## Gittin Daf 71b

###### Gittin 71b:1
[Gittin 71b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:1)

וְהָתְנַן: שְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין – נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת פִּיקְּחוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת אַחַת פִּיקַּחַת וְאַחַת חֵרֶשֶׁת; וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת – נְשׂוּאוֹת לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין פִּיקְּחִין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין אֶחָד פִּיקֵּחַ וְאֶחָד חֵרֵשׁ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Yevamot* 112b): In a case where there were **two deaf-mute brothers,** whose marriage is valid by rabbinic law, **married** to **two** halakhically **competent sisters, or** to **two deaf-mute sisters, or** to **two sisters, one** of whom was halakhically **competent and one** of whom was **a deaf-mute; and similarly,** if there were **two deaf-mute sisters,** whose marriage is valid by rabbinic law, **married to two** halakhically **competent brothers, or to two deaf-mute brothers, or to two brothers, one** of whom was halakhically **competent and one** of whom was **a deaf-mute;** and in each case one brother dies without children, then all **these** women **are exempt from *ḥalitza* and from levirate marriage.** Each sister is exempt, as she is the sister of the wife of the *yavam*.


###### Gittin 71b:2
[Gittin 71b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:2)

וְאִם הָיוּ נׇכְרִיּוֹת, יִכָּנְסוּ; וְאִם רָצוּ לְהוֹצִיאָן – יוֹצִיאוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if they were unrelated women** the men **may marry them** in levirate marriage, **and if they wanted to divorce them** later via a bill of divorce **they may divorce** them. Since this is stated as a general *halakha* it indicates that the deaf-mute brother can also give a bill of divorce to his *yevama* who was previously married to his deaf-mute brother, and the Sages did not institute a decree in order not to create confusion with the similar case of a deceased halakhically competent brother.


###### Gittin 71b:3
[Gittin 71b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:3)

אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is clear as we initially answered,** that it is referring to a *yevama*, previously married to a halakhically competent brother, who fell before a *yavam* who was a deaf-mute from birth. The alternative answer given on the previous *amud* is rejected.


###### Gittin 71b:4
[Gittin 71b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The colleagues of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree with him,** and hold that written instructions from a deaf-mute have no halakhic validity.


###### Gittin 71b:5
[Gittin 71b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: נִישַּׁטֵּת, לֹא יוֹצִיא. נִתְחָרֵשׁ הוּא אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה – לֹא יוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית. מַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? לָאו – אַף עַל גַּב דְּיָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that **we, too, learn** in the mishna (*Yevamot* 112b) that non-verbal instructions are insufficient to initiate a divorce even for one who was born with the ability to hear and subsequently became a deaf-mute: If a woman **became an imbecile** after her wedding the Sages instituted that the husband **must not divorce** her. If the husband **became a deaf-mute or an imbecile he can never divorce her,** as he does not have the legal competence to grant a bill of divorce. Abaye explains: **What** is the reason that the mishna emphasizes that he can **never** divorce her? **Isn’t** this teaching that **even though he can communicate through writing,** he is unable to divorce her?


###### Gittin 71b:6
[Gittin 71b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:6)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְפָרוֹשֵׁי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא הוּא דַּאֲתָא; וּמַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? אַף עַל גַּב דַּחֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ דְּחָרִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: If not** for the fact that **Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us** that there is a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, then **I would say** that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes** only **to explain the reason** of **the first *tanna*,** not to disagree with him. If that were so, all agree that one who was born with the ability to hear and subsequently became a deaf-mute can issue written instructions to write and give a bill of divorce for his wife. **And** according to this explanation, **what** is the meaning of the word **never?** It is not referring to issuing written instructions. It means that **even though I see that he is sharp** by means of examining his gestures, these indications are not sufficient to warrant the giving of a bill of divorce. Despite this, if he were to issue written instructions to divorce his wife, they would be followed.


###### Gittin 71b:7
[Gittin 71b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:7)

אִי נָמֵי, לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, שׁוֹטָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפִּיקַּחַת בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** the mishna emphasized that the only situation where the husband can never divorce his wife is where her husband became a deaf-mute or an imbecile, but not if the husband remained healthy and the wife became a deaf-mute or imbecile, **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: By Torah law** a woman who is **an imbecile may be divorced** even though she is unable to give her consent, **just as it is** permitted to divorce a halakhically **competent woman against her will.**


###### Gittin 71b:8
[Gittin 71b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:8)

וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת – שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ בָּהּ מִנְהַג הֶפְקֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what** is **the reason** that the Rabbis **said she may not be divorced?** So **that she will not be treated as ownerless property.** If she has no husband to protect her, and she is unable to protect herself, she may be treated as ownerless property by anyone who wishes to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, if the husband is a deaf-mute or an imbecile then he cannot divorce her by Torah law. This is why the mishna stresses only that the husband may never divorce his wife in the case where he becomes halakhically incompetent, but not when it is the wife who becomes a deaf-mute or an imbecile, in order to demonstrate the difference between the two cases in terms of Torah law.


