## Gittin Daf 9a

###### Gittin 9a:1
[Gittin 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:1)

לְעוֹלָם הוּא בֶּן חוֹרִין, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״כֹּל נְכָסַיי נְתוּנִין לִפְלוֹנִי עַבְדִּי חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵרִיבּוֹא שֶׁבָּהֶן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He always** becomes **a freeman** regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, **unless it says** in the document: **All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it,** as in that case it is possible that the master meant to include the slave in the portion that he is not giving. Consequently, the slave is not emancipated. In any case, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, when the document states: All my property, a distinction is drawn between the emancipated slave and the property, as claimed by Rava.


###### Gittin 9a:2
[Gittin 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:2)

וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּילֵּס רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁנֶּאְמְרוּ דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״שְׂפָתַיִם יִשָּׁק מֵשִׁיב דְּבָרִים נְכוֹחִים״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say** that **Rav Naḥman said: Even though Rabbi Yosei praised** the ruling of **Rabbi Shimon** with regard to this issue, **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** the first *tanna* in that mishna. The Gemara elaborates how Rabbi Yosei bestowed praise. **As it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Pe’a* 1:13): **When** these **matters were said** by the Sages **before Rabbi Yosei, he recited this verse about him: “He kisses the lips that give the right answer”** (Proverbs 24:26). Despite this praise, the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Gittin 9a:3
[Gittin 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:3)

וּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְעַבְדּוֹ, וְעָמַד – חוֹזֵר בַּנְּכָסִים, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בָּעֶבֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Rav Adda bar Mattana’s proof, the Gemara asks: **And did Rav Naḥman** actually **say this,** that we do not divide the statement? **But didn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say** that **Rav Naḥman said:** With regard to a person **on his deathbed who wrote all** of **his property to his slave,** and afterward he recuperated **and arose** from his illness, **he can retract** his transfer of property **with regard to** the gift of **the property** to the slave, **but he cannot retract** his transfer **with regard to** the emancipation of **the slave.**


###### Gittin 9a:4
[Gittin 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:4)

חוֹזֵר בַּנְּכָסִים – מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בָּעֶבֶד – שֶׁהֲרֵי יָצָא עָלָיו שֵׁם בֶּן חוֹרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **He can retract** the transfer of **the property,** as **it is the gift** of a person **on his deathbed.** By rabbinic decree, no formal act of acquisition is required for a gift of this kind, as it was given based on the assumption that the owner is about to die. If he does survive, the gift is canceled. **But he cannot retract** the transfer **with regard to** the emancipation of **the slave, as it has been publicized about** the slave that he has the **status** of **a freeman.** This shows that Rav Naḥman accepts the principle that we divide the statement, as one portion of this document is accepted while the other part is rejected.


###### Gittin 9a:5
[Gittin 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו כְּרוּת גִּיטָּא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said: There,** where Rav Naḥman ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he did not do so because he holds that we do not divide the statement, as this is not the issue in dispute. Instead, **this is the reason: Because it is not a document that** fully **severs** the ownership of the slave. A bill of manumission must fully sever the bond between slave and master. Since the master left over some property, which may include the slave, for himself, the bill of manumission does not fully sever their relationship. However, with regard to the basic issue of whether or not we divide a single statement, Rav Naḥman agrees with Rava that we do divide a statement.


###### Gittin 9a:6
[Gittin 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:6)

אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עוֹרְרִין, יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו: עַרְעָר כַּמָּה? אִילֵימָא עַרְעָר חַד, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **if there are those who contest** a bill of divorce that was brought within Eretz Yisrael, where it is not necessary to state the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, **it should be ratified through its signatories.** The Gemara asks: **How many** people raise this **contestation? If we say** that this **contestation** is by **one** person, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery, **but didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Everyone agrees** that **a contestation** to a document may be brought by **no fewer than two** people?


###### Gittin 9a:7
[Gittin 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:7)

וְאֶלָּא עַרְעָר תְּרֵי? תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי נִינְהוּ, מַאי חָזֵית דְּסָמְכַתְּ אַהָנֵי, סְמוֹךְ אַהָנֵי! אֶלָּא עַרְעָר דְּבַעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** rather, you will say that the **contestation** involves **two** people claiming that the bill of divorce is a forgery, who are subsequently countered by two others who ratify it. If so, **they are two and two. What did you see that you relied on these** witnesses? **Rely** instead **on these.** Why does the court accept the testimony of the witnesses who ratify the bill of divorce rather than those who contest its validity? The Gemara therefore concludes that this is referring to a case in which one person contests, **however,** the **contestation** is raised **by** the **husband** himself, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery.


###### Gittin 9a:8
[Gittin 9a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and is unable to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if** the bill of divorce **has witnesses** signed **on it, it should be ratified through its signatories.** The witnesses themselves or someone who recognizes their signatures should ratify it, in the manner of typical documents.


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

אֶחָד גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, שָׁווּ לַמּוֹלִיךְ וְלַמֵּבִיא, וְזוֹ אַחַת מִן הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁשָּׁווּ גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים לְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Both bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission are the same with regard to** the *halakhot* of **delivering** the document from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas **and with regard to bringing** it from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the agents for both types of documents must declare that it was written and signed in their presence, and their statement is accepted. **And this is one of the ways in which** the *halakhot* of **bills of divorce are equal to** the *halakhot* of bills **of manumission.**


###### Gittin 9a:10
[Gittin 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר״? אִילֵימָא חֵרֵשׁ, חֵרֵשׁ בַּר אֵתוֹיֵי גִּיטָּא הוּא?! וְהָתְנַן: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the statement: **He is unable to say? If we say** that this is referring to **a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (23a): **Anyone is fit** to serve as an agent **to bring a bill of divorce** to a woman **except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,** all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to *halakha*?


###### Gittin 9a:11
[Gittin 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:11)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא פִּיקֵּחַ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here?** This is a case **where** the agent **gave** the bill of divorce **to her when he was** halakhically **competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute.** In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything.


###### Gittin 9a:12
[Gittin 9a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9a:12)

אֶחָד גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּרָכִים שָׁווּ גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים לְשִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים: שָׁווּ לַמּוֹלִיךְ וְלַמֵּבִיא; וְכׇל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי – פָּסוּל, חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים; וְכׇל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **both bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission** are the same in that the agent who brings them is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. **The Sages taught: In three ways** the *halakhot* of **bills of divorce are equal to** the *halakhot* of bills of **manumission: They are equal with regard to one who delivers and one who brings,** i.e., if one takes a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission to a country overseas from Eretz Yisrael, or if he brings it from there, he is required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. **And any document that has a Samaritan witness** signed **on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission,** as Samaritan witnesses are permitted to serve as witnesses for these documents. **And** with regard to **all documents**