## Gittin Daf 81b

###### Gittin 81b:1
[Gittin 81b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:1)

דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה בְּעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as Beit Shammai hold: A person does** engage in **licentious sexual intercourse.** Although they were seen engaging in sexual intercourse, one cannot assume that he intended to betroth her, since they were recently divorced. The assumption is that they were simply engaging in licentious sexual intercourse. Consequently, he is not required to give her a second bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 81b:2
[Gittin 81b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:2)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: אֵין אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה בְּעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת. אֲבָל לֹא רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not** engage in **licentious sexual intercourse.** Therefore, he had the intention to betroth her, and he must give her another bill of divorce. **But** if **they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse,** even though they spent the night together at an inn, **everyone agrees** that **she does not require a second bill of divorce from him,** as there is no concern that perhaps they engaged in sexual intercourse.


###### Gittin 81b:3
[Gittin 81b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:3)

תְּנַן: וּמוֹדִים בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין – שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי, שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ. וְאִי בְּשֶׁרָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה, מָה לִי מִן הָאֵירוּסִין וּמָה לִי מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this understanding of the mishna: **We learned** in the mishna that Beit Hillel **concede that when she was divorced following** the state of **betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him because he is not accustomed to her. And if** the mishna is referring to a case in **which they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, what** is the difference **to me** if it was **following** the state of **betrothal and what** is the difference **to me** if it was **following** the state of **marriage?** In either case, they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse.


###### Gittin 81b:4
[Gittin 81b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:4)

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין – בְּשֶׁלֹּא רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה; וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר – כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל שֶׁלֹּא רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather** it can be explained that **the mishna** is actually speaking about a case in **which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated** his opinion **in accordance** with the statement of **that *tanna*. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai did not disagree about** a case **where they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse.** Everyone agrees **that** in such a scenario, **she does not require a second bill of divorce from him.**


###### Gittin 81b:5
[Gittin 81b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:5)

עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ – עַל שֶׁרָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה; שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה בְּעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת; וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה בְּעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to what** case **did they disagree?** They disagreed **about** a case **where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse. As Beit Shammai say: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel say: A person does not** engage in **licentious sexual intercourse.** Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with the mishna.


###### Gittin 81b:6
[Gittin 81b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:6)

וּמַתְנִיתִין – דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּלֹא רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? דְּאִיכָּא עֵדֵי יִחוּד, וְלֵיכָּא עֵדֵי בִיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **the mishna, which we established** as discussing a case in **which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, with regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: They disagree about a case in **which there are witnesses** to their **seclusion, but there are no witnesses** to an act of **sexual intercourse.**


###### Gittin 81b:7
[Gittin 81b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:7)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: לָא אָמְרִינַן הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד וְהֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִיאָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: אָמְרִינַן הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי יִחוּד וְהֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to such a case, **Beit Shammai hold: We do not say** that **these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse.** According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in sexual intercourse. **And Beit Hillel hold: We** do **say** that **these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse.** Since it is assumed that they engaged in sexual intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him.


###### Gittin 81b:8
[Gittin 81b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:8)

וּמוֹדִים בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין – שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ. לָא אָמְרִינַן הֵן הֵן עֵדֵי בִיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Beit Hillel **concede that when she was divorced following** the state of **betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him,** even if they were alone together. **For since he is not accustomed to her, we do not say** that these are the witnesses of seclusion; **these are the witnesses of intercourse.**


###### Gittin 81b:9
[Gittin 81b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:9)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה; וְאוֹקִימְנָא לְמַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁלֹּא רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה! אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this,** that Beit Hillel require a second bill of divorce only when witnesses saw that they engaged in sexual intercourse? **But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** The ***halakha*** in all cases **is like an unattributed mishna. And we established the mishna** to be discussing a case in which **they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse.** How then does Rabbi Yoḥanan rule contrary to the mishna? The Gemara answers: **They are *amora’im*, and** they disagree **with regard to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan.** Some of them hold that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not always rule in accordance with an unattributed mishna.


###### Gittin 81b:10
[Gittin 81b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** כְּנָסָהּ בְּגֵט קֵרֵחַ – תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a woman **was married** by her second husband **on the basis of** receiving **a bare bill of divorce,** i.e., a folded and tied bill of divorce that is missing signatures, **she** must **leave** both **this,** the first husband, **and that,** the second husband. **And all of those** previously mentioned **ways** of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier mishna (79b) apply **to her** in this case as well.


###### Gittin 81b:11
[Gittin 81b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:11)

גֵּט קֵרֵחַ – הַכֹּל מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא קְרוֹבִים, הָרְאוּיִין לְהָעִיד בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a bare bill of divorce; anyone,** even those who are disqualified from bearing witness, **can complete it,** i.e., sign it in addition to the primary witnesses, so that it will not remain bare. This is **the statement of ben Nannas. Rabbi Akiva says: Not** all who are disqualified from bearing witness can **complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case.** Rabbi Akiva permits only the inclusion of witnesses who would ordinarily be valid witnesses, but who are invalid here because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.


###### Gittin 81b:12
[Gittin 81b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:12)

וְאֵיזֶהוּ גֵּט קֵרֵחַ? כׇּל שֶׁקְּשָׁרָיו מְרוּבִּין מֵעֵדָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is a bare bill of divorce?** It is **any** bill of divorce **where** the number of **its folds** is **more than** the number of **its witnesses.** In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is folded and the folds are then tied. Instead of having two witnesses sign at the bottom of the document, witnesses would sign on each tied fold. A bare bill of divorce has more folds than signatures, i.e., some folds lack signatures.


###### Gittin 81b:13
[Gittin 81b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּגֵט קֵרֵחַ? גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם ״כּוּלְּכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason that a bare bill of divorce** is not valid, considering that there are more than two witnesses signed on it? The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic **decree** that was issued **due to** one who says: **All of you** should sign. Since it can be assumed that one who writes a folded and tied bill of divorce wants to have each tied fold signed, there is concern that he may have instructed that all of them sign. If they do not sign, the condition is not fulfilled, and the bill of divorce is not valid.


###### Gittin 81b:14
[Gittin 81b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:14)

גֵּט קֵרֵחַ – הַכֹּל מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was stated in the mishna that ben Nannas holds, with regard to **a bare bill of divorce,** that **anyone can complete it.** Rabbi Akiva, however, permits disqualified witnesses to sign only if they are invalid because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.


###### Gittin 81b:15
[Gittin 81b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:15)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, עֶבֶד מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? דְּאָתוּ לְמֵימַר כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת. קָרוֹב נָמֵי, אָתוּ לְמֵימַר כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Akiva, what is the reason** that **a slave cannot** sign? The Gemara answers: The Sages were concerned **that** people **will** mistakenly **come to say** that since the slave served as a witness in this case, the slave is **fit to bear witness** in all cases. They will use a slave as a witness in situations that demand testimony accepted only from qualified witnesses. The Gemara challenges this: If so, with regard to **a relative, too, they will come to say** that a relative is **fit to bear witness** in all cases.


###### Gittin 81b:16
[Gittin 81b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:16)

אֶלָּא עֶבֶד הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – דְּדִלְמָא אָתוּ לְאַסּוֹקֵיהּ לְיוּחֲסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one could explain that with regard to **a slave, this is the reason** why he is disqualified: There is concern that **perhaps they will come to elevate** his status **with regard to lineage.** If a slave signs the bill of divorce, they might say that if he signed a bill of divorce, he must be an Israelite.


###### Gittin 81b:17
[Gittin 81b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:17)

גַּזְלָן – דְּבַר יוּחֲסִין הוּא, לִיתַּכְשַׁר! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא קְרוֹבִים, הָרְאוּיִין לְהָעִיד בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר; קָרוֹב – אִין, גַּזְלָן – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If this is the reason why a slave cannot sign, then **a robber, who is of** unflawed **lineage, should be fit** to complete the signatures of a folded and tied bill of divorce, according to Rabbi Akiva. **Why,** then, did **we learn** in the mishna that **Rabbi Akiva says: Not** all can **complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case.** The Gemara deduces from this: **A relative, yes;** but **a robber, no.**


###### Gittin 81b:18
[Gittin 81b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:18)

אֶלָּא עֶבֶד הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – דְּאָתוּ לְמֵימַר: שַׁחְרוֹרֵי שַׁחְרְרֵיהּ; גַּזְלָן נָמֵי – אָתוּ לְמֵימַר: תְּשׁוּבָה עֲבַד; קָרוֹב – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? קָרוֹב כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָדְעִי דְּקָרוֹב הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, this is the reason** why **a slave** is disqualified: **They will come to say** that his master **emancipated him** and he signed because he is now like any other Israelite. Similarly, with regard to **a robber, they will also come to say** that **he repented** and will allow him to testify in other cases, as well. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva declared him to be unfit as well. With regard to **a relative, what can be said** to disallow him to sign this bill of divorce? With regard to **a relative, everyone knows that he is a relative,** and there is no concern that they will allow him to testify in other cases involving his relatives.


###### Gittin 81b:19
[Gittin 81b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁאֵילְתָא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא סָבָא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: גֵּט קֵרֵחַ – קְשָׁרָיו שִׁבְעָה וְעֵדָיו שִׁשָּׁה; שִׁשָּׁה וְעֵדָיו חֲמִשָּׁה; חֲמִשָּׁה וְעֵדָיו אַרְבָּעָה; אַרְבָּעָה וְעֵדָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה – עַד כָּאן מַחְלוֹקֶת בֶּן נַנָּס וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֲבָל קְשָׁרָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֵדָיו שְׁנַיִם – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא קָרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zeira says** that **Rabba bar She’eilta says** that **Rav Hamnuna the Elder says** that **Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The **dispute** between **ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva** with regard to **a bare bill of divorce** that has more tied folds than witnesses is **only** in a case where **its ties** total **seven and its witnesses** total **six,** or its ties total **six and its witnesses** total **five,** or its ties total **five and its witnesses** total **four,** or its ties total **four and its witnesses** total **three.** But if **its ties** total **three and its witnesses** total **two, everyone,** even ben Nannas, **agrees** that **not** all disqualified witnesses can **complete it. Rather, only a relative** can complete it.


