## Gittin Daf 23a

###### Gittin 23a:1
[Gittin 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:1)

וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And that** is the case only when **there was an adult standing over him.** When the adult supervises the writing, and instructs him to write it for her sake, it will be valid.


###### Gittin 23a:2
[Gittin 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גּוֹי – וְיִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכָשֵׁר?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוֹי פָּסוּל! גּוֹי, לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ עָבֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to him: If that is so,** that anyone who is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce may do so with an adult supervising him, then if the one writing is **a gentile, and a Jew stands over him** and instructs him to write it for her sake, would you **also** say **that** it is **valid? And if you would say that** it is **also** valid, **but isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **A gentile is disqualified** from writing a bill of divorce in any event? Rav Huna answered: **A gentile acts** based on **his own will.** Since he is halakhically competent, he will have his own intentions while writing and may not be relied upon to carry out the intentions of the supervisor. In the case of the mishna, since those doing the writing are not halakhically competent, they will write according to the instructions of the supervisor.


###### Gittin 23a:3
[Gittin 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:3)

הֲדַר אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי; דְּמִדְּקָא פָּסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוֹי לְעִנְיַן הֲבָאָה, מִכְּלָל דִּלְעִנְיַן כְּתִיבָה – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman then said: What I said** when I raised a challenge from a case involving a gentile **is not correct,** as **from the fact** that the mishna later **disqualifies a gentile with regard to** acting as an agent in **the bringing** of the bill of divorce, one can learn **by inference** that he is **qualified with regard to writing,** where he is not listed among those who are disqualified.


###### Gittin 23a:4
[Gittin 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:4)

וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוֹי פָּסוּל! הַהִיא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי, וּבָעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ; וְהָא וַדַּאי גּוֹי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָעָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **a gentile is disqualified** from writing a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: **That** *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission** of the bill of divorce **effect** the divorce, and when the verse states: “And he writes her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), which is the source for the *halakha* that the writing needs to be done for her sake, it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce and not to its signing. Therefore, **we need** the **writing** to be **for her sake, and certainly a gentile acts** based on **his own will** and may not be relied upon to write the bill of divorce according to the instructions of a supervisor.


###### Gittin 23a:5
[Gittin 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:5)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֲפִילּוּ מְצָאוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה, חֲתָמוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the requirement that a bill of divorce be written for her sake, **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabbi Meir would have said: Even if** the husband **found** the bill of divorce **in the garbage** dump, and the names written on it happened to be the same as his and his wife’s names, if **he had it signed** by witnesses **and he gave it to her,** then it is **valid,** because the essential requirement is that it be signed for her sake.


###### Gittin 23a:6
[Gittin 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ; מַאי, לָאו כְּתִיבַת הַגֵּט?! לֹא, חֲתִימַת עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to** the statement of **Rav Naḥman:** The verse states: **“And he writes her,”** which is interpreted to mean that it must be written **for her sake. What, is it not** referring to the actual **writing of the bill of divorce,** that it must be written with the intent that it be used to sever this particular marriage? The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it is referring to the **signing of the witnesses.**


###### Gittin 23a:7
[Gittin 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא: כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל! אֵימָא: שֶׁנֶּחְתַּם שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised** another **objection to him** based on what was taught in a mishna (24a): **Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of** a specific **woman** is **invalid.** He responded: **Say** that according Rabbi Meir the mishna teaches: Any bill of divorce **that was not signed for the sake of** a specific **woman** is **invalid.**


###### Gittin 23a:8
[Gittin 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתְבוֹ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ. מַאי, לָאו כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתְבוֹ לַתּוֹרֶף לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לַטּוֹפֶס לִשְׁמָהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **raised** another **objection to him** based on another *baraita*: **When he writes it,** it is **as though he writes it for her sake,** meaning that writing one part for her sake makes it as if the entire document were written for her sake. **What, it is not** stating that **when he writes the essential** part of the document, which includes the names of the spouses; the date on which it was written; and the expression: Behold you are permitted to any man, **for her sake,** then **is it as though he writes the standard** part of the bill of divorce, containing the rest of the information, **for her sake?** This *baraita* indicates that there is a requirement that the bill of divorce, not just the signatures, be written for her sake.


