## Gittin Daf 11b

###### Gittin 11b:1
[Gittin 11b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:1)

עֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עַל הַגֵּט וּשְׁמוֹתָן כְּשֵׁמוֹת גּוֹיִם, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקוּס וְלוּס, וְהִכְשַׁרְנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **witnesses who signed a bill of divorce and whose names are like the names of gentiles, what is** the *halakha*? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: There came before us** bills of divorce that were signed **only** with names such as **Lukos and Los, and we deemed** them **valid** by means of the witnesses of transmission.


###### Gittin 11b:2
[Gittin 11b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:2)

וְדַוְקָא לוֹקוּס וְלוּס, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּמַסְּקִי בִּשְׁמָהָתַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל שְׁמָהָתָא אַחֲרִינֵי דִּשְׁכִיחִי יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּמַסְּקִי בִּשְׁמָהָתַיְיהוּ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **And** this applies **specifically** to names such as **Lukos and Los, as it is uncommon** to find **Jews who are called by these names. However,** with regard to **other** gentile **names,** concerning **which it is common** to find **Jews who are called by these names, no,** the documents are not valid, as people might mistakenly rely on the signatures of gentiles.


###### Gittin 11b:3
[Gittin 11b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:3)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: גִּיטִּין הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְעֵדִים חֲתוּמִים עֲלֵיהֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן כִּשְׁמוֹת גּוֹיִם – כְּשֵׁירִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן כִּשְׁמוֹת גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **raised an objection to** this ruling from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 4:8): With regard to **bills of divorce that come from a country overseas, and witnesses are signed upon them, even though the names** of the witnesses **are like the names of gentiles, they are valid, because the names of most Jews outside of Eretz** Yisrael **are like the names of gentiles.** This indicates that a bill of divorce is valid even when the names are not clearly those of gentiles.


###### Gittin 11b:4
[Gittin 11b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:4)

הָתָם, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן כִּשְׁמוֹת גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There** the *halakha* is different, **as it teaches the reason** explicitly: **Because the names of most Jews outside of Eretz** Yisrael **are like the names of gentiles.** Consequently, it can be assumed that the court examined the matter at the time of the signing, and that the document was signed by Jews. However, in Eretz Yisrael it is more likely that ambiguous names are actually those of gentiles, and therefore a document of this kind is valid only when it is clear it was signed by gentiles, to avoid mistakes.


###### Gittin 11b:5
[Gittin 11b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:5)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, כִּי מַתְנִיתָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ, וּפְשַׁט לֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This was one version of the discussion. **And there are** those **who say** that Reish Lakish **asked** Rabbi Yoḥanan about the very **same** case as **in the *baraita*, and he resolved** the matter **for him from the *baraita*,** that even if the names signed on a bill of divorce brought from outside of Eretz Yisrael are like the names of gentiles, they are valid.


###### Gittin 11b:6
[Gittin 11b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר ״תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן – יַחְזוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who says** to another: **Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or:** Give **this bill of manumission to my slave, if** before the document reaches the woman or the slave the giver **wishes to retract** his decision, then **with regard to both of them, he can retract.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Gittin 11b:7
[Gittin 11b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:7)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים; לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** One can retract his decision **in** the case of **bills of divorce but not in** the case of bills **of manumission.** The Rabbis explain the reason for their ruling: This is **because one can act in a person’s interest in his absence,** and therefore the agent acquires the document on behalf of the slave from the moment the owner hands the bill of manumission to the agent. **But one can act to a person’s detriment only in his presence.** The receipt of a bill of divorce is considered to be to a woman’s detriment, and therefore an agent cannot receive it for her without her consent.


###### Gittin 11b:8
[Gittin 11b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:8)

שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ – רַשַּׁאי, וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
They explain further: The emancipation of a slave is in his interests, despite the fact that he receives sustenance from his master while a slave, **as, if** the master **wishes not to sustain his slave he is allowed** not to provide him with sustenance. This demonstrates that slavery is not in the interest of the slave, as he does not receive any guaranteed benefit. **But** if a husband wishes **not to sustain his wife, he is not allowed** to proceed in this manner. Consequently, marriage is in the interests of the woman.


###### Gittin 11b:9
[Gittin 11b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:9)

אָמַר לָהֶם: וַהֲרֵי הוּא פּוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir **said to** the Rabbis: **But** even so, it is not in the interest of a slave to be emancipated, **as,** if his master is a priest, he **disqualifies his slave from** partaking of ***teruma*** by emancipating him, **just as** a husband who is a priest **disqualifies his** Israelite **wife** from partaking of *teruma* by divorcing her. The Rabbis **said to him:** It is permitted for a priest’s slave to partake of *teruma* not because he has a right to sustenance, but rather **because he is his** master’s **acquisition.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** יָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם, וְיָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא וְקָאָמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן, הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב, קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara relates: **Rav Huna and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef were sitting before Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting and dozing** while the other two Sages conversed. **And Rav Huna was sitting and saying:** With regard to the statement **of the Rabbis** that a master cannot retract a bill of manumission once he has given it to an agent, one can **conclude from** it **that** if a third party **seizes** a debtor’s property **on behalf of a creditor,** an act that is certainly in the interests of the creditor, he **acquires** this property on his behalf. This is similar to the case here, where the agent acquires the bill of manumission on behalf of the slave.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף: וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים? אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said to** Rav Huna: Do you state this *halakha* **even in a case when** the seizure of property **is to the detriment of others,** e.g., if there are other creditors who would lose the opportunity to seize the property? Rav Huna **said to him: Yes.**


###### Gittin 11b:12
[Gittin 11b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:12)

אַדְּהָכִי אִיתְּעַר בְּהוּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּרְדְּקֵי! הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים – לֹא קָנָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the meantime Rabbi Yirmeya woke up, due to their** conversation, as he was not sleeping deeply. **He said to them: Children [*dardekei*], this is** what **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who seizes** property on behalf **of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others does not acquire. And if you say** that **the mishna** apparently teaches the opposite, as the agent acquires the bill of manumission on behalf of the slave despite the fact that this causes a loss for the master, that case is different.


###### Gittin 11b:13
[Gittin 11b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:13)

כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״תְּנוּ״, כְּאוֹמֵר ״זְכוּ״ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya elaborates: The reason for the ruling in the mishna is that **anyone who says: Give** to so-and-so, **is like one who says: Acquire** on behalf of so-and-so. Since the master said: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, the agent immediately acquires it on the slave’s behalf, despite the fact that the bill is to the detriment of the master. However, this *halakha* has no bearing on a case where a person independently seizes property on behalf of another, and by doing so acts to the disadvantage of others.


###### Gittin 11b:14
[Gittin 11b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:14)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים, בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁלִּיקֵּט אֶת הַפֵּאָה, וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי עָנִי״, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר: זָכָה לוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִתְּנֶנּוּ לְעָנִי הַנִּמְצָא רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says:** With regard to this issue of **one who seizes** property **on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.** What is this dispute? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Pe’a* 4:9): With regard to **one who** is not poor but **collected produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [*pe’a*], and said: This** produce that I have collected is **for so-and-so,** who is **a poor person, Rabbi Eliezer said: He has acquired** it **on his behalf, and the Rabbis say:** He has not acquired it on his behalf; rather, **he gives** the produce he gathered **to** whichever **poor person appears first** before him. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can gather *pe’a* on behalf of a poor person, despite the fact that he acts to the detriment of other paupers, while the Rabbis disagree.


###### Gittin 11b:15
[Gittin 11b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11b:15)

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar said, and some say** that it was actually **Rav Pappa** who said: