## Gittin Daf 86b

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

וְדַוְקָא כְּתַב יָדוֹ וְעֵד; אֲבָל כְּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rav is saying that **specifically** when the bill of divorce is written in **his handwriting and** has the signature of one **witness,** the woman’s child from her second husband is of unflawed lineage. **But** if it is written in **a scribe’s handwriting,** even if it includes the signature of one **witness,** the child’s lineage is **not** unflawed, but rather he is a *mamzer*, as the bill of divorce is completely invalid.


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

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ כְּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד, שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁנִינוּ: כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says: Even** where it is written in **a scribe’s handwriting and** it has the signature of **a witness,** the lineage of the child is unflawed, **as we learned** in a mishna (87b): In the case of a bill of divorce in which **the scribe’s handwriting** is recognizable **and** there is one **witness** signed, it is **valid.**


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

וְרַב – מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם תִּינָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִילָּה, הָכָא דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav** would respond: **Is** that case **comparable? There,** in that case, the mishna indicates that the woman **may marry *ab initio*.** Therefore, it must be a case where the scribe also signed as a second witness. But **here,** in the case of this mishna, the bill of divorce is invalid and the woman may not remarry; it is only if she remarried and had a child that his lineage is rendered unflawed **after the fact.** Therefore, it must be referring to a case where the husband wrote it.


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

וּשְׁמוּאֵל – לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא בְּסָפְרָא דְּמוּבְהַק, וְהָא בְּסָפְרָא דְּלָא מוּבְהַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel,** who holds that both cases are referring to a bill of divorce that was written by a scribe but not signed by the scribe as one of the witnesses, would respond that the contradiction is **not difficult. That** mishna, where the bill of divorce is rendered valid *ab initio*, is referring **to** the handwriting of **an expert scribe,** who can presumably be relied upon to have written the bill of divorce properly and only according to the husband’s instructions, **and this** mishna is referring **to** the handwriting of **a scribe who is not expert.** Since the bill of divorce was not signed by two witnesses, there is concern that the scribe did not write it properly.


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

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״כְּתַב יָדוֹ״ שָׁנִינוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲרֵי יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַסֵּיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan says** in accordance with the opinion of Rav: **We learned** that the mishna is referring to **his handwriting. Rabbi Elazar,** assuming that Rabbi Yoḥanan was explaining the middle clause, **said to him: Aren’t there** signatures of **witnesses in** the bill of divorce? Why is the husband’s handwriting necessary? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him:** I was referring **to the latter clause,** in which there is only one witness.


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

זִימְנִין אָמַר רַב: תֵּצֵא, זִימְנִין אָמַר רַב: לֹא תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the three invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna, **sometimes Rav said** that if the woman remarries based on one of these bills of divorce **she must leave** her second husband, and **sometimes Rav said** that **she** need **not leave.**


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

הָא כֵּיצַד? יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים – לֹא תֵּצֵא, אֵין לָהּ בָּנִים – תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How so?** How can the contradiction between Rav’s statements be explained? If **she** already **has children** from her second husband then **she** need **not leave** him, as, if she is required to leave him there will be slander that their children are *mamzerim*. But if **she does not have children** from him, **she must leave** him.


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

מֵתִיב מָר זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה: וְכוּלָּן, שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶן סְפֵק קִידּוּשִׁין אוֹ סְפֵק גֵּירוּשִׁין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַבְּמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra bar Toviya raises an objection** to Rav’s opinion from a mishna (*Yevamot* 30b). With regard to a woman whose husband died childless [*yevama*] but who is prohibited from marrying her late husband’s brother [*yavam*] because he is a forbidden relative to her, not only is she herself exempt from levirate marriage, but she causes any rival wives of hers to be exempt as well, even if they are not forbidden relatives to the brother. The mishna lists fifteen examples of such forbidden relatives (*Yevamot* 2a). **And** if **any of these** fifteen women **had undergone a betrothal or divorce** whose status is **uncertain** with the deceased brother, **those** rival wives **must perform the ritual through which the *yavam* frees the *yevama* of her levirate bonds [*ḥalitza*] and** may **not enter into levirate marriage,** since they are possibly the rival wives of a forbidden relative.


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

כֵּיצַד סְפֵק קִידּוּשִׁין? זָרַק לָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין – סָפֵק קָרוֹב לָהּ, סָפֵק קָרוֹב לוֹ, זֶהוּ סְפֵק קִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** could there be **a betrothal** whose status is **uncertain?** If **he threw her** money or a document as **betrothal** in the public domain, and the item was **possibly closer to her,** whereby she could acquire the object and become betrothed, and **possibly closer to him,** preventing her from acquiring it, **this is** a case of **a betrothal** whose status is **uncertain.**


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

סְפֵק גֵּירוּשִׁין – כָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים, יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן, יֵשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד – הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק גֵּירוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
How can there be **a divorce** whose status is **uncertain?** It is in the cases of invalid bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna here: 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.** In each of the three cases, **this is** considered **a divorce** whose status is **uncertain.**


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

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לֹא תֵּצֵא, צָרָתָהּ אָתְיָא לְיַבּוֹמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that despite this woman’s problematic divorce **she** need **not leave** her second husband, **her rival wife** from her first marriage might **come to enter into levirate marriage** after the first husband’s death, assuming that she was already divorced. This would violate the ruling of the mishna in tractate *Yevamot* that she may not do so, as the status of the divorce is uncertain and therefore it is uncertain whether she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative.


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

תִּתְיַבֵּם, וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם; חֲשָׁשָׁא דְרַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **She may enter into levirate marriage, and** there is **no** problem **with that,** as the difficulty with the bill of divorce **is** merely **a concern by rabbinic law.** By Torah law it is a complete bill of divorce, and the rival wife is fit for levirate marriage.


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

לֵוִי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לֹא תֵּצֵא. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם לֹא תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Contrary to Rav’s opinion that a woman who remarries based on one of these bills of divorce must leave her second husband unless they have children, **Levi says** that **she** is **never** required to **leave** him, whether or not they have children. **And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **she** is **never** required to **leave** him.


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

וְכֵן אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִבְנֵי רַבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא דְּמִן הוּנָא, הָכִי אָמַר אֲבוּכוֹן: לְעוֹלָם לֹא תֵּצֵא; וְקַרְצִית שֶׁבֶּעָמִיר אֵינָהּ פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּמֵי חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the sons of Rabbi Ḥalafta of Huna: Your father said the following** two statements that I heard from him: That **she** is **never** required to **leave** him, **and** that **a *kartzit* in the sheaf does not disqualify water of purification** (see Numbers 19:17–19). Even if a *kartzit* drinks from this water, it may still be sprinkled on a person in order to purify him from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.


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

מַאי קַרְצִית? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דִּידְבְּתָא דְּבֵינֵי כֵיפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is a *kartzit*? Abaye said** that it is a species of **fly [*didveta*] that is** found **between the sheaves.**


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

מֵתִיב רַב דָּנִיאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא: כׇּל הָעוֹפוֹת פּוֹסְלִין בְּמֵי חַטָּאת, חוּץ מִן הַיּוֹנָה – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹצֶצֶת. וְאִם אִיתָא, נִיתְנֵי: חוּץ מִיּוֹנָה וְקַרְצִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina raises an objection** to this ruling from the Mishna (*Para* 9:3): **All birds disqualify water of purification** by drinking from it, because some of the water spills from the bird’s beak back into the basin after being disqualified by having been in the bird’s mouth. This is the *halakha* with regard to all birds **except for the pigeon, because it sucks** the water, which prevents it from spilling back. **And if it is so** that a *kartzit* does not disqualify water of purification, **let** the mishna **teach** that all birds disqualify **except for** the **pigeon and** the ***kartzit*.**


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

לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ, דִּגְדוֹלָה לָא פָּסְלָה, וּקְטַנָּה פָּסְלָה. וְעַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אַמֵּי: עַד כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The matter **is not clear-cut, as,** while **a large** *kartzit* **does not disqualify** the water, **a small one does disqualify** it. This ruling is not mentioned in the mishna, as it is not common to all species of *kartzit*. The Gemara asks: **And how** small must a *kartzit* be to disqualify water of purification? **Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say** that it was **Rabbi Ami** who said: The size is **up to an olive-bulk.**


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

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר: אַף בִּשְׁטָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that **Rabbi Elazar says: Even if** there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but rather he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.** But **when I said this** *halakha* **before Shmuel, he said** that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar **with regard to** monetary **documents as well.**


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

וְרַב סָבַר – בִּשְׁטָרוֹת לָא?! הָא קָתָנֵי: וְגוֹבָה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But does Rav hold** that **with regard to** monetary **documents** the *halakha* is **not** in accordance with Rabbi Elazar? **Doesn’t** Rabbi Elazar **teach** in the mishna that on the basis of this bill of divorce a woman **can collect** the amount written in her marriage contract even **from liened property?** Apparently, Rabbi Elazar’s ruling has monetary ramifications as well.


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

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תַּרְתֵּי אָמַר; וְרַב סָבַר כְּווֹתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Elazar made two statements,** i.e., his ruling was both with regard to divorce and with regard to monetary documents. **And Rav holds in accordance with his** opinion **with regard to one** issue, i.e., divorce, **and disagrees with his** opinion **with regard to one** issue, monetary documents.


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

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין. וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ רֵיחַ הַגֵּט אֵין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yannai says:** This **does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.**


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

וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְרַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ רֵיחַ הַגֵּט אֵין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But does Rabbi Yannai not hold** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar** at all, as opposed to the other *amora’im*? The Gemara answers: Rather, **this is what** Rabbi Yannai **is saying: According to the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this bill of divorce **does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.**


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

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ רֵיחַ הַגֵּט אֵין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** that **Reish Lakish says:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** This **does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 86b:24
[Gittin 86b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:24)

לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְרַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ רֵיחַ הַגֵּט אֵין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let us say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar** at all. The Gemara answers: Rather, **this is what** Rabbi Yoḥanan **is saying: According to the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Elazar, this **does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 86b:25
[Gittin 86b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:25)

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא לְמָרִי בַּר מָר, בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין, אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent** the following request **to Marei bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna** whether the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce or** whether the ***halakha* is not** in accordance with his opinion.