###### Gittin 23a:9
[Gittin 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:9)

לֹא; כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹתְמוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman rejects this: **No,** Rabbi Meir would explain that this *baraita* is referring to a case **where he** has witnesses **sign it for her sake; it is as though he wrote it for her sake. And if you wish, say: Who is** the *tanna* of **these *baraitot*** from which you raised challenges? **They are** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, who said: Witnesses of the transmission** of the bill of divorce **effect** the divorce. According to him, the verse is referring to the writing and not the signing of the bill of divorce, and the writing must be for her sake.


###### Gittin 23a:10
[Gittin 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:10)

וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי חַגָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel** says: **And** the statement of the mishna that one who is not halakhically competent is qualified to write a bill of divorce is the *halakha* only **when he left** unwritten **the essential** part of the document, which will be written later by a halakhically competent person, as only the essential part must be written for her sake. **And so Rabbi Ḥagga says in the name of Ulla: And** this is the *halakha* only **when he left the essential** part of the document unwritten, **and** the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** that the writing of the essential part must be done for her sake.


###### Gittin 23a:11
[Gittin 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:11)

וְרַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה. מַאי ״אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה״? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: כָּאן הוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁאֵין כֹּחַ לִשְׁמָהּ; וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Zerika says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** says: **It is not Torah.** The Gemara clarifies: **What** is meant by the expression: **It is not Torah? Rabbi Abba says: Here** Rabbi Yoḥanan **informs you that there is no force** to a requirement that a bill of divorce be written **for her sake,** as only the signing needs to be done for her sake. **And it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who **says: Signatory witnesses** on the bill of divorce **effect** the divorce.


###### Gittin 23a:12
[Gittin 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:12)

וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא! אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say** earlier that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar?** How, then, can Rabbi Abba say that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: **They are *amora’im* and** disagree **with regard to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** whether he explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or that of Rabbi Elazar.


###### Gittin 23a:13
[Gittin 23a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, וְסוֹמֵא, וְגוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Anyone is fit** to serve as an agent **to bring a bill of divorce** to a woman **except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or a blind person, or a gentile.**


###### Gittin 23a:14
[Gittin 23a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:14)

קִיבֵּל הַקָּטָן וְהִגְדִּיל; חֵרֵשׁ וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ; סוֹמֵא וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ; שׁוֹטֶה וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה; גּוֹי וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **a minor received** the bill of divorce **and** then **reached** the age of **majority,** or one received it when he was **a deaf-mute and** then **became able to hear,** or one received it when he was **blind and** then **became able to see,** or one received it when he was **an imbecile and** then **became** halakhically **competent,** or one received it when he was **a gentile and** then **converted,** in all of these cases he is **unfit** to bring the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 23a:15
[Gittin 23a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:15)

אֲבָל פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ; פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ; שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – כָּשֵׁר. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּדַעַת – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** if one received it when he was **able to hear, and** then **became a deaf-mute, and** then **again became able to hear;** or if one received it when **he was able to see, and** then **became blind, and** then **again became able to see;** or one received it when he was halakhically **competent, and** then **became an imbecile, and** then **again became** halakhically **competent,** in all of these cases he is **fit** to bring the bill of divorce. **This is the principle: Anyone who is** halakhically **competent in the beginning and in the end** is **fit,** even if there was time in the interim when he was unfit.


###### Gittin 23a:16
[Gittin 23a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – דְּלָאו בְּנֵי דֵּיעָה נִינְהוּ; גּוֹי נָמֵי – דְּלָאו בַּר הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא; אֶלָּא סוֹמֵא, אַמַּאי לָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מִמִּי נוֹטְלוֹ וּלְמִי נוֹתְנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks with regard to those the mishna lists as not being qualified to bring a bill of divorce: **Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor** are not qualified because **they are not** halakhically **competent,** and only one who is competent can be appointed as an agent. Additionally, **a gentile also** is not qualified, **as he is not subject to** the *halakhot* that **permit** a woman to remarry via a bill of divorce. A person cannot serve as an agent for a matter that does not apply to him. **But why isn’t a blind person** qualified to bring a bill of divorce? **Rav Sheshet says: Because he does not know from whom he takes it and to whom he gives it,** and since he is unaware of this he will not be able to testify about it.


