## Gittin Daf 5b

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

טַעְמָא מַאי – דִּילְמָא אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעַר וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ; הַשְׁתָּא בַּעַל לָא קָא מְעַרְעַר, אֲנַן נֵיקוּם וּנְעַרְעַר עֲלַהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that the Sages required this testimony at all? **Perhaps** the **husband will come** to **contest, and invalidate** the bill of divorce. **Now,** in this case, where **the husband is not contesting** its validity, **will we,** the court, **arise and contest it?**


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

בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: Rabba and Rava disagree **with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said** that the reason the Sages required an agent to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is **because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake. And one said** that the reason is **because there are no witnesses available to ratify it.**


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

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא אַיְיתִי גִּיטָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: צְרִיכְנָא לְמֵימַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is** the one **who said** that the reason is **because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake, as Rabbi Shimon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or not?**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכַתְּ, לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, אֲבָל בְּדוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים דִּבְקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ – לֹא. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi **said to him: You are not required** to do so, as **they said** that one was required to state this declaration **only in the earlier generations, when they were not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake. However, in the later generations, when they are experts** about writing it **for her sake, no,** this declaration is no longer necessary. The Gemara states: **It may be concluded** from here that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was of this opinion.


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

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! וְהָא רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא! וְעוֹד, הָא אָמְרִינַן שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And can you understand** that an individual agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? **But** it was demonstrated earlier that **Rabba is of** the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion **of Rava,** and the issue of the availability of witnesses cannot be resolved by the fact that later generations are knowledgeable about writing a bill of divorce for the woman’s sake. **And furthermore, we said** that according to the opinion of Rabba an agent must still say that it was written and signed in his presence, **lest the matter return to its corrupt state.**


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

אֶלָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא הֲוָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְהָא דְּלָא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ – מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba had another person with him,** who served as a second witness, **and** the reason **that** the account of the incident **did not mention him** was **due to the honor of Rabbi Shimon** bar Abba, as that man was unlearned. As for the *halakha*, since there were two witnesses the concern for ratification does not apply in this case. As stated above, in this situation the Sages did not apply their decree due to a concern that the matter would return to its corrupt state.


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

אִיתְּמַר: בִּפְנֵי כַּמָּה נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא; חַד אָמַר: בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְחַד אָמַר: בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to the following question: **In the presence of how many** people must an agent who delivers a bill of divorce from overseas **give it to** the woman? **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina** disagreed with regard to this matter. **One says** that he must give it **in the presence of** at least **two** witnesses, **and one says** that he must give it **in the presence of** at least **three** witnesses.


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

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, דְּרָבִין בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא אַיְיתִי גִּיטָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל הַב לָהּ בְּאַפֵּי תְּרֵי, וְאֵימָא לְהוּ ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **It may be concluded that Rabbi Yoḥanan is** the one **who said** that the agent must give the bill of divorce **in the presence of two** witnesses, **as Ravin bar Rav Ḥisda brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: Go** and **give** the bill of divorce **to her in the presence of two** witnesses, **and say to them: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.** The Gemara states: **It may be concluded** from here that Rabbi Yoḥanan was of this opinion.


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

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, קָסָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, קָסָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that they disagree about this** issue, **as the one who said** that the agent must deliver the bill of divorce **in the presence of two** witnesses **holds** that the reason is: **Because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake.** Therefore, it is sufficient for there to be testimony that it was written for her sake. **And the one who said** that he must testify **in the presence of three** people **holds** that the reason is: **Because there are no witnesses available to ratify it.** Consequently, he must testify in the presence of three people, who are considered a court, as is the *halakha* for the ratification of all documents.


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

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! הָא מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְהָכָא הֵיכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **And can you understand** it that way? **But from** the fact that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said,** as proven above, that the reason for the decree is **because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake,** it follows that **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who disagrees with him, **said** the reason is **because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. And** if so, **here, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that it can be delivered **in the presence of two** people? If a court is needed to ratify the document, Rabbi Yoḥanan should require three people.


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

וְעוֹד, הָא רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** it was demonstrated earlier that **Rabba is of** the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion **of Rava.** Consequently, even the one who says that this decree was enacted because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for the woman’s sake still requires witnesses to ratify the document. If a court is necessary for this purpose, the presence of two people is not enough.


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

אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְהָכָא בְּשָׁלִיחַ נַעֲשֶׂה עֵד וְעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, קָסָבַר: שָׁלִיחַ נַעֲשֶׂה עֵד, וְעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, קָסָבַר: שָׁלִיחַ נַעֲשֶׂה עֵד, וְאֵין עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, everyone** agrees **that we require witnesses** who are **available to ratify it, and here they disagree** with regard to whether **an agent can become a witness** to testify about the matter of his agency, **and** whether **a witness can become a judge** for the matter about which he testified. The Gemara explains: **The one who said** that the agent must state the declaration **in the presence of two** witnesses **holds** that **an agent can become a witness, and a witness can become a judge.** Consequently, this agent can join with the other two people to form a court that ratifies the document. **And the one who said** that it must be delivered **in the presence of three holds** that **an agent can become a witness, but a witness cannot become a judge.** Therefore, the agent must issue his statement in the presence of three other people.