###### Gittin 71b:9
[Gittin 71b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתֶּךָ?״ וְאָמַר לָהֶן: ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; אָמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב, וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ וַחֲתָמוּהוּ וּנְתָנוּהוּ לוֹ, וְחָזַר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – הֲרֵי הַגֵּט בָּטֵל, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַסּוֹפֵר ״כְּתוֹב״ וְלָעֵדִים ״חֲתוֹמוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If people **said to** the husband: **Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he said to them: Write** the document, and those people **told the scribe** to write it, **and he wrote** it **and** instructed **the witnesses** to sign it, **and they signed** it; **even if they wrote it, and signed it, and gave it to him, and he then gave it to** his wife, **the bill of divorce is void unless he** himself **says to the scribe: Write** the document, **and** he himself says **to the witnesses: Sign** the document.


###### Gittin 71b:10
[Gittin 71b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:10)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּלֹא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״, הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers from the mishna: **The reason** that the bill of divorce is void is **because** he told the people only to write the document, but **he did not say: Give** a bill of divorce to my wife. **But** if **he said** to them: **Give** a bill of divorce to my wife, and they told the scribe to write the document and the witnesses to sign it, those people **give** the document to his wife and it is valid. In accordance with **whose** opinion is this statement? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says:** Verbal **directives can be delegated to an agent.** Everyone agrees that an agent can be appointed to perform an action on behalf of another, but Rabbi Meir holds that an agent can be appointed to give instructions to others on behalf of another.


###### Gittin 71b:11
[Gittin 71b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:11)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתוֹב וְלָעֵדִים חֲתוֹמוּ״ – אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי לָא מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Say the latter clause** of the mishna: The bill of divorce is void **unless he** himself **says to the scribe: Write** the document, **and** he himself says **to the witnesses: Sign** the document. In the latter clause of the mishna, **we arrive at** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who said:** Verbal **directives cannot be delegated to an agent.**


###### Gittin 71b:12
[Gittin 71b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:12)

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי?! אִין, רֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that **the first clause** of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir and the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei?** The Gemara answers: **Yes, the first clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir and the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.** Although unusual, it is possible for a single mishna to represent two contrary opinions.


###### Gittin 71b:13
[Gittin 71b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:13)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר ״תְּנוּ״. אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר תְּנוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** Actually, the mishna in **its entirety is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir. And with what are we dealing here?** With a situation **whereby** the husband **did not say: Give** the bill of divorce to my wife, but said only to write it. In that case he must instruct the scribe and the witnesses directly. If he issued instructions to give the bill of divorce, it would also have been effective. The Gemara asks: **If so,** the mishna **should have** said: The bill of divorce is void **unless he says: Give** the bill of divorce to my wife.


###### Gittin 71b:14
[Gittin 71b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:14)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר לְבֵי תְלָתָא. אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לִשְׁלֹשָׁה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, with what are we dealing here?** With a situation **whereby** the husband **did not say** his instructions **to three** people, who constitute a court with the authority to appoint others to write a bill of divorce. Rather, he instructed two people, who do not constitute a court, and therefore do not have the authority to appoint others to write a bill of divorce, even if the husband told them to give the bill of divorce to his wife. Witnesses may only write and give the document themselves. The Gemara challenges: **If so,** the mishna **should have said: Unless he says** his instructions **to three** people.


###### Gittin 71b:15
[Gittin 71b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:15)

אֶלָּא כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר ״אִמְרוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna in **its entirety is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, and with what are we dealing here?** With a situation **whereby** the husband **did not** explicitly **say** to his agents: **Say** my instructions to the scribe to write the document.


###### Gittin 71b:16
[Gittin 71b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:16)

אִי הָכִי, ״עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר אִמְרוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** the expression: **Until he says** to the scribe, is imprecise. Rather, the mishna **should have** said: Until the husband instructs the agents to **tell.**


###### Gittin 71b:17
[Gittin 71b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71b:17)

וְעוֹד, מִי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר: ״אִמְרוּ״?! וְהָתְנַן: ״כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – כָּשֵׁר״; וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״חָתַם סוֹפֵר״ שָׁנִינוּ. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And does Rabbi Yosei concede in** the case of **one who says: Tell** another to write it? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (87b): If a bill of divorce has **the writing of a scribe,** and the scribe identifies his handwriting, **and** one **witness** verifies his signature, it is **valid** as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. **And Rabbi Yirmeya said: We learned** in the mishna that this is the *halakha* with regard to **the scribe’s signature** and not the scribe’s writing. **And Rav Ḥisda said: Whose** opinion is expressed in the **mishna?**