַּת כּוּתִי – מוּתֶּרֶת, וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹסֵר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּדִקְדּוּקֵי מִצְוֹת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ כּוּתִים – הַרְבֵּה מְדַקְדְּקִין בָּהּ, יוֹתֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Pesaḥim* 1:15): The ***matza* of a Samaritan is permitted** on Passover, as there is no concern that it might be leaven, **and a person fulfills his obligation** to eat *matza* **on** the first night of **Passover with it. Rabbi Elazar prohibits** the consumption of the *matza* of a Samaritan **because** the Samaritans **are not well-versed in the details of mitzvot. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** On the contrary, with regard to **any mitzva that the Samaritans embraced** and accepted, **they are more exacting in its** observance **than** are **Jews.**


###### Gittin 10a:8
[Gittin 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:8)

מַנִּי? אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי! אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט אִשָּׁה נָמֵי לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Whose** opinion is expressed in the mishna? **If** it is the opinion of **the first *tanna*** in the *baraita*, then **even other documents** should be valid when signed by Samaritan witnesses. By ruling that one can fulfill his obligation with Samaritan *matza*, this *tanna* apparently holds that the status of Samaritans is the same as that of Jews. If so, that should be their status with regard to their testimony on any document. **If** the opinion in the mishna is that of **Rabbi Elazar,** who expresses the concern that Samaritans are not well versed in the details of mitzvot, they should **not** be fit to sign **even a bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 10a:9
[Gittin 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:9)

וְאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל; אִי דְּאַחְזוּק – אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי, אִי דְּלָא אַחְזוּק – אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט אִשָּׁה נָמֵי לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the opinion in the mishna is that of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** the *halakha* should depend on the following consideration: **If they embrace** and accept the mitzva associated with the subject of the document, **even** with regard to **other documents** their testimony should be valid; **if they do not embrace** and accept the mitzva associated with the subject of the document, they should **not** be rendered fit to sign **even a bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 10a:10
[Gittin 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:10)

וְכִי תֵּימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וּדְאַחְזוּק בְּהָא וְלָא אַחְזוּק בְּהָא, אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא חַד? אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד כּוּתִי בִּלְבָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that the opinion in the mishna **is** that of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and** the Samaritans **embrace this** mitzva of bills of divorce, **but** they **do not embrace this** mitzva associated with the subject of other documents, **if so, why** is a bill of divorce valid **specifically** in a case where only **one** Samaritan witness signed it? The same would hold true **even** if **two** Samaritan witnesses signed the bill of divorce **as well. Why,** then, **does Rabbi Elazar say:** The Sages **deemed it valid only** when there is **just one Samaritan witness** signed on the bill of divorce?


###### Gittin 10a:11
[Gittin 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10a:11)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וּכְגוֹן דְּחָתֵים יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבַסּוֹף,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the opinion expressed in the mishna is that of **Rabbi Elazar,** and as a rule, one may not rely on the testimony of a Samaritan on a document. **And** the mishna is referring to a case **where a Jew signed** the document **last,**