## Gittin Daf 2b

###### Gittin 2b:1
[Gittin 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/2b:1)

לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **because** the people who live overseas **are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake.** It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** a different reason: It is **because there are no witnesses available to ratify it.** Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.


###### Gittin 2b:3
[Gittin 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/2b:3)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאַתְיוּהוּ בֵּי תְרֵי. אִי נָמֵי, מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** these two explanations? The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** with regard to a case **where two** people **brought** the bill of divorce. In this case, two witnesses are available to ratify the bill of divorce if someone objects to its validity. **Alternatively,** the difference concerns a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce **from** one **region to** another **region within Eretz Yisrael.** Here there is no concern that the bill of divorce might not have been written for her sake, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of this requirement. However, witnesses are not necessarily available to confirm the document.


###### Gittin 2b:4
[Gittin 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/2b:4)

אִי נָמֵי, בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** there is a difference between the two explanations in a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce **within that** same **region in a country overseas.** According to the opinion of Rabba, who says the concern is that the people there might not know that the document must be written for her sake, this problem is equally relevant in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the reason is because witnesses are not available, if the bill of divorce is brought in the same region then the witnesses will be available to ratify it.


###### Gittin 2b:5
[Gittin 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/2b:5)

וּלְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ – לִיבְעֵי תְּרֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַכֹּל עֵדֻיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה! עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן בְּאִיסּוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabba, who said** that the reason is **because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake, let us require two** witnesses to testify about this, **just as is** the case **with regard to all testimonies in the Torah.** The Gemara answers: **One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions.** In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witness is sufficient.


###### Gittin 2b:6
[Gittin 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/2b:6)

אֵימוֹר דְּאָמְרִינַן עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן בְּאִיסּוּרִין, כְּגוֹן חֲתִיכָה סָפֵק שֶׁל חֵלֶב סָפֵק שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן, דְּלָא אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: One can **say that we say one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions** in a case **such as** where there is **a piece** of fat, and it is **uncertain** if it is forbidden **fat** [***ḥelev***] and **uncertain** if it is permitted **fat.** In this situation the piece can be rendered permitted by a single witness, **as there is no presumption** that it is **forbidden.** Therefore, as there is an uncertainty, and one witness said it is permitted fat, he is deemed credible.


###### Gittin 2b:7
[Gittin 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/2b:7)

אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא דְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבָּעֶרְוָה; וְאֵין דָּבָר שֶׁבְּעֶרְוָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, here, where there is a presumption** that this woman is **forbidden, as** she is **a married woman,** a status she retains until it is established that she has received a bill of divorce, if so, this **is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and** the general principle is that **there is no matter** of testimony **for forbidden sexual relations** that can be attested to by **fewer than two** witnesses.


###### Gittin 2b:8
[Gittin 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/2b:8)

רוֹב בְּקִיאִין הֵן. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא – סְתָם סָפְרֵי דְּדַיָּינֵי מִיגְמָר גְּמִירִי, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דְּאַצְרוּךְ; וְהָכָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabba’s concern is not equivalent to a case of uncertainty, as **most** Jewish people **are experts** in the requirement that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. **And** this is so **even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who is** generally **concerned about a minority** in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. In this case Rabbi Meir concedes that one need not be concerned for the minority, as **ordinary judicial scribes,** who write bills of divorce, **are learned** in this *halakha*, and know that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. **And it is the Sages who required** testimony about this matter, as an extra precaution. **And here,** with regard to this testimony,