###### Gittin 23a:17
[Gittin 23a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:17)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: הֵיאַךְ סוֹמֵא מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ? הֵיאַךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם מוּתָּרִים בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם בַּלַּיְלָה? אֶלָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא דְּקָלָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא דְּקָלָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef objects to this:** If there is a concern that a blind person cannot distinguish between different people, then **how is a blind man permitted to** have sexual relations with **his wife?** How does he know that she is in fact his wife? Similarly, **how are** all **people permitted to** have sexual relations with **their wives at night?** If it is dark, they cannot see them. **Rather,** you must say that they are permitted **through voice recognition [*teviut eina dekala*].** They can recognize each other based on their voices. **Here too,** with regard to a blind person, he can recognize the giver and receiver of the bill of divorce **through voice recognition.**


###### Gittin 23a:18
[Gittin 23a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:18)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עָסְקִינַן; דְּבָעֵי לְמֵימַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, וְלָא מָצֵי לְמֵימַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Yosef says: Here we are dealing with** a husband who sends a bill of divorce to his wife **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, **where** the agent **needs to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and** a blind man **cannot say** this because he is unable to see it being written or signed.


###### Gittin 23a:19
[Gittin 23a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא, דְּמָצֵי אָמַר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכָשֵׁר?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי: פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, כָּשֵׁר – חָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, אִין; לֹא חָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, לֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: However, if that is so,** then a person who **is able to see** when he receives the bill of divorce **and** then **becomes blind, who can say:** It was written and signed in my presence, as he was able to see when it was written and signed, would you say that he is **also fit** to bring the bill of divorce? **But it is taught** in the mishna: If one received it when **he was able to see, and** then **became blind, and** then **again became able to see,** then he is **fit** to bring the bill of divorce. It can be inferred from here that only when **he again became able to see, yes,** he may bring it. But if **he did not again become able to see,** then **no,** he may not bring it.


###### Gittin 23a:20
[Gittin 23a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:20)

הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא חָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ; וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָתָנֵי שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – טַעְמָא דְּחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה, הָא לֹא חָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – לָא; תְּנָא נָמֵי פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers this question: In fact, with regard to a blind person, **the same is true, that although he did not again become able to see** he can serve as an agent to bring the bill of divorce and testify that it was written and signed in his presence. **And** why does it teach that the blind man became able to see again? **Since** the mishna **teaches** that one who received the bill of divorce when he was halakhically **competent, and** then **became an imbecile, and** then **again became** halakhically **competent** is qualified to bring the bill of divorce. And in that case, **the reason** why he is qualified is specifically **that he again became** halakhically **competent, but if he did not again become** halakhically **competent,** then he is **not** qualified. Therefore, the mishna **also teaches** with regard to **one who was able to see** that he then **became blind and** then **again became able to see.**


###### Gittin 23a:21
[Gittin 23a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:21)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי – דְּקָתָנֵי, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּדַעַת – כָּשֵׁר; וְלָא קָתָנֵי: כׇּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּכַשְׁרוּת – כָּשֵׁר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches** that **this is the principle: Anyone who is** halakhically **competent in the beginning and in the end** is **fit, and it does not teach: Anyone who is fit in the beginning and the end** is **fit. Learn from** the mishna that it is not necessary for him to be fit in the beginning and the end, as there are times that being fit in the beginning is sufficient, as in the case of one who became blind after witnessing the writing and signing of the bill of divorce. However, it is clear that he must be halakhically competent both in the beginning and the end, which a blind person is.


###### Gittin 23a:22
[Gittin 23a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/23a:22)

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: עֶבֶד, מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גֵּט אִשָּׁה מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִדְּקָא פָּסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוֹי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **They raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami:** With regard to **a slave, what is** the *halakha*? **Can he be made an agent to receive a woman’s bill of divorce from the hand of her husband?** Is he qualified to act as an agent or not? **He said to them: From** the fact that the mishna **disqualified a gentile,**