## Gittin Daf 64a

###### Gittin 64a:1
[Gittin 64a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:1)

אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, וְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים, וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**or** if there is **one** witness **from the first** pair of witnesses **and one** witness **from the latter** pair, **and one** additional witness **joins with them** as the second witness in both testimonies.


###### Gittin 64a:2
[Gittin 64a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר: בַּעַל אוֹמֵר לְפִקָּדוֹן, וְשָׁלִישׁ אוֹמֵר לְגֵירוּשִׁין – מִי נֶאֱמָן? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: בַּעַל נֶאֱמָן, וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: שָׁלִישׁ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute in a case where **a husband says** that he handed the bill of divorce to another **as a deposit** for safekeeping and not to deliver it to his wife, and that consequently she is not divorced, **and the third party [*shalish*],** to whom the husband gave the document, **says** that he was serving as an agent for receipt and the husband gave him the document **for** the purpose of **divorce.** In such a case, **who is deemed credible? Rav Huna says: The husband is deemed credible, and Rav Ḥisda says: The third party is deemed credible.**


###### Gittin 64a:3
[Gittin 64a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:3)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: בַּעַל נֶאֱמָן – דְּאִם אִיתָא דִּלְגֵירוּשִׁין יַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, לְדִידַהּ הֲוָה יָהֵיב לַהּ נִיהֲלַהּ. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: שָׁלִישׁ נֶאֱמָן – דְּהָא הֵימְנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rav Huna said** that **the husband is deemed credible, as, if it is so that he gave it to** the third party **for** the purpose of **divorce, he would have given** the bill of divorce directly **to her.** Both husband and wife are in the same city. Why did he give it to a third party? Apparently, he merely entrusted him with the bill of divorce for safekeeping. **And Rav Ḥisda said: The third party is deemed credible, as** the husband himself **deemed him credible** by entrusting him with the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 64a:4
[Gittin 64a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:4)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי אַבָּא: הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי, וְשָׁלִישׁ נֶאֱמָן מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם. כֵּיצַד? זֶה אוֹמֵר כָּךְ, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כָּךְ, שָׁלִישׁ נֶאֱמָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Huna from a *baraita* in the *Tosefta* (*Bava Metzia* 1:10): The legal status of **the admission of a litigant is similar to** that of the testimony of **one hundred witnesses, and** the statement of **a third party is deemed** more **credible than** the statements of **both of** the litigants. **How so?** If **this** litigant, the creditor, **says** that the debtor owes him **this** sum, **and that** litigant, the debtor, **says** that he owes **that** lower sum, the **third party** to whom the debtor gave the money to pay the creditor is **deemed credible** to establish the sum of the debt. This contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the husband, not the third party, is deemed credible.


###### Gittin 64a:5
[Gittin 64a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:5)

שָׁאנֵי מָמוֹן, דְּאִיתְיְהִיב לִמְחִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that objection: **A monetary** debt **is different, as it can be forgiven.** Since one can forgive a monetary debt outright, he can also accept upon himself to abide by the statement of a third party as to the sum of the debt. Therefore, even if the third party deviates from the truth, because it is a case involving money, they accept his determination. However, no proof may be cited from that case to the matter of the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of forgiveness with regard to ritual matters, e.g., divorce.


###### Gittin 64a:6
[Gittin 64a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:6)

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: וְכֵן לְגִיטִּין! גִּיטֵּי מָמוֹן. וְהָתַנְיָא: וְכֵן לִשְׁטָרוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita*: **And likewise** that is the *halakha* with regard **to bills of divorce [*gittin*],** i.e., the *halakha* is that the third party is deemed credible? The Gemara answers: The reference in the *baraita* is not to bills of divorce. Rather, the reference is to **monetary documents [*gittei mamon*].** The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita*: **And likewise** that is the *halakha* with regard **to** monetary **documents [*shetarot*]?** The fact that monetary documents are labeled as *shetarot* indicates that the term *gittin* refers to bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 64a:7
[Gittin 64a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:7)

מִידֵּי גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי תַּנְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **Are they,** the two expressions, **taught together?** If there were a passage in one *baraita* that said: And likewise, that is the *halakha* with regard to *gittin* and documents, one could infer that the term *gittin* is referring to bills of divorce, as the term documents is referring to all other documents. However, since these are two discrete *baraitot*, perhaps one is referring to monetary documents as *gittin* and the other is referring to them as *shetarot*.


###### Gittin 64a:8
[Gittin 64a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:8)

תְּנַן, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, צְרִיכָה שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים – שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ אָמְרָה״, וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ קִבֵּל, וְקָרַע״. וְאַמַּאי? לִיהֵמְנֵיהּ לְשָׁלִישׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof with regard to the credibility of the third party. **We learned** in the mishna that **a woman who said** to an agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me, requires two sets of witnesses** to confirm that she was divorced when the agent received the bill of divorce. She requires **two** witnesses **who say: In our presence she said** to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf, **and two** others **who say: In our presence** the agent **received** the bill of divorce **and tore** it. The Gemara asks: **And why** are the witnesses necessary? **Let us deem the third party,** to whom the husband handed the bill of divorce, **credible** and not require witnesses.


###### Gittin 64a:9
[Gittin 64a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:9)

מִי קָא נָפֵיק גִּיטָּא מִתּוּתֵי יְדֵיהּ – דְּלִיהֵמְנֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Does the bill of divorce emerge from his possession,** i.e., does he have the bill of divorce, such **that** it would lead one **to deem him credible?** The third party is believed only in a case where the item in question is under his control, as then he can do with it as he wishes. However, in this case the bill of divorce is no longer in his possession, as it has been torn, and the credibility attributed to the third party is no longer relevant.


