## Gittin Daf 86a

###### Gittin 86a:1
[Gittin 86a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:1)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן – דְּאָמַר: ״הַיּוֹם אִי אַתְּ אִשְׁתִּי וּלְמָחָר אַתְּ אִשְׁתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
was instituted **to the exclusion of that which Rava asked Rav Naḥman,** with regard to a case **where** the husband **said** to his wife while handing her the bill of divorce: **Today you are not my wife and tomorrow you are my wife.** Does this limitation take effect? Although the conclusion of that inquiry was that once the wife is divorced she is divorced forever, Rava instituted the addition of this expression in the text of the bill of divorce to remove any uncertainty with regard to such a case.


###### Gittin 86a:2
[Gittin 86a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:2)

גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ (בַּת) [בֶּן] חוֹרִין״; ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ״: אַתְקֵין רַב יְהוּדָה בִּשְׁטָר זְבִינֵי דְּעַבְדֵי: ״עַבְדָּא דְּנַן מוּצְדָּק לְעַבְדוּ; וּפְטִיר וַעֲטִיר מִן חֲרוּרֵי, וּמִן עֲלוּלֵי, וּמִן עָרוֹרֵי מַלְכָּא וּמַלְכְּתָא; וּרְשׁוּם דְּאִינִישׁ לָא אִית עֲלוֹהִי, וּמְנוּקֶּה מִכֹּל מוּם, וּמִן שְׁחִין דְּנָפֵיק עַד טַצְהַר חֲדַת וְעַתִּיק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna: **The basic** element **of a bill of manumission** for a maidservant is: **You are hereby a free woman,** or: **You are hereby your own. Rav Yehuda instituted** the following formulation **in a document of sale for slaves: This slave is justified,** i.e., fit **for slavery, and he is dismissed and removed from manumission and from accusations and from contests of the king and queen,** meaning that he was not sentenced to death by the governmental court. **And there is not a sign [*reshum*] of** ownership of another **person on him. And he is clean of any blemish and of boils that emerge on him for four [*tatzhar*]** years, whether **new or old.**


###### Gittin 86a:3
[Gittin 86a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:3)

מַאי אָסוּתֵיהּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גִּינְבְּרָא, וּמַרְתְּכָא, וְכַבְרִיתָא, וְחַלָּא דְחַמְרָא, וּמִשְׁחָא דְזֵיתָא, וְנַטְפִּיק חִיוָּרָא; וְשָׁיְיפִי לֵיהּ בְּגַדְפָּא דַאֲווֹזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks tangentially: **What is the cure for** boils? **Abaye said:** One takes **ginger [*ginebara*], and slag from silver, and sulfur [*kavrita*], and wine vinegar, and olive oil, and white naphtha [*natpik*], and spreads it with a goose feather.**


###### Gittin 86a:4
[Gittin 86a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת הַוּוֹלָד כָּשֵׁר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Three bills of divorce are invalid** *ab initio*, **but if** the woman **marries** another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of **the offspring** from this marriage **is unflawed.** In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child.


###### Gittin 86a:5
[Gittin 86a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:5)

כָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ, וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים; יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים, וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן; יֵשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן, וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד; הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת – הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
These three bills are: A bill of divorce that the husband **wrote in his handwriting but has no** signatures of **witnesses on** the document at all, a case where **there are** signatures of **witnesses on** the document **but there is no date** written **on it,** and a case where **there is a date** written **on it, but it contains only one witness. These are** the **three invalid bills of divorce** with regard to which the Sages said: **And if she marries,** the lineage of **the offspring is unflawed.**


###### Gittin 86a:6
[Gittin 86a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:6)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים – כָּשֵׁר, וְגוֹבָה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים; שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִים עַל הַגֵּט אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no** signatures of **witnesses on** the document, **but he handed it to her in the presence of** two **witnesses,** it **is a valid** bill of divorce. **And** on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman **can collect** the amount written for her in her marriage contract even **from liened property, as** Rabbi Eliezer maintains that **the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world.** If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband can contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. Nevertheless, the witnesses’ signatures are not an essential part of a bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 86a:7
[Gittin 86a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** וְתוּ לֵיכָּא?! וְהָא אִיכָּא גֵּט יָשָׁן! הָתָם לֹא תֵּצֵא, הָכָא תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **But are there no other** invalid bills of divorce? **But isn’t there an outdated bill of divorce,** where the husband and wife were secluded after it was written and before it was handed to her? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the cases: **There,** in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, if the woman remarries on the basis of that bill of divorce **she** need **not leave** her husband; **here, she must leave** him.


###### Gittin 86a:8
[Gittin 86a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:8)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הָכָא תֵּצֵא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הָכָא לֹא תֵּצֵא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that **here she must leave** her husband, even though the lineage of their children is unflawed. **But according to the one who says** that **here she** need **not leave, what is there to say?** Why is an outdated bill of divorce not mentioned in the mishna?


###### Gittin 86a:9
[Gittin 86a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:9)

הָתָם תִּינָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה, הָכָא דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: There is still a difference between the cases, as **there,** in the case of an outdated bill of divorce, **she may remarry *ab initio*;** while **here,** it is only **after the fact,** if she remarried, that she need not leave her second husband.