###### Gittin 86b:26
[Gittin 86b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:26)

אַדְּהָכִי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ הַבְּקִיאִין בִּדְבַר הֲלָכָה, מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ אָמְרוּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין – דְּאָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Meanwhile,** before this request reached him, **Rav Huna died. Rabba, son of** Rav Huna, **said to** Marei bar Mar: **My father said in the name of Rava like this:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce. And our teachers who are well-versed in matters of *halakha*** also **said in the name of our teacher** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav Ḥama bar Gurya,** referred to as our teachers, **says** that our teacher **Rav says:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.**


###### Gittin 86b:27
[Gittin 86b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:27)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וַחֲבֵרֵינוּ הַבְּקִיאִין בִּדְבַר הֲלָכָה, וְתַלְמִידֵי רַבֵּינוּ, מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ אָמְרוּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין – דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** a different version of this statement: **And our colleagues who are well versed in matters of *halakha* and the disciples of our teacher said in the name of our teacher** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce, as Rav Ḥisda,** Rabba bar Rav Huna’s colleague, **said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya,** his teacher, **said** that **Rav said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.**


###### Gittin 86b:28
[Gittin 86b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:28)

וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּגִיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael he said that **Rabbi Elazar,** the *amora*, **says** that **Rav says:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce.**


###### Gittin 86b:29
[Gittin 86b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:29)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין שָׁוִין, וְנִתְעָרְבוּ; נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ, אָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן – הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁנִי בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to a case of **two** men **who sent** their wives **two identical bills of divorce** with an agent, as both their names and their wives’ names are identical, **and** the two bills of divorce **were mixed up,** the agent **should hand both** bills of divorce **to this** wife **and both** of them **to that** wife, so that each wife definitely receives her bill of divorce, although it is unclear which one is hers. **Therefore,** if **one of** the bills of divorce **was lost** before it was given to both women, **the other is void,** because it is unknown which bill of divorce was meant for which woman.


###### Gittin 86b:30
[Gittin 86b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:30)

חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ כְּלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט – ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי פְּלוֹנִית״, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה; כּוּלָּן כְּשֵׁרִין, וְיִנָּתֵן לְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **five** husbands **who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce,** i.e., who wrote one common bill of divorce for their wives with a single formula, writing that **so-and-so divorces** his wife **so-and-so, and so-and-so** divorces **so-and-so, and the witnesses** signed **below,** in this case **all** of these bills of divorce that were combined into one bill **are valid; and** the bill **must be handed to each and every** wife individually, so they will all be divorced by it.


###### Gittin 86b:31
[Gittin 86b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:31)

הָיָה כּוֹתֵב טוֹפֶס לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה; אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִיקְרִין עִמּוֹ – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the scribe **was writing** a separate **formula** in the bill of divorce **for each and every** couple, **and the witnesses** signed **below,** the formula **with which the witnesses’** signatures **are read is valid.** In other words, the formula directly underneath which they signed is valid, and the others are not valid.


###### Gittin 86b:32
[Gittin 86b:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:32)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי – הָא לָא יָדְעִי בְּהֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ קָא מִגָּרְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** that the two bills of divorce that were mixed up should be handed to both wives? **Rabbi Yirmeya said:** It **is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, as had** it **been** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, since he says** that **witnesses of the transmission** of the bill of divorce **effect** the divorce, handing both bills of divorce to both wives would not enable the divorce of each woman to take effect. This is because the witnesses **do not know** at the time of the transmission **with which one of** the bills of divorce **she is being divorced.**


###### Gittin 86b:33
[Gittin 86b:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:33)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – אֵימָא דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ, נְתִינָה לִשְׁמָהּ מִי בָּעֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: You** can **even say** that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar. Say that** although **Rabbi Elazar requires the writing** of the bill of divorce to be **for her sake,** i.e., with the specific woman and man for whom it is designated in mind, **does he require giving** it to her **for her sake?** Although the transmission of the bill of divorce is what causes it to take effect, it need not be done with the designated woman in mind. Therefore, the divorce here is valid, as the bill of divorce was definitely given to the wife for whom it was intended.


###### Gittin 86b:34
[Gittin 86b:34](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:34)

חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ כְּלָל כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי כְּלָל, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי טוֹפֶס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna: With regard to **five** husbands **who wrote a general wording** in a bill of divorce, all of them can divorce their wives with it. But if a separate formula was written for each, only the last one is valid. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of** the case of the **general wording,** and **what are the circumstances of** the case of the separate **formula** that was written for each couple?


###### Gittin 86b:35
[Gittin 86b:35](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:35)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זְמַן אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן – זֶהוּ כְּלָל. זְמַן לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד – זֶהוּ טוֹפֶס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If there is **one date** and one formula written **for all of them,** such as: On such-and-such a date so-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so, **that is a general wording.** If a separate **date** and formula was written **for each and every one** of them, **that is** considered a separate **formula.**


###### Gittin 86b:36
[Gittin 86b:36](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/86b:36)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish says:**