## Gittin Daf 10b

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

דְּאִי לָאו דְּכוּתִי חָבֵר הֲוָה, לָא מַחְתֵּים לֵיהּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as, if not** for the fact **that the Samaritan was one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot [*ḥaver*],** the Jew would **not** have allowed **him** to **sign** the document **before him.** Therefore, one may rely on this Samaritan in this particular case. The Gemara asks: **If so,** that the mishna is referring to that case, then **even other documents** should be valid **as well,** if a Jew signed after the Samaritan.


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

אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן רַוְוחָא שְׁבַק לְמַאן דְּקַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ; הָכָא נָמֵי, רַוְוחָא שְׁבַק לְמַאן דְּקַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this is not the case with regard to other documents, as **we say** that the fact that the Jew signed last does not prove that this Samaritan was a *ḥaver*, as perhaps in signing last **he was leaving space** above his signature **for one who was older than he is** in deference to the elder, and instead, a Samaritan came and signed the document. The Gemara asks: **Here too,** in the case of a bill of divorce, perhaps he **was leaving space** above his signature **for one who was his elder.** Why, then, are bills of divorce and bills of manumission valid while other documents are not?


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, עֵדֵי הַגֵּט אֵין חוֹתְמִין זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says: That is to say,** in explanation of the difference between bills of divorce and manumission and other documents, that **the witnesses of a bill of divorce** and a bill of manumission **may not sign one without the other;** rather, each witness signs in the presence of the other. A Jew would be aware that a Samaritan was signing with him, and he would not sign unless he knew that the Samaritan was a valid witness. However, with regard to other documents, witnesses are not required to sign such documents in each other’s presence. Therefore, the signature of the Jew indicates nothing about the fitness of the Samaritan witness.


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

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם ״כּוּלְּכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission together? **Rav Ashi says:** It is a rabbinic **decree** issued **due to** a case where the husband says: **All of you** are witnesses on this bill of divorce. In that case, if any one of them fails to sign the bill of divorce, it is invalid. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce together in all cases.


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

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד כּוּתִי בִּלְבַד. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי – פָּסוּל כּוּ׳!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Since the Gemara mentioned the *halakha* stated by Rabbi Elazar, it analyzes **the** matter **itself. Rabbi Elazar says: They deemed** a bill of divorce **valid only** when **just one witness** is **a Samaritan.** The Gemara asks: **What is he teaching us** by this statement? **We** already **learned** in the mishna: **Any document that has a Samaritan witness on it is invalid** except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. This indicates that those are valid only if they have the signature of one Samaritan witness, not two.


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

אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי נָמֵי; וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי חַד, מִשּׁוּם דְּבִשְׁטָרוֹת אֲפִילּוּ חַד נָמֵי לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If** it is learned **from the mishna** alone **I would have said** that **even two** Samaritan witnesses are **also** valid for a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission. **And** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches one** witness is **because** it wants to emphasize **that for** other **documents even one** Samaritan witness **is also not** valid. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer **teaches us** that in the case of bills of divorce only one Samaritan witness is valid, but if both witnesses are Samaritans the bill of divorce is not valid.


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

וּתְרֵי לָא?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה, וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּנִי: ״עֵדוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** are **two** Samaritan witnesses **not** accepted on a bill of divorce? **But** the mishna **teaches: 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. Abaye said** that one should **teach** the mishna so that it does not read: Its witnesses, but rather: **Its witness,** i.e., Rabban Gamliel deemed valid a bill of divorce that had the signature of one Samaritan witness, as even he would invalidate a bill of divorce that included the signatures of two Samaritans.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם תְּרֵי, וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִיפְלָג פְּלִיג; וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַכְשִׁיר בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה, וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually,** you do not need to say that the case was concerning one Samaritan witness, as it indeed is referring to **two** Samaritans witnesses, **and Rabban Gamliel disagrees** with the opinion of the first *tanna*. **And** the mishna **is incomplete and this** is what **it is teaching: And Rabban Gamliel deems valid** a bill of divorce **that** contains the signatures of **two** Samaritans, **and 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 10b:9
[Gittin 10b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִים בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶם גּוֹיִם – כְּשֵׁירִים; חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין, לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **all documents produced in gentile courts, even though their signatures** are those of **gentiles** they are all **valid, except for bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission. Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid,** as these two types of documents are **mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person,** not in court.