###### Gittin 64a:10
[Gittin 64a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:10)

תִּינַח אָמְרָה; קִיבֵּל לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַבָּה: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: That **works out well** in explaining why witnesses are required to testify that **she said** to the agent in their presence: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf. However, **why do I** need witnesses to testify: In our presence the agent **received** the bill of divorce and tore it? From the point that the bill of divorce was in his possession no testimony should be necessary. **Rabba said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** who **says: Witnesses of transmission** of the bill of divorce **effect** the divorce. The divorce takes effect primarily by means of its transmission to the woman in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, witnesses are necessary to testify that the transmission took place in their presence.


###### Gittin 64a:11
[Gittin 64a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:11)

קָרַע לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד שָׁנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks to clarify a different matter mentioned in the mishna. **Why do I** need the witnesses to testify that the third party **tore** the bill of divorce? **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** The Sages **taught** the mishna **during a period of** religious **persecution,** when the government decreed that it is prohibited to write bills of divorce. Therefore, immediately after the divorce took effect they would destroy any evidence that a bill of divorce had been written by tearing it.


###### Gittin 64a:12
[Gittin 64a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:12)

אָמַר רַבָּה: וּמוֹדֶה רַב הוּנָא, דְּאִי אֲמַרָה אִיהִי: לְדִידִי אֲמַר לִי שָׁלִישׁ דִּלְגֵירוּשִׁין יַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ – מְהֵימְנָא. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּשָׁלִישׁ גּוּפֵיהּ לָא מְהֵימַן, וְאִיהִי מְהֵימְנָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: And** although he said that the husband is deemed credible, **Rav Huna concedes that if** the wife **said:** The **third party said to me** that my husband **gave** the bill of divorce **to him for** the purpose of **divorce, she is deemed credible.** The Gemara asks: **Is there anything** with regard to which, according to Rav Huna, **the third party himself is not deemed credible, but** the wife **is deemed credible** when quoting him?


###### Gittin 64a:13
[Gittin 64a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:13)

אֶלָּא אִי אֲמַרָה: קַמַּאי דִּידִי לְגֵרוּשִׁין יַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ – מְהֵימְנָא; מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא אָמְרָה לְדִידַהּ יַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ בַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabba said that Rav Huna concedes that **if she said: In my presence** my husband **gave** the bill of divorce **to** the third party **for** the purpose of **divorce, she is deemed credible.** Her credibility is based on the principle of ***miggo*,** that the ability to make a more advantageous claim grants credibility to the claim one actually makes. **Since, if she wished, she** could have **said** that **the husband gave it to her** and she was divorced, therefore, when she says that the husband gave it to an agent for the purpose of divorce she is deemed credible.


###### Gittin 64a:14
[Gittin 64a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:14)

בַּעַל אֹמֵר לְגֵירוּשִׁין, וְשָׁלִישׁ אוֹמֵר לְגֵירוּשִׁין, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: נָתַן לִי, וְאָבַד – אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָוֵה דָּבָר שֶׁבָּעֶרְוָה, וְאֵין דָּבָר שֶׁבְּעֶרְוָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara proceeds to a related matter. If the **husband said** that he gave the bill of divorce to the third party as an agent of delivery **for** the purpose of **divorce, and** the **third party says** that the husband gave it to him as an agent of delivery **for** the purpose of **divorce, and** the wife **says:** The third party **gave me** the bill of divorce **and** it **was lost, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** This **is** uncertainty with regard to **a matter of forbidden relations. And** there is **no** resolution of a **matter of forbidden relations** with **fewer than two** witnesses.


###### Gittin 64a:15
[Gittin 64a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:15)

וְאַמַּאי? וְלִיהֵימְנֵיהּ לְשָׁלִישׁ! מִי קָא נָפֵיק גִּיטָּא מִתּוּתֵי יְדֵיהּ דְּלִהֵימְנֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why** is this case one of uncertainty? **But let us deem the third party credible,** i.e., let us believe his statement that the husband gave him the bill of divorce for the purpose of divorce. The Gemara rejects this: **Does the bill of divorce emerge from his possession,** such **that** it would lead one **to deem him credible?**


###### Gittin 64a:16
[Gittin 64a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:16)

וְלִהֵימְנֵיהּ לְבַעַל – דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּעַל שֶׁאָמַר ״גֵּירַשְׁתִּי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי״ – נֶאֱמָן! מִי קָאָמַר ״גֵּירַשְׁתִּי״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** one **deem the husband credible, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A husband who says: I divorced my wife, is deemed credible.** The Gemara rejects this: In the case under discussion **does** the husband **say: I divorced** her? He merely stated that he handed the bill of divorce to the third party.


###### Gittin 64a:17
[Gittin 64a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/64a:17)

וְלֵימָא: חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ: ״צֵא וְקַדֵּשׁ לִי אִשָּׁה״ – סְתָם, וּמֵת שְׁלוּחוֹ – אָסוּר בְּכׇל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם; חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let us say** that there is **a presumption** that **an agent performs his** assigned **agency, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that in the case of **one who says to his agent: Go out and betroth a woman for me,** and he did **not specify** which woman, **and his agent died** without informing him whether he betrothed a woman or the identity of the woman he betrothed, it is **prohibited** for him to marry **all the women in the world,** as there is **a presumption** that **an agent performs his** assigned **agency.** Apparently, one relies on this presumption even with regard to matters of forbidden relations. Because the identity of the woman is unknown, one must be concerned with regard to all women; perhaps they are relatives of the woman whom the agent betrothed on his behalf.