## Gittin Daf 17b

###### Gittin 17b:1
[Gittin 17b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:1)

זְנוּת לָא שְׁכִיחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Adultery is infrequent,** and the Sages would not institute the dating of a bill of divorce to avoid an infrequent problem.


###### Gittin 17b:2
[Gittin 17b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:2)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? קָסָבַר: יֵשׁ לְבַעַל פֵּירוֹת עַד שְׁעַת נְתִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say in accordance with** the reason of **Reish Lakish?** The Gemara answers that **he holds the produce belongs to the husband until the time of** the **giving** of the bill of divorce, and only afterward does the woman have the rights to the produce of her property. If she attempts to collect the value of the produce sold after her divorce, she will be asked to prove when she received the bill of divorce. Therefore, in terms of assisting her to collect these monies, the dating of the bill of divorce does not serve any purpose.


###### Gittin 17b:3
[Gittin 17b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:3)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא מַכְשַׁיר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – דְּמַכְשַׁיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues and asks: **Granted, according to Reish Lakish, due to that** reason **Rabbi Shimon deems valid** a bill of divorce that was signed on the day after it was written, because he holds that the rights to the produce of usufruct property revert to the woman the moment the bill of divorce is written. She is therefore within her rights to collect these monies from the date written in the bill of divorce, even if it was given at a later date. **However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who holds that the reason for writing the date is to prevent the husband from shielding his wife from punishment for her infidelity, **what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems** it **valid?** There is still a concern that he will have the bill of divorce written and dated earlier in order to protect her.


###### Gittin 17b:4
[Gittin 17b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:4)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא קָאָמֵינָא, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said to you: I am not speaking in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** as he clearly is not concerned with the husband’s shielding his wife from punishment. **When I speak,** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that if the bill of divorce was signed on the night following its writing, it is invalid.


###### Gittin 17b:5
[Gittin 17b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:5)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן; אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is** the difference **between** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon and** the opinion of **the Rabbis. However, according to Reish Lakish, what** difference **is there between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis?**


###### Gittin 17b:6
[Gittin 17b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:6)

פֵּירֵי דְּמִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה וְעַד שְׁעַת חֲתִימָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them** pertains to the **produce** of the wife’s property **from the time of** the **writing until the time of** the **signing.** According to the Rabbis, the rights to the produce revert to the wife only once the bill of divorce is signed, and the bill of divorce must be dated then. According to Rabbi Shimon, the woman’s rights to the produce go into effect the moment the bill of divorce is written, and the date on which it was signed is irrelevant.


###### Gittin 17b:7
[Gittin 17b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:7)

וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ! דְּאִתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹצִיאִין לְפֵירוֹת? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the explanation as to why Rabbi Yoḥanan does not agree with Reish Lakish: **But didn’t we hear** Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish **say the opposite** of this? **As it is stated** that they had a dispute with regard to the question: **From when does** the court **remove** the property from the possession of the husband, i.e., when does he lose his right **to** the **produce? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the time of** the **writing** of the bill of divorce, **and Reish Lakish said: From the time of** the **giving** of the bill of divorce. This does not accord with what was stated above, that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the husband retains the rights to the produce until the bill of divorce is given and Reish Lakish holds that the wife regains the rights beforehand. Here, their opinions are the opposite of the way the Gemara explained earlier.


###### Gittin 17b:8
[Gittin 17b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:8)

אֵיפוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Reverse** the opinions in this final dispute so that it is Reish Lakish who holds that the rights to the produce revert to the woman at the time of writing and it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who holds that it is at the time of giving the divorce.


###### Gittin 17b:9
[Gittin 17b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִים, וְאִם נִיסַּת – הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר; מָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָן? אַהֲנוֹ דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא תִּינָּשֵׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara records a series of questions with regard to the parameters of the ordinance that bills of divorce should be dated. **Abaye said to Rav Yosef:** It was taught in a mishna (86a): **Three bills of divorce are invalid, but if** a woman **married** after she received one of these bills of divorce then **the offspring is** of **unflawed** lineage, meaning that the husband and wife are divorced after the fact. One of the three bills of divorce listed is a bill of divorce that does not have a date. Abaye asks: Being that the divorce does take effect, **what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance** requiring that the date appear on a bill of divorce? Either way the bill of divorce is valid after the fact without a date. The Gemara answers: **It is effective** in **that she may not marry *ab initio*** as a result of receiving this bill of divorce, which consequently limits the usage of such a bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 17b:10
[Gittin 17b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:10)

גַּזְיֵיהּ לִזְמַן דִּידֵיהּ, וְיַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְרַמַּאי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continued to ask of Rav Yosef: If the husband **cut out its date** after the dated bill of divorce was written **and gave it to her, what** is the *halakha*? May the bill of divorce be used *ab initio*? **He said to him: We are not concerned about a deceiver.** The ordinance requiring that the bill of divorce be dated does not apply in this case, as it was dated when it was written.


###### Gittin 17b:11
[Gittin 17b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:11)

כָּתוּב בּוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, שָׁנָה, חֹדֶשׁ, שַׁבָּת, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּשֵׁר. וּמָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continued and asked: If the date **written in** the bill of divorce made reference only to the **seven-**year Sabbatical cycle in which it was written, or only to the **year,** or only to the **month,** or only to the **week,** but the precise date was not recorded, then **what** is the *halakha*? May such a bill of divorce be used *ab initio*? **He said to him:** It is **valid** to be used *ab initio*. Abaye asked him: If so, **what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance** requiring the dating of the bill of divorce? Regardless of the reason for recording the date, such vague dating will not ameliorate the problem.


###### Gittin 17b:12
[Gittin 17b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:12)

אַהְנוֹ לְשָׁבוּעַ דְּקַמֵּיהּ וּלְשָׁבוּעַ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, יוֹמָא גּוּפֵיהּ – מִי יָדְעִינַן אִי מִצַּפְרָא אִי מִפַּנְיָא?! אֶלָּא לְיוֹמָא דְּקַמֵּיהּ וּלְיוֹמָא דְּבָתְרֵיהּ; הָכָא נָמֵי, אַהְנִי לְשָׁבוּעַ דְּקַמֵּיהּ וּלְשָׁבוּעַ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef answered: **It helps for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it.** If witnesses testify that the woman committed adultery before this seven-year period, then she is liable; if the husband sells produce after this seven-year period, then the woman can recover it. The reason for this is **because if you do not say so,** i.e., that a limited benefit is enough to justify the ordinance, then on that **day itself, do we know if** it was written **in the morning or in the evening?** All of the issues that were mentioned before could apply also to that day itself. **Rather,** the date is effective **for the day before it and the day after it. Here also,** writing the seven-year period **is effective for the seven-year period before it and the seven-year period after it.**


###### Gittin 17b:13
[Gittin 17b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/17b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: כַּתְבֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rava:** If **he writes** the bill of divorce,