## Gittin Daf 87a

###### Gittin 87a:1
[Gittin 87a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:1)

אֲפִילּוּ זְמַן אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן נָמֵי הָוֵי טוֹפֶס, אֶלָּא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי כְּלָל? דְּכָתֵב ״אָנוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּירַשְׁנוּ נְשׁוֹתֵינוּ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Even** if **one date** was written **for all of them it is still** considered a separate **formula** if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately. **Rather, what are the circumstances of** the case of **a general wording?** It is a case **where one wrote: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have** hereby **divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so.**


###### Gittin 87a:2
[Gittin 87a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:2)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר זְמַן אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן – זֶהוּ כְּלָל, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא כִּי (חָתְמוּ) [חֲתִימִי] סָהֲדִי, אַבָּתְרָא הוּא דַּחֲתִימִי! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: עֵדִים חֲתוּמִין עַל שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בְּגֵט – פָּסוּל, חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עַל שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם חָתְמוּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba objects to this: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says** that when there is **one date** written **for all of them that is a general wording, we should be concerned** that **perhaps when the witnesses signed** the bill of divorce **they** intended to **sign for** only **the last** couple. **Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 9:9) that if **witnesses are signed on a greeting** that was written **in a bill of divorce,** i.e., after the formulation of the bill of divorce the scribe extended greetings to someone and the witnesses signed underneath, it is **invalid,** as **we are concerned** that **perhaps they signed** the **greeting** and not the bill of divorce?


###### Gittin 87a:3
[Gittin 87a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:3)

לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ: אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״שַׁאֲלוּ״ – פָּסוּל, ״וְשַׁאֲלוּ״ – כָּשֵׁר; הָכָא נָמֵי – דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Wasn’t it stated with regard to** this *baraita* that **Rabbi Abbahu says:** It **was explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan** that if the wording of the greeting is: **Ask** about the well-being of so-and-so, it is **invalid,** as perhaps the witnesses intended to witness only the greeting. But if the wording is: **And ask** about the well-being of so-and-so, with the conjunctive prefix *vav*, thereby making it appear as a continuation of the previous matter, it is **valid,** as the witnesses presumably signed the bill of divorce as well. **Here too,** it should be explained that this is a bill of divorce **in which it is written: So-and-so** has divorced his wife so-and-so, **and so-and-so** has divorced so-and-so, **and so-and-so** has divorced so-and-so, as the conjunctive prefix indicates continuation.


###### Gittin 87a:4
[Gittin 87a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:4)

וְתוּ, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר זְמַן לְכׇל אֶחָד – זֶהוּ טוֹפֶס; מַאי אִירְיָא מִשּׁוּם טוֹפֶס? וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another challenge: **And furthermore, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says** that when there is a separate **date** written **for each** couple, **that is** considered a separate **formula, why** is it rendered invalid **specifically due to** it being considered a separate **formula? Derive** that it is invalid **because it is** like a bill of divorce that **was written during the day and signed at night,** which is invalid because it was signed on a different calendar date than it was written. Here too, since a different date was written for each couple, and the witnesses signed only after the last formula, they clearly signed only on that date, and with regard to the previous couples it is therefore an invalid bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 87a:5
[Gittin 87a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״בְּחַד בְּשַׁבָּא, בְּחַד בְּשַׁבָּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: We say the following** explanation of the case **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** It is a case **where it is written in** the respective formulations: **On Sunday, on Sunday.** In other words, the date written in each bill of divorce is the same, as they were all written on the same date.


###### Gittin 87a:6
[Gittin 87a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמַר: זְמַן אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן נָמֵי טוֹפֶס הָוֵי; וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי כְּלָל – דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ הָכִי: ״אָנוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּירַשְׁנוּ נְשׁוֹתֵינוּ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִית״; נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים מִתְגָּרְשׁוֹת בְּגֵט אֶחָד, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – וְלֹא לָהּ וְלַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** According **to Reish Lakish, who says** that if the divorce of each couple is mentioned separately, then even if **one date** was written **for all of them it is still** considered a separate **formula, and** he explains that **what are the circumstances of** the case of **a general wording;** a case **where the following** wording **is written in** the bill of divorce: **We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have** hereby **divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so.** Accordingly, **two women are found being divorced with one bill of divorce.** All of these women are divorced with the same bill of divorce that contains a list of several couples. **And the Torah said: “And he writes her”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), **and** it is derived from this phrase that he **cannot** write it both **for her and for another** woman. Rather, each woman requires a separate bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 87a:7
[Gittin 87a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:7)

דַּהֲדַר כְּתַב: ״פְּלוֹנִי גֵּירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is valid **because he then wrote** after the general formulation: **So-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so.**


###### Gittin 87a:8
[Gittin 87a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹתֵב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי עֲבָדָיו – קָנוּ, וּמְשַׁחְרְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from that which is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who writes** a document granting **all of his property to his two slaves, they** both **acquire** the property **and** must **emancipate each other?** Since the slaves are included in the property, by acquiring the property together they each have ownership over half of the other slave. Consequently, they must emancipate each other. Since the *halakhot* of emancipation of slaves are compared to the *halakhot* of divorce, it can be proven from here that one bill of divorce can be written for two wives.


###### Gittin 87a:9
[Gittin 87a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:9)

וְלָאו אוֹקֵימְנָא בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **But didn’t we establish** that that *baraita* is referring **to** a case where the master wrote **two documents,** one for each slave, stating that he is giving him all of his property, and he gave them to them simultaneously? Certainly each slave needs his own bill of emancipation.


###### Gittin 87a:10
[Gittin 87a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:10)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan,** and similarly it **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Reish Lakish.**


###### Gittin 87a:11
[Gittin 87a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:11)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי פְּלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי פְּלוֹנִית״, וּזְמַן אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה – כּוּלָּן כְּשֵׁרִים, וְתִנָּתֵן לְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** as follows: With regard to **five** men **who wrote in the bill of divorce: So-and-so** hereby **divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so** divorces **so-and-so, and so-and-so** divorces **so-and-so, and** wrote **one date for all of them, and the witnesses** signed **below,** in this case **all of them are valid; and** this document **must be handed to each and every one** of the women mentioned in it.


###### Gittin 87a:12
[Gittin 87a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:12)

זְמַן לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה – אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִים עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ רֶיוַח בֵּינֵיהֶן – פָּסוּל, וְאִם לָאו – כָּשֵׁר; שֶׁאֵין זְמַן מַפְסִיקָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Nevertheless, if a separate **date** is written **for each and every one and the witnesses** signed **below,** the bill of divorce **with which the witnesses’** signatures **are read is valid. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If there is space between them** it is **invalid,** as the witnesses’ signatures appear to be referring only to the last couple. **But if** there is **not** a space it is **valid, as** the **date** written for each couple **does not separate** between **them.** Rather, they are still considered the same bill of divorce with regard to the witnesses’ signatures.


###### Gittin 87a:13
[Gittin 87a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:13)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ כְּלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט – ״אָנוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּירַשְׁנוּ נְשׁוֹתֵינוּ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִית, פְּלוֹנִי גֵּירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִית״; וּזְמַן אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה – כּוּלָּן כְּשֵׁרִין, וְתִנָּתֵן לְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Reish Lakish:** With regard to **five** men **who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce: We, so-and-so and so-and-so, have** hereby **divorced our wives so-and-so and so-and-so; so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so has divorced so-and-so, and** they wrote **one date for all of them, and the witnesses** signed **below,** in this case **all of them are valid; and it must be handed to each and every** woman.


###### Gittin 87a:14
[Gittin 87a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:14)

זְמַן לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, וְרֶיוַח לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה – אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רֶיוַח בֵּינֵיהֶם – פָּסוּל, שֶׁהַזְּמַן מַפְסִיקָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a separate **date** was written **for each and every one, and** there is **a space for each and every one, and the witnesses** signed **below,** only **the one with which the witnesses’** signatures **are read is valid;** the others are not. **Rabbi Meir says: Even if there is no space between them,** the upper ones are **invalid, as the date separates them.**


###### Gittin 87a:15
[Gittin 87a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:15)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – מַאי אִירְיָא זְמַן לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד? הָא אָמַר: זְמַן אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן נָמֵי טוֹפֶס הָוֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Reish Lakish, why** is the *baraita* referring **specifically** to a case in which a separate **date** was written **for each and every one? Didn’t he say** that if **one date** was written **for all of them it is still** considered a separate **formula?**


###### Gittin 87a:16
[Gittin 87a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:16)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא עָרְבִינְהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא; אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּעָרְבִינְהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, אִי פָּלֵיג לְהוּ זְמַן – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This matter** applies **where he did not merge them at the outset** but instead wrote the divorce of each couple separately. **But here, he merged them at the outset,** writing: So-and-so and so-and-so have hereby divorced their wives so-and-so and so-and-so. Therefore, **if** the **date separates them** they **are** considered to be separate bills of divorce, and **if not,** then they are **not** considered separate bills of divorce.


###### Gittin 87a:17
[Gittin 87a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין שֶׁכְּתָבָן זֶה בְּצַד זֶה, וּשְׁנַיִם עֵדִים עִבְרִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה, וּשְׁנַיִם עֵדִים יְוָנִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה – אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **two bills of divorce that** a scribe **wrote** on the same paper **one next to the other, and** the signatures of **two Hebrew witnesses,** i.e., witnesses who signed in Hebrew from right to left, **extend from underneath this** bill of divorce on the right **to underneath that** bill of divorce on the left, **and** the signatures of **two Greek witnesses,** i.e., who signed in Greek from left to right, **extend from underneath that** bill of divorce on the left **to underneath this** bill of divorce on the right, the bill of divorce **with which the** names of the **first** two **witnesses are read [*nikra’in*] is valid.** The other bill of divorce is invalid, as it is not considered signed by these witnesses.


###### Gittin 87a:18
[Gittin 87a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:18)

עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, וְעֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, בָּאִין מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one witness** signed in **Hebrew** from right to left, **and one witness** signed beneath him in **Greek** from left to right, **and** underneath that signature **one witness** signed in **Hebrew, and** beneath him **one witness** signed in **Greek,** with the signatures **extending from underneath this** bill of divorce **to underneath that** bill of divorce, **both** bills of divorce **are invalid.**


###### Gittin 87a:19
[Gittin 87a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:19)

**גְּמָ׳** וְלִיתַּכְשַׁר הַאי בִּ״רְאוּבֵן״, וְהַאי בְּ״בֶן יַעֲקֹב עֵד״, דְּהָא תְּנַן: ״בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד״ – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** It is stated in the first case of the mishna that the bill of divorce under which the names of the first two witnesses appear is valid and the other is not, even though the signatures extend to that bill of divorce as well. The Gemara says: **But let this** bill of divorce **be validated by** the name **Reuven** alone, **and** let **that** bill of divorce be validated **by** the continuation: **Son of Ya’akov, witness,** which can be considered a separate signature. **Didn’t we learn** in a subsequent mishna (87b) that a signature that reads: **Son of so-and-so, witness, is valid?**


###### Gittin 87a:20
[Gittin 87a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:20)

דִּכְתִיב: ״רְאוּבֵן בֶּן״ אַקַּמָּא, וְ״יַעֲקֹב עֵד״ אַבָּתְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is a case **where** the words: **Reuven, son of, are written on the** side of the **first** bill of divorce, **and** the words: **Ya’akov, witness,** are written **on the** side of the **latter** bill of divorce, indicating that it is one signature.


###### Gittin 87a:21
[Gittin 87a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:21)

וְלִיתַּכְשַׁר הַאי בִּ״רְאוּבֵן בֶּן״, וְלִיתַּכְשַׁר הַאי בְּ״יַעֲקֹב עֵד״, דְּהָא תְּנַן: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד״ – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara says: **But let this** bill of divorce, on the first, left-hand, side, **be validated by** the words: **Reuven, son of, and let that** bill of divorce on the other, right-hand, side **be validated by** the words: **Ya’akov, witness. Didn’t we learn** in the same mishna that a signature that reads: **So-and-so, witness,** without the father’s name, **is valid?**


###### Gittin 87a:22
[Gittin 87a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87a:22)

דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״עֵד״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דִּכְתִיב ״עֵד״, וּדְיָדְעִינַן בְּהָא חֲתִימָה דְּלָאו דְּיַעֲקֹב הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is a case **where** the word **witness is not written.** The latter side includes only a name, which is not sufficient. **And if you wish, say: Actually,** it is a case **where** the expression: Ya’akov, **witness, is written** underneath the second bill of divorce; **but** it is a case **where we know that this signature is not Ya’akov’s.** Evidently it is part of the signature of Reuven, son of Ya’akov, and cannot serve as a separate signature for the second bill of divorce.