## Gittin Daf 33b

###### Gittin 33b:1
[Gittin 33b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:1)

לֹא בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ; וְאִי אָזְלִי הָנָךְ כָּתְבִי וְיָהֲבִי – לִיכְתְּבוּ וְלִיתְּבוּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is not entirely invalidated; and** therefore, even though the husband nullified the agency of part of the group, **if these** other people whose agency was never nullified **go** and **write** the bill of divorce **and give** it to the wife, **let them write and give** the bill of divorce. There is nothing to be concerned about, as their agency was never nullified. Since the bill of divorce that they deliver is valid, there is no reason to institute an ordinance that a husband can nullify the agency only in the presence of the entire group.


###### Gittin 33b:2
[Gittin 33b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:2)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ; וְהָנָךְ לָא יָדְעִי, וְאָזְלִי וְכָתְבִי וְיָהֲבִי; וְשָׁרוּ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** disagrees and **holds: Testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated. And** if the agency of part of the group was nullified when those agents were not in the presence of the rest of the group, then **those** others **do not know** that their agency has been nullified as well. **And** they might then **go and write** a bill of divorce **and give** it, **and they** will cause the court to mistakenly **permit a married woman to** marry **anyone.**


###### Gittin 33b:3
[Gittin 33b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:3)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ לֹא בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ; וְהָכָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – קָסָבַר: מִלְּתָא דְּמִתְעַבְדָא בְּאַפֵּי עַשְׂרָה – צְרִיכָא בֵּי עַשְׂרָה לְמִישְׁלְפַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead **that everyone** agrees that **testimony that was partially invalidated is not entirely invalidated; and here, this is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** that the husband can nullify his instructions only in the presence of all of the agents: **He holds** that **a matter that is performed in the presence of ten** people **requires** the presence **of ten** people **to revoke it.** Since the husband instructed ten people to write the bill of divorce, he cannot revoke his instructions in the presence of only a portion of them.


###### Gittin 33b:4
[Gittin 33b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:4)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״כּוּלְּכֶם״, מַהוּ? טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ – וְהָנֵי, כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״כּוּלְּכֶם״, לָא מָצוּ כָּתְבִי וְיָהֲבִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If the husband said to them: **All of you** should write a bill of divorce for my wife, in which case all of them must sign the bill of divorce, **what is** the *halakha* according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The Gemara elaborates: Is the **reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** for prohibiting the husband from nullifying the instructions that he had given to ten people **because he holds** that **testimony that was partially invalidated is entirely invalidated,** and one should be concerned that the rest of the group will not know that their agency was nullified? **And these** people, **since he said to them** explicitly: **All of you** should write the bill of divorce, the rest of the group **are not able** to **write and give** the bill of divorce on their own. Therefore, the husband should be able to nullify his instructions when not in the presence of the entire group, as no mistake can occur because of his action.


###### Gittin 33b:5
[Gittin 33b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:5)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: כֹּל מִלְּתָא דְּמִתְעַבְדָא בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי עַשְׂרָה, צְרִיכָא בֵּי עַשְׂרָה לְמִישְׁלְפַהּ – וְהִילְכָּךְ, אֲפִילּוּ ״כּוּלְּכֶם״ נָמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** is **because he holds** that **a matter that is performed in the presence of ten** people **requires** the presence **of ten** people **to revoke it. And therefore, even** if he said: **All of you** should write the bill of divorce, he must nullify his instructions in all ten people’s presence **as well.**


###### Gittin 33b:6
[Gittin 33b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה. וְהָא שְׁנַיִם, דְּכִי ״כוּלְּכֶם״ דָּמוּ, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 4:1): If **one said to two** agents: **Give a bill of divorce to my wife, he can render** his instructions **void** before **this** one, i.e., either of them, even though it is **not before that** one, i.e., the other one; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He can render** his instructions **void only** when **this** one **is before that** one, i.e., when the two of them are together. The Gemara now states the attempted proof. **But two are equivalent to: All of you,** as the bill of divorce cannot be written and given by fewer than two people, and there is no concern that perhaps one will sign without the other. **And** yet Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel still **disagree,** proving that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s reason is that the husband can nullify his instructions only in the same manner that he gave them.


###### Gittin 33b:7
[Gittin 33b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:7)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי בְּעֵדֵי כְתִיבָה – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, בְּעֵדֵי הוֹלָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: If** the *baraita* was speaking of **witnesses of** the **writing** of the bill of divorce, both of whom must sign the bill of divorce, this would **indeed** resolve the question. However, **here we are dealing with witnesses of** the **delivery** of the bill of divorce. In that case there is no need for two agents, so there is a concern that if the husband nullifies their agency in the presence of only one of them, then the second agent could mistakenly deliver the bill of divorce to the wife.