###### Gittin 81b:20
[Gittin 81b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבָּה בַּר שְׁאֵילְתָא: מִכְּדֵי כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה בִּמְקוּשָּׁר – כִּשְׁנַיִם בְּפָשׁוּט דָּמֵי; מָה הָתָם – קָרוֹב לָא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי – קָרוֹב לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba bar She’eilta: After all, all three** witnesses **in** a folded and **tied** bill of divorce are **like** the **two** witnesses **in an ordinary** bill of divorce, since the Sages said that a folded and tied bill of divorce requires at least three witnesses. Therefore, **just as there,** in the case of an ordinary bill of divorce, **a relative cannot** serve as one of the two witnesses, **so too here, a relative** should **not** serve as one of the primary witnesses.


###### Gittin 81b:21
[Gittin 81b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, וּשְׁאֵילְתֵּיהּ לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בִּמְקוּשָּׁר, דְּלָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba bar She’eilta **said to him: To me as well** this was **difficult, and I asked that** question **to Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Hamnuna** asked it **to Rav Adda bar Ahava,** who had transmitted this statement, **and he said to him: Leave** the case of **three** witnesses **in a** folded and **tied** bill of divorce, **as** the requirement **is not by Torah law.** While the requirement to have a minimum of two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce is by Torah law, the requirement to have a minimum of three witnesses for a folded and tied bill of divorce is by rabbinic law. Consequently, it is of no concern if the third witness is not fit to bear witness.


###### Gittin 81b:22
[Gittin 81b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:22)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: גֵּט קֵרֵחַ – קְשָׁרָיו שִׁבְעָה וְעֵדָיו שִׁשָּׁה; שִׁשָּׁה וְעֵדָיו חֲמִשָּׁה; חֲמִשָּׁה וְעֵדָיו אַרְבָּעָה; אַרְבָּעָה וְעֵדָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה – עַד כָּאן מַחְלוֹקֶת בֶּן נַנָּס וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this is also taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:9): The **dispute** between **ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva** with regard to **a bare bill of divorce** that has more tied folds than witnesses is **only** in a case where **its ties** total **seven and its witnesses** total **six,** or its ties total **six and its witnesses** total **five,** or its ties total **five and its witnesses** total **four,** or its ties total **four and its witnesses** total **three.**


###### Gittin 81b:23
[Gittin 81b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:23)

הִשְׁלִים עָלָיו עֶבֶד, בֶּן נַנָּס אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר; וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. אֲבָל קְשָׁרָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֵדָיו שְׁנַיִם – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא קָרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If **a slave completed it** with his signature, and the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, **ben Nannas says: The offspring** of a subsequent marriage **is unflawed. And Rabbi Akiva says: The offspring is a *mamzer*. But** if **its ties** total **three, and its witnesses** total **two, everyone agrees** that **not** all disqualified witnesses can **complete it. Rather,** it can be completed **only** by **a relative** of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.


###### Gittin 81b:24
[Gittin 81b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:24)

רַב יוֹסֵף מַתְנִי: ״כָּשֵׁר״. וְהָתַנְיָא: קָרוֹב! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, תְּנִי: כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef taught:** Only **a valid** witness can complete it. The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: **A relative? Rav Pappa said:** Correct the language of the *baraita*, and **teach: Valid.**


###### Gittin 81b:25
[Gittin 81b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:25)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד קָרוֹב בִּלְבַד, אֲבָל תְּרֵי לָא – דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְקַיּוֹמֵי בִּתְרֵי קְרוֹבִים וְחַד כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In** a folded and tied bill of divorce, the Sages **validated only** the use of **one witness** who is **a relative,** to complete the number of signatures as per the number of knotted folds. **But two** such witnesses, **no,** they did not validate them. The reason for this is that **perhaps they will come to ratify** a bill of divorce **with two** witnesses who are **relatives and one** witness who is **valid.** If the bill of divorce will be challenged, it will be necessary to ratify the document. While this bill of divorce has more than three witnesses signed to it, the court needs to authenticate the signatures of only three of the witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, provided that two of them are not relatives. If there are more than two relatives signed on the bill of divorce, a court may unintentionally authenticate the signatures of two relatives and only one valid witness.


###### Gittin 81b:26
[Gittin 81b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81b:26)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתָא נָמֵי דַּיְקָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The language of **the *baraita* is also precise,** in accordance with this opinion,