## Gittin Daf 24b

###### Gittin 24b:1
[Gittin 24b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:1)

יָתֵר מִיכֵּן – הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה – לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Moreover,** if **one had two wives and their names were identical,** and he **wrote** a bill of divorce **to divorce the older** one and then reconsidered, **he may not divorce the younger** one **with it.**


###### Gittin 24b:2
[Gittin 24b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:2)

יָתֵר מִיכֵּן – אָמַר לְלַבְלָר: ״כְּתוֹב, לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ״ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Moreover,** if **he said to the scribe: Write** a bill of divorce **for whichever** one of them **that I will want** and **I will divorce** her with it, this bill of divorce is **unfit** for him **to divorce** either wife **with it.**


###### Gittin 24b:3
[Gittin 24b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ וְכוּ׳: וְאֶלָּא רֵישָׁא בְּמַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The second clause of the mishna considers a case where one **wrote** a bill of divorce with which **to divorce his wife but** later **reconsidered,** and a resident of his town with identical personal details found him and desired to use the bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: **But** then **with what** case is the **first clause** of the mishna, where a man discovers that a scribe had written a bill of divorce with identical personal details to his own, dealing; isn’t that also a case of a bill of divorce that was written for someone else? Why did the *tanna* cite two seemingly identical cases?


###### Gittin 24b:4
[Gittin 24b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּסוֹפְרִין הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהִתְלַמֵּד עָסְקִינַן. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״סוֹפְרִין מַקְרִין״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״סוֹפְרִין קוֹרְאִין״; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with scribes who are practicing** writing; the bill of divorce in the first case was written as an exercise and not because someone requested that it be written. **Rav Ashi said:** The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches: Scribes dictating,** i.e., to their students, **and it does not teach: Scribes reading** the names on their own. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from** this phrasing that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.


###### Gittin 24b:5
[Gittin 24b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:5)

מַאי ״יָתֵר מִיכֵּן״? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לֹא זֶה – שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין; אֶלָּא אַף זֶה – שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין, פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By employing the introductory term: Moreover, the mishna indicates that each case teaches an additional novelty beyond that of the previous case. The Gemara asks: **What** novel element warrants the use of the term: **Moreover?** The Gemara answers by quoting a *baraita*: **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** that **not** only **this** bill of divorce, which was written for practice and **which was not written for the sake of divorce,** is unfit, **but even that** bill of divorce, **which was written for the sake of divorce** but the husband then reconsidered and did not use it, is **unfit** to be used by someone else.


###### Gittin 24b:6
[Gittin 24b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:6)

וְלֹא זֶה – שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין דִּידֵיהּ; אֶלָּא אַף זֶה – שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין דִּידֵיהּ, פָּסוּל. וְלֹא זֶה – שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין הָא; אֶלָּא אַף זֶה – שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין הָא, פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And not** only **this** bill of divorce, **which was not written for the sake of his own divorce,** is unfit, **but even that** bill of divorce, **which was written for the sake of his own divorce,** albeit for a particular wife, is **unfit** to be used for divorcing his other wife. **And not** only **this** bill of divorce, **which was not written for the sake of this** wife’s **divorce, but even that** bill of divorce, **which was written for this** wife’s **divorce,** as he instructed the scribe to write the bill of divorce for the sake of whichever wife he decides to divorce, is **unfit** to use in divorce.


###### Gittin 24b:7
[Gittin 24b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי כְּתַב ״וְנָתַן סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת בְּיָדָהּ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הַאיְךְ קַמָּא, דְּלָא עֲבִיד לְשׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת; אֲבָל כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ, דַּעֲבִיד לְשׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת – אֵימָא כָּשֵׁר; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְכָתַב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** that a bill of divorce must be written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced? It is stated in the verse that deals with divorce: “And he writes for her a scroll of severance and gives it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1). This teaches the following: **If** the Merciful One had **written** only: **And he gives a scroll of severance in her hand, I would say** that the verse serves **to exclude this** case of the **first** clause of the mishna, **where it was done not for the sake of severance,** as the scribe wrote the bill of divorce as a mere exercise; **however,** if one **wrote** a bill of divorce **to divorce his wife but** then **reconsidered, where** it was **done for the sake of severance,** I would **say** that it is **valid** for another man to use for divorcing his wife. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes** in the Torah: **“And he writes,”** meaning that the bill of divorce must be written exclusively for the sake of his own divorce.


###### Gittin 24b:8
[Gittin 24b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:8)

אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְכָתַב״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הַאי, דְּלָא אִיהוּ קָא כָתֵיב לַהּ; אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, דְּאִיהוּ קָא כָתֵיב לַהּ – אֵימָא כָּשֵׁר; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the explanation: **If the Merciful One** had **written** only: **And he writes, I would say** that the verse serves **to exclude this** case mentioned previously, **where** the man using the bill of divorce **was not the one who wrote it; but** if a man **has two wives** with the same name, so **that** the man using the bill of divorce **is writing it, say** that it is a **valid** bill of divorce. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes** in the Torah: “And he writes **for her,”** teaching that a bill of divorce must be written **for the sake of** a specific wife.


###### Gittin 24b:9
[Gittin 24b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:9)

וְסֵיפָא לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּאֵין בְּרֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why do I** need **the last clause** of the mishna, which deals with a man who writes a bill of divorce for whichever wife he later chooses? The earlier clauses made clear that one must write the bill of divorce for the sake of the woman who is being divorced. The Gemara answers: **This teaches us that there is no** retroactive **clarification,** i.e., that one does not say that since he gave the bill of divorce to this wife, it is clarified retroactively that he had written the bill of divorce for her sake; rather, he must write it for her sake from the outset.


###### Gittin 24b:10
[Gittin 24b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:10)

כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה – לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה: קְטַנָּה הוּא דְּלָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ, הָא גְּדוֹלָה – מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If he **wrote** a bill of divorce **to divorce the older** of his two wives and then reconsidered, he **may not divorce the younger** wife **with it,** even though the two wives share the same name. The Gemara deduces from this: **It is the younger** one **whom he is not able to divorce with it, but he is able to divorce the older** wife **with it,** as it was written for her from the outset. This is the case even though the younger wife would be able to collect payment of her marriage contract and remarry if she were to present this bill of divorce, as the court would think it was written for her.


###### Gittin 24b:11
[Gittin 24b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִין בְּעִיר אַחַת – מוֹצִיאִין שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל אֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: That is to say** that one of **two** people with identical names, e.g., **Yosef ben Shimon, who live in one city, can present a promissory note** to claim a debt from **others,** and the borrower cannot claim that the promissory note was written for the other Yosef ben Shimon.


###### Gittin 24b:12
[Gittin 24b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁמִי כְּשִׁמְךָ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ; שֵׁנִי הוּא דְּלָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ, הָא רִאשׁוֹן מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ?! וְהָא אָמְרִינַן: ״וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: If that is so,** then according to your reasoning, from **the earlier clause** of the mishna **that teaches** that if one man requests a bill of divorce from another, saying: **My name is** the same **as your name,** the bill of divorce is **unfit** for the second person **to divorce** his wife **with it,** one could infer that the **second** man **is** the one **who is not able to divorce with it, but** the **first** man **is able to divorce with it** even though they have the same names. **But didn’t we say** in a mishna (*Bava Batra* 172a): With regard to two people with identical names, neither of them can present a promissory note to the other, **and another** person **cannot present a promissory note to them,** as each one can deny that he is the one who owes the money? Here too, there is a concern lest the wife of the other use the bill of divorce to collect payment of her marriage contract even though the bill of divorce was not written for her.


###### Gittin 24b:13
[Gittin 24b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:13)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר? בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say** to explain how the first man can divorce his wife with this bill of divorce, and how it can be used as a reliable proof of divorce? One can say that the ruling of the mishna applies **in** a case where there are **witnesses who observe the transmission** of the bill of divorce, and they confirm in court which woman was given the bill of divorce. **And this** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** who holds that presence of witnesses at the transmission of the bill of divorce is essential to its taking effect, so there is no concern that the wife of the other man will claim payment of her marriage contract.


###### Gittin 24b:14
[Gittin 24b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:14)

הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here too,** in the case of two wives of the same man who have the same name, the ruling of the mishna applies **in** a case where there are **witnesses who observe the transmission** of the bill of divorce. **And this** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** and there is no concern that the other wife will claim payment of her marriage contract. Therefore, one should not deduce from this, as Rava did, that one of two people with the same name can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others.


###### Gittin 24b:15
[Gittin 24b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:15)

אָמַר רַב: כּוּלָּן פּוֹסְלִין בִּכְהוּנָּה, חוּץ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַף רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says: All** of the bills of divorce that the mishna categorizes as unfit to use for divorce still **disqualify** the women who receive them from marrying **into** the **priesthood,** as she is considered a divorced woman with regard to the *halakha* of marrying a priest, **except for the first** bill of divorce mentioned in the mishna. Unlike the other cases, that one was not written for the sake of divorce at all but was written only as part of a scribe’s training. **And Shmuel says: Even** the **first** bill of divorce **disqualifies** her from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Gittin 24b:16
[Gittin 24b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:16)

וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנוּ חֲכָמִים ״גֵּט פָּסוּל״ – פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל. ״חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה״ – פְּסוּלָה, וּפוֹסַלְתָּהּ מִן הָאַחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel follows his** own line of **reasoning, as Shmuel says: Any place where the Sages taught** in a mishna: **An invalid bill of divorce,** it indicates both that it is **invalid** to be used as a bill of divorce **and** that it nevertheless **disqualifies** the one who receives it from marrying a priest. Similarly, where the Sages taught: **An invalid *ḥalitza*,** it indicates both that the *ḥalitza* is **invalid and** that it nevertheless **disqualifies** the *yevama* **from** entering into levirate marriage with **the** other **brothers.**


###### Gittin 24b:17
[Gittin 24b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/24b:17)

בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׂמֹאל וְלַיְלָה – פְּסוּלוֹת וּפוֹסְלוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **they say in the name of Rabbi Elazar:** If *ḥalitza* was performed on the **left** foot of the *yavam*, **or** at **night,** these acts of *ḥalitza* are **invalid, and** they nevertheless **disqualify** the *yevama* from entering into levirate marriage with the other brothers.