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

**גְּמָ׳** קָא פָּסֵיק וְתָנֵי – לָא שְׁנָא מֶכֶר לָא שְׁנָא מַתָּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the ruling of the mishna that all documents written in gentile courts are valid, the Gemara comments: The *tanna* **categorically teaches** a general *halakha* in the mishna, and it **is no different** if it is a document concerning **a sale** and it **is no different** if it is a document concerning **a gift,** the document is valid in both cases.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא מֶכֶר, מִכִּי יָהֵיב זוּזֵי קַמַּיְיהוּ הוּא דִּקְנָה; וּשְׁטָרָא רְאָיָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – דְּאִי לָא יָהֵיב זוּזֵי קַמַּיְיהוּ, לָא הֲווֹ מַרְעִי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ וְכָתְבִין לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** in the case of **a sale** this is reasonable, as **from when** the buyer **gave money** to the seller in the presence of the gentile judges **he has acquired** the property, since he has performed an act of acquisition. **And the document is merely a proof** for the acquisition. It must be that he already acquired the property in question, **as if he had not given money in their presence** the court **would not act to its own detriment and write a document for him,** as the document detailing the sale would not be accurate, and writing such a document would reflect poorly on them. Therefore, the document clearly serves as proof that the acquisition was performed in the correct manner.


###### Gittin 10b:12
[Gittin 10b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10b:12)

אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה, בְּמַאי קָא קָנֵי – לָאו בְּהַאי שְׁטָרָא? וְהַאי שְׁטָרָא חַסְפָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא – דִּינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** with regard to **a gift, by what** means does the one who receives the gift **acquire** it from the giver? Is it **not via this document? And** yet **this document is merely a shard,** as a document written by gentiles is not considered a legal document according to *halakha*. **Shmuel said: The law of the kingdom is the law,** i.e., Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live. Consequently, every form of property transfer accepted by local law is valid according to *halakha* as well.


###### Gittin 10b:13
[Gittin 10b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10b:13)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, תָּנֵי ״חוּץ מִכְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that one should emend the text of the mishna, and **teach:** They are all valid **except for** documents that are **like bills of divorce.** In other words, the distinction is between different types of documents: Documents that are meant to serve only as proof are valid even if they were produced in gentile courts, whereas documents that effect a legal act, such as bills of divorce, are invalid if they were written in a gentile court.


###### Gittin 10b:14
[Gittin 10b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10b:14)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵלּוּ, כְּשֵׁירִין וְכוּ׳: וְהָא לָאו בְּנֵי כְרִיתוּת נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **Rabbi Shimon says: Even these** bills of divorce and bills of manumission **are valid** if they were written in a gentile court and were signed by gentiles. The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Shimon rule in this manner? **But** gentiles are not fit for this role, as **they are not subject to** the *halakhot* concerning scrolls of **severance.** Since the *halakhot* of marriage and divorce in the Torah are stated exclusively with regard to Jews, gentiles cannot serve in any capacity in cases of this kind.


###### Gittin 10b:15
[Gittin 10b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: יָרַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְשִׁיטָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira says: Rabbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says** that **the witnesses of the transmission** of the bill of divorce **effect** the divorce. In other words, the signing of the bill of divorce is not essential to its effectiveness. Rather, the transfer of the bill of divorce completes the act of divorce, and therefore no attention is paid to who the signatories were.


###### Gittin 10b:16
[Gittin 10b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/10b:16)

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּמְזוּיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ, שֶׁפָּסוּל! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say** that although he considers a bill of divorce valid even without the signature of witnesses, **Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to** a document **whose falsification is inherent in it that** it is **invalid** despite the fact that it was properly transferred. In other words, notwithstanding the *halakha* that the signatures on a bill of divorce are unnecessary, a document that includes invalid signatures is thereby invalidated. The reason is that there is a concern that people will rely upon these witnesses. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?**