###### Gittin 33b:8
[Gittin 33b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:8)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִיסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר לָזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְלָזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּעֵדֵי הוֹלָכָה – שַׁפִּיר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּעֵדֵי כְתִיבָה, מִי מִצְטָרְפִי?! הָא אָמַר מָר: אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִצְטָרֶפֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד! דִּלְמָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This too, stands to reason, as the latter clause** of the *baraita* **teaches:** If **one said to this** one **on his own and to that** one **on his own,** then **he can nullify** each of their agencies before **this** one even though it is **not before that** one. **Granted, if you say** that this is referring **to witnesses of** the **delivery** of the bill of divorce, this works out **well,** as they need not be appointed together. **However, if you say** that this is referring **to witnesses of** the **writing, can they combine together** if they were appointed separately? **But doesn’t the Master say: The testimony of** two witnesses **does not combine together until the two of them see** the event **as one,** together? The Gemara rejects this proof: **Perhaps he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,** who holds that in order for the witnesses to combine together and present their testimony it is not necessary for them to witness the event together.


###### Gittin 33b:9
[Gittin 33b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:9)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא תַּרְתֵּי – חֲדָא כְּרַבִּי, וַחֲדָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל; וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי כְּרַבִּי וְהֵי כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: I heard from Rabbi Abba two** rulings with regard to these questions; in **one** he ruled **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and** in **one** he ruled **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and I do not know which is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and which is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.**


###### Gittin 33b:10
[Gittin 33b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:10)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן – דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה וְעָשָׂה רַבִּי כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי פַּרְטָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פַּרְטָא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי פַּרְטָא הַגָּדוֹל: אִם כֵּן, מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה? וְחָזַר רַבִּי וְעָשָׂה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: Let us see** ourselves which argument was decided in favor of whom based on other sources, **as when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said:** There was **an incident and Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **acted in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Perata,** the **son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata** and the **son of the son of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: **If so, what advantage does the court have? And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **reversed** his ruling **and acted in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.** The claim of: If so, what advantage does the court have, is the reason behind Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion with regard to the question of whether, in a case where the husband violates the ordinance and renders the bill of divorce void in the presence of a court but not before the agent, it is void after the fact.


###### Gittin 33b:11
[Gittin 33b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:11)

וּמִדְּהָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָךְ כְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from** the fact **that this** dispute is decided **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi retracted his opinion and acted in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, by inference, in the case of **that** disagreement, with regard to one who gives instructions to ten people, the *halakha* must be **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Gittin 33b:12
[Gittin 33b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:12)

וְאַף רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא סָבַר, חֲדָא כְּרַבִּי וַחֲדָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: חַמְשָׁה סָבֵי הֲוֵינַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא, אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא קַמֵּיהּ, וְאַשְׁקְלֵיהּ גִּיטָּא עַל כּוּרְחֵיהּ. אֲמַר לַן: זִילוּ אִטַּמּוּרוּ וּכְתֻבוּ לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rabbi Yoshiya from** the city of **Usha also holds** that **one** *halakha* **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and one is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: We were five elders** sitting **before Rabbi Yoshiya from Usha. A certain man came before him, and** Rabbi Yoshiya **extracted** the authorization to write **a bill of divorce from him against his will.** Rabbi Yoshiya **said to us: Go hide and write for her** a bill of divorce, so that the husband will not find you and render the bill of divorce void after it has been written.


###### Gittin 33b:13
[Gittin 33b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:13)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּרַבִּי, כִּי מִיטַּמְּרִי מַאי הָוֵי? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the inference as to the ruling of Rabbi Yoshiya: **And if it enters your mind** that he rules **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, that if a husband renders a bill of divorce void when not in the presence of the agent then the bill of divorce is void, then **if they hide, what of it?** The man could simply render the bill of divorce void in the presence of others. **Rather, learn from it** that **he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** that one can render the bill of divorce void only in the presence of the agents.


###### Gittin 33b:14
[Gittin 33b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:14)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אִידַּךְ נָמֵי כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לְמָה לְהוּ אִטַּמּוֹרֵי? לִיבַּדְּרוּ אִיבַּדּוֹרֵי! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – חֲדָא כְּרַבִּי, וַחֲדָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the second element: **And if it enters your mind** to say that with regard to **the other** dispute, where one instructs ten people to write the bill of divorce, he **also** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** then **why would they need to hide? Let them scatter,** and since the husband will not find all of them together, he will be unable to render the bill of divorce void. **Rather, learn from it** that he holds in **one** case **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and** in **one** case **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.** This is one opinion with regard to the *halakha* in the two disputes of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Gittin 33b:15
[Gittin 33b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/33b:15)

וְרָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן ״מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה״?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says** that **Rav Naḥman** says: The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **in both** cases. The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rav Naḥman** accept the argument that **the court** should **have an advantage? But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say** that **Shmuel says,**