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

וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן בִּדְרַבָּנַן דְּעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But don’t we maintain with regard to** matters **of rabbinic law that a witness can become a judge,** and the ratification of documents is a requirement by rabbinic law?


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

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁירָה לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, זִמְנִין דְּמַיְיתָא לֵיהּ אִיתְּתָא וְסָמְכִי עֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara suggests that **here they disagree with regard to this** issue: **As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Ḥanina, who rules that a bill of divorce must be given in the presence of three people, **holds** that **since a woman** is also **fit to bring the bill of divorce** there is a concern that **sometimes a woman will bring it, and** those to whom the bill of divorce is delivered will **rely upon her.** They will not know that ordinarily an agent can testify in the presence of two people only because the agent himself joins with them. In this situation, as a woman cannot join the court, there is no court to receive the testimony and ratify the bill of divorce. Consequently, the Sages required the presence of three people in all cases.


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

וְאִידַּךְ: אִשָּׁה – מִידָּע יָדְעִי וְלָא סָמְכִי עֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that with regard to **a woman,** people **know** that a woman cannot serve as a judge **and they** would **not rely on her.** Instead they would bring a third person, and therefore there is no need to enact a decree due to this case.


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

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who says that it is sufficient that the agent state his declaration before an additional two people: With regard to **one 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,** and she remarries, her second husband **must divorce** her, **and the offspring** of the second marriage is **a *mamzer*.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? יִטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְיֹאמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: The offspring is not a *mamzer*. How should** the agent **act** to remedy the situation? He should return, **take** the bill of divorce **from her, and again give it to her in the presence of two** witnesses, **and he should say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.** Although the dispute in this *baraita* is referring to a different issue, it mentions incidentally that the document must be transmitted in the presence of two people, not three.


###### Gittin 5b:18
[Gittin 5b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5b:18)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא אָמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, יוֹצִיא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After citing the *baraita* the Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Meir,** does he maintain that merely **because** the agent **did not say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,** the second husband **must divorce** her **and the offspring is a *mamzer*?** Is the *halakha* so strict that the divorce is invalidated even if the witness actually saw the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and simply neglected to state the declaration?


###### Gittin 5b:19
[Gittin 5b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5b:19)

אִין, רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ חֲכָמִים בְּגִיטִּין – יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes,** as **Rabbi Meir** conforms **to his** own line of **reasoning** with regard to this issue. **As Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say** that in **any** case where **one who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce,** and the woman married despite this, the second husband **must divorce** the woman who married him on the basis of that bill of divorce, **and the offspring is a *mamzer*.**


###### Gittin 5b:20
[Gittin 5b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5b:20)

בַּר הֶדְיָא בָּעֵי לְאֵתוֹיֵי גִּיטָּא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַחַי, דַּהֲוָה מְמוּנֶּה אַגִּיטֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לַעֲמוֹד עַל כָּל אוֹת וָאוֹת. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכַתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: **Bar Haddaya sought to bring a bill of divorce** from one country to another. **He came before Rabbi Aḥai, who was appointed over bills of divorce** in his location to ask him how to proceed. Rabbi Aḥai **said to him: You are required to stand over each and every letter** when the scribe writes the bill of divorce, to see that everything is performed in the correct manner. Bar Haddaya **came before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi** to ask if this is required, and **they said to him: You are not required** to do this; rather, it is enough for you to be present and oversee in general that it is done in the proper manner.


###### Gittin 5b:21
[Gittin 5b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5b:21)

וְכִי תֵּימָא אֶעֱבֵיד לְחוּמְרָא, נִמְצָא אַתָּה מוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל גִּיטִּין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: I will act stringently,** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aḥai, then **you are casting aspersions on the earlier bills of divorce,** i.e., bills of divorce written in previous generations, as the agents who delivered them did not examine them to this extent.


###### Gittin 5b:22
[Gittin 5b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/5b:22)

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אַיְיתִי גִּיטָּא, פַּלְגָא אִיכְּתַב קַמֵּיהּ וּפַלְגָא לָא אִיכְּתַב קַמֵּיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב בּוֹ אֶלָּא שִׁיטָה אַחַת לִשְׁמָהּ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further relates: **Rabba bar bar Ḥana brought a bill of divorce, half** of which **was written in his presence and half** of which **was not written in his presence. He came before Rabbi Elazar** to clarify the *halakha* in this case. Rabbi Elazar **said to him: Even** if the scribe **wrote only one line of it for her sake** in the presence of the agent, **he is no longer required** to observe further, as it can be assumed that he wrote all of it for her sake. **Rav Ashi said:**