## Gittin Daf 9b

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

הָעוֹלִים בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶן גּוֹיִם – כְּשֵׁירִין, חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. וּכְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר – בְּאַרְבָּעָה: הָאוֹמֵר ״תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם – יַחְזוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that are produced in gentile courts [*arkaot*], even though their signatories** are **gentiles,** they are **valid, except for bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission.** These documents are not valid when prepared by gentiles. **And according to the statement of Rabbi Meir,** bills of divorce and manumission are equal **in four** ways, the three aforementioned *halakhot* and also with regard to a man **who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or:** Give **this bill of manumission to my slave.** They are equal in that if he **desires to retract** his instruction **with regard to both of these** documents, before they have reached the woman or slave, **he can retract.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, מִנְיָנָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִנְיָנָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** they state **the number** three **to exclude this** opinion **of Rabbi Meir,** by emphasizing that there are only three ways, not four. **However, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, what** does **the number** four serve **to exclude?** Wouldn’t it have been enough to say that Rabbi Meir adds another case?


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

לְמַעוֹטֵי הָא דְּתַנְיָא: עֵדִים שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִים לַחְתּוֹם, מְקָרְעִין לָהֶם נְיָיר חָלָק, וּמְמַלְּאִים אֶת הַקְּרָעִים דְּיוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The Sages mention this number **to exclude that which is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **witnesses who do not know** how **to sign,** i.e., they do not know how to write their names, **one tears blank paper for them,** meaning that a stencil of their names is fashioned from blank paper and placed on the bill of divorce. **And** the witnesses **fill in the gaps** with **ink** so that their names appear on the document.


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

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל שִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת, אִם יוֹדְעִין לִקְרוֹת וְלַחְתּוֹם – חוֹתְמִין, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין חוֹתְמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to bills of divorce. However,** with regard to bills of **manumission and all other documents, if** the witnesses **know** how **to read and sign, they sign, and if not, they do not sign.** Rabbi Meir agrees with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that bills of divorce and bills of manumission are different with regard to this issue, and he mentioned the number to exclude the possibility that the *halakha* stated by the first *tanna* of this *baraita* applies to both types of documents.


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

קְרִיָּיה מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַיהּ? חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: עֵדִים שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין לִקְרוֹת – קוֹרִין לִפְנֵיהֶם וְחוֹתְמִין, וְשֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין לַחְתּוֹם – מְקָרְעִין לָהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement, the Gemara asks: **Reading, who mentioned anything about it?** Why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mention a need for the witnesses to be able to read when the discussion is about a witness who does not know how to sign? The Gemara answers: The *baraita* **is incomplete, and this** is what **it is teaching:** If **witnesses do not know** how **to read,** then **one reads in their presence and they sign. And** if **they do not know** how **to sign,** then one **tears** paper **for them** and they sign. Once the *baraita* is emended, it is clear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was responding to the statement of the previous *tanna*.


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

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא?! וְהָאִיכָּא: הