## Gittin Daf 5a

###### Gittin 5a:1
[Gittin 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:1)

אִילֵימָא חֵרֵשׁ, חֵרֵשׁ בַּר אֵיתוֹיֵי גִיטָּא הוּא?! וְהָתְנַן: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִים לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that this is referring to **a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (23a): **Anyone is fit** to serve as an agent **to bring a bill of divorce** to a woman **except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,** all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to *halakha*.


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

וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא פִּקֵּחַ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ. לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here?** This is a case **where** the agent **gave** the bill of divorce **to her when he was** halakhically **competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute.** In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything. This **works out well according to** the opinion of **Rava.** However, it is **difficult according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** as he requires testimony that the bill of divorce was written for the woman’s sake.


###### Gittin 5a:3
[Gittin 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:3)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ. אִי הָכִי, יָכוֹל נָמֵי! גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** This does not refer to the main period of the decree. Rather, it is speaking of later generations, **after** the residents of countries overseas **learned** that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, so there is no need for the declaration. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** meaning that this is referring to a situation where everyone is assumed to be knowledgeable, even if the agent **is able** to testify he should **also** not be required to say: It was written in my presence, as it should be sufficient to confirm the witnesses’ signatures. The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, Rabba maintains that the agent must testify, due to a rabbinic **decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state,** i.e., they might forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake.


###### Gittin 5a:4
[Gittin 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:4)

אִי הָכִי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל נָמֵי! פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּמִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא גְּזוּר בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is **so,** that the Sages decreed that the statement must be issued even in this case, then one who **is unable** to speak should **also** be obligated to state the declaration, and be disqualified from serving as an agent due to his inability to speak. The Gemara answers: This case of a halakhically **competent** individual **who became a deaf-mute** is **an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.**


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

וְהָא אִשָּׁה, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּתְנַן: הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה גִּיטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁצְּרִיכָה לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״? שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בִּשְׁלִיחוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** the case of **a woman** who brings her own bill of divorce is also **an uncommon** matter, **and** yet **we learned** in a mishna (23a): **The woman herself may bring her** own **bill of divorce, provided that she** too **is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.** Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this ordinance so **that you will not distinguish with regard to** different types of **agency.** To avoid confusion, the Sages decreed that all agents who bring a bill of divorce must state the declaration, even the woman herself.


###### Gittin 5a:6
[Gittin 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:6)

אִי הָכִי, בַּעַל נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא גִּיטּוֹ, אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** then **a husband** who brings his wife’s bill of divorce should **also** be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. **Why** then, **is it taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of the husband **himself who brought his** own **bill of divorce, he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?**


###### Gittin 5a:7
[Gittin 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:7)

טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעַר וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ; הַשְׁתָּא מִינְקָט נָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, וְעַרְעוֹרֵי קָא מְעַרְעַר עֲלֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** that **the Sages said** that the agent of a bill of divorce **is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?** The reason for the decree is that **perhaps** the **husband will come** to **contest and invalidate** the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself **now holds** the document **in his hand, and** yet you are concerned that **he will contest it?** If he does not wish to give the bill of divorce to the woman he can simply tear it up. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree to this case.


###### Gittin 5a:8
[Gittin 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב הוּנָא: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״ אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין צְרִיכִין. וּמָה אִילּוּ יֹאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ גֵּרְשָׁהּ״, מִי לָא מְהֵימְנִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: **Come** and **hear, as Shmuel raised a dilemma before Rav Huna:** With regard to **two** people **who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required** to state this declaration? Rav Huna **said to him: They are not required** to say it. Rav Huna explained his ruling: **And if these** two individuals would **say,** testifying: **She was divorced in our presence,** even without bringing a bill of divorce, **aren’t they deemed credible** and isn’t she considered divorced? Therefore, in this case too, they are deemed credible when they claim that the bill of divorce was written correctly.


###### Gittin 5a:9
[Gittin 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:9)

לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This **works out well according to** the opinion of **Rava,** as the matter depends on the availability of witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, and there are two witnesses in this case. However, **according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** it is **difficult,** as he requires the additional testimony that the document was written for the woman’s sake. The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of Rabba, **with what are we dealing here?** He maintains that this ruling is referring to the period **after** the people living overseas **learned** the *halakha* that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake.


###### Gittin 5a:10
[Gittin 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:10)

אִי הָכִי, חַד נָמֵי! גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so, one** person who brings a bill of divorce should **also** not be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence. The Gemara explains: One witness is still required to state the declaration for the aforementioned reason: It is a rabbinic **decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state.**


###### Gittin 5a:11
[Gittin 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:11)

אִי הָכִי, בֵּי תְרֵי נָמֵי! בֵּי תְרֵי דְּמַיְיתוּ גִּיטָּא, מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא; וּמִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא גְּזוּר בָּהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **If so, two** who bring a bill of divorce should **also** be required to say that it was written and signed in their presence, due to this same decree. The Gemara answers: **Two** people **who bring a bill of divorce** is **an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.**


###### Gittin 5a:12
[Gittin 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:12)

וְהָא אִשָּׁה, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּתְנַן: הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה גִּיטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא עַצְמָהּ צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״! שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בִּשְׁלִיחוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** the case of **a woman** who brings her own bill of divorce is also **an uncommon** matter, **and** yet **we learned** in a mishna (23a): **The woman herself may bring her** own **bill of divorce, provided that she** too **is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.** Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this decree so **that you will not distinguish with regard to** different types of **agency.**


###### Gittin 5a:13
[Gittin 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:13)

אִי הָכִי, בַּעַל נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא גִּיטּוֹ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״? טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – דִּילְמָא אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעַר וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ; הַשְׁתָּא מִינְקָט נָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, וְעַרְעוֹרֵי קָא מְעַרְעַר עֲלֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** then **a husband** who brings his wife’s bill of divorce should **also** be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. **Why** then, **is it taught** in a *baraita*: If the husband **himself brings his** own **bill of divorce he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?** The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** that **the Sages said** that the agent of a bill of divorce **is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?** The reason for the decree is that **perhaps** the **husband will come** to **contest and invalidate** the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself **now holds** the document **in his hand, and** yet you are concerned that **he will contest it?**


###### Gittin 5a:14
[Gittin 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אִם נִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו – כָּשֵׁר, וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל. הֱוֵי לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ לְהַחֲמִיר עָלֶיהָ, אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the *Tosefta* (1:1): With regard to an agent **who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and gave it to** the woman, **but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if** the bill of divorce **is ratified through its signatories,** i.e., other people testify about the witnesses’ signatures, it is **valid, but if not** it is **invalid.** This **is** because the Sages **did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,** so as **to be stringent with her. Rather,** they required the agent to state this declaration so as **to be lenient with her,** to spare the court from having to ratify the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 5a:15
[Gittin 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:15)

לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: This **works out well according to** the opinion of **Rava,** as according to him the statement of the agent is to avoid the need for the court to ratify the bill of divorce, which is a leniency for her. However, **according to** the opinion of **Rabba** it is **difficult,** as he holds that the agent is required to state the declaration due to the concern that the bill of divorce may not have been written for her sake, which is a stringency for her. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** With the period **after they learned** the *halakha* that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake.


###### Gittin 5a:16
[Gittin 5a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5a:16)

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר הַדָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ! כְּשֶׁנִּיסַת. אִי הָכִי, הֱוֵי לָא הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ לְהַחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ?! מִשּׁוּם דְּנִיסַּת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t you say** that there is a rabbinic **decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state?** Why didn’t the Sages enforce their decree in this case? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case **where** the woman **had** already **married** again after having received the bill of divorce, and the Sages did not want to enforce their decree at the expense of forcing her to get divorced. The Gemara questions this explanation: **If so,** the explanation provided by the *Tosefta* for the ruling in the mishna, that the reason **is** because the Sages **did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,** so as **to be stringent with her. Rather,** they required the agent to state this declaration so as **to be lenient with her,** is not accurate. Instead, the true reason for this leniency **is because she had** already **married** someone else.


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

הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכִי תֵּימָא לְהַחֲמִיר עֲלַהּ וְלַפְּקַהּ, הֱוֵי לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ לְהַחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This is what** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **is saying: And if you would say** that one should **be stringent with her and remove her** from her new husband, to counter that claim the *tanna* adds: This **is** because the Sages **did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,** so as **to be stringent with her. Rather,** they required the agent to state this declaration so as **to be lenient with her.**