###### Gittin 86a:10
[Gittin 86a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:10)

וְהָא אִיכָּא גֵּט קֵרֵחַ! הָתָם הַוּוֹלָד מַמְזֵר, הָכָא הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t there a bare bill of divorce,** i.e., one that is missing a signature, which is also invalid? The Gemara answers: **There,** if the woman remarries based on this bill of divorce **the offspring** of her second marriage **is a *mamzer*; here,** the lineage of **the offspring is unflawed.**


###### Gittin 86a:11
[Gittin 86a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:11)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר (דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ חֲכָמִים בְּגִיטִּין, הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר). אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said** that **anyone who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce** renders **the offspring a *mamzer*.** Therefore, a bare bill of divorce is completely invalid, and if the woman remarries the offspring is a *mamzer*. **But according to the Rabbis,** who hold that the offspring is not a *mamzer*, **what is there to say?** Why is a bare bill of divorce not listed in the mishna?


###### Gittin 86a:12
[Gittin 86a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:12)

הָתָם תֵּצֵא, הָכָא לֹא תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that there is still a distinction between the cases: **There,** if the woman remarries **she must leave** her husband, even according to the Rabbis who hold that the offspring is not a *mamzer*; **here, she** need **not leave** her husband.


###### Gittin 86a:13
[Gittin 86a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:13)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָכָא לֹא תֵּצֵא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָכָא תֵּצֵא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בִּמְקוּשָּׁר לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that **here she** need **not leave** her husband; **but according to the one who says** that **here she must leave** her husband, **what is there to say?** The Gemara answers: Apparently the mishna **is not speaking about** a folded and **tied** bill of divorce, which requires a signature on every fold, but rather, an open bill of divorce. There are only three cases in which this type of a bill of divorce is invalid in a manner that obligates the woman, if she remarries, to leave her second husband, although the lineage of their children would be unflawed.


###### Gittin 86a:14
[Gittin 86a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:14)

וְהָא אִיכָּא שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת! הָתָם תֵּצֵא, הָכָא לֹא תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t there** a bill of divorce that is invalid **due to** the need to maintain **peaceful** relations with **the kingdom,** as it mentions the year of the divorce according to the age of another kingdom? Why is this not mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara answers: **There, she must leave** her husband; **here, she** need **not leave** her husband.


###### Gittin 86a:15
[Gittin 86a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:15)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָכָא לֹא תֵּצֵא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תֵּצֵא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? (הָתָם הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, הָכָא הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that **here she** need **not leave** her husband. **But according to the one who says** that **she must leave** her husband, **what is there to say?** The Gemara answers: **There, the offspring is a *mamzer*; here,** the lineage of **the offspring is unflawed.**


###### Gittin 86a:16
[Gittin 86a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:16)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?) מוֹקֵים לַהּ כִּדְרַבִּי מֵאִיר; וְהָתָם הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, הָכָא הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to Rabbi Meir; but according to the Rabbis,** who hold that in the case of a bill of divorce in which the date is written according to the age of another kingdom, the offspring is not a *mamzer*, **what is there to say?** The Gemara answers: The one who holds that in the cases in the mishna the woman must leave her husband **establishes it in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** according to whom **there, the offspring is a *mamzer*. Here,** the lineage of **the offspring is unflawed.**


###### Gittin 86a:17
[Gittin 86a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:17)

מִנְיָנָא דְרֵישָׁא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי, וּמִנְיָנָא דְסֵיפָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna emphasizes twice that there are three bills of divorce that are invalid. The Gemara asks: **What** does **the quantity in the first clause** serve **to exclude? And what** does **the quantity in the latter clause** serve **to exclude?**


###### Gittin 86a:18
[Gittin 86a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:18)

מִנְיָנָא דְרֵישָׁא – לְמַעוֹטֵי הָנֵי דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The quantity** mentioned **in the first clause** serves **to exclude those** invalid bills of divorce **that we** previously **mentioned,** which are treated either more or less stringently than the cases in the mishna.


###### Gittin 86a:19
[Gittin 86a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:19)

מִנְיָנָא דְסֵיפָא – לְמַעוֹטֵי הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, נְתָנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – יוֹצִיא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The quantity** mentioned **in the latter clause** serves **to exclude that which is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to an agent **who brings a bill of divorce** for a certain woman **from a country overseas,** and **gives it to her but does 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 their marriage **is a *mamzer*.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Gittin 86a:20
[Gittin 86a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:20)

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** of the second marriage **is not a *mamzer*;** rather, **how should** the agent **act** to rectify the situation? **He should take** the bill of divorce **from her, and give it to her again in the presence of two** witnesses **and say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.** Since this problem can be corrected, it is not listed in the mishna as one of the invalid bills of divorce.


###### Gittin 86a:21
[Gittin 86a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:21)

כָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים. אָמַר רַב: ״כְּתַב יָדוֹ״ שָׁנִינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna: A bill of divorce that the husband **wrote in his handwriting, but has no** signatures of **witnesses on it** at all, is invalid; nevertheless, if the woman remarries, the lineage of the child born from her second husband is unflawed. **Rav says: We learned** that this is referring to **his handwriting.**


###### Gittin 86a:22
[Gittin 86a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:22)

אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַרֵישָׁא – פְּשִׁיטָא! ״כְּתַב יָדוֹ״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to which** clause of the mishna is this referring? **If we say** that it is referring **to the first clause,** what Rav said **is obvious,** as the case of **his handwriting is** explicitly **taught** in that clause.


###### Gittin 86a:23
[Gittin 86a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86a:23)

וְאֶלָּא אַמְּצִיעֲתָא – הֲרֵי יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים! אֶלָּא אַסֵּיפָא: יֵשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if it is **rather** referring **to the middle clause,** i.e., an undated bill of divorce, why does it matter whether it was written in the husband’s handwriting? **Aren’t there** signatures of **witnesses on it? Rather,** it must be referring **to the latter clause** in the mishna, i.e., a bill of divorce that **has a date** written **on it but has only** the signature of **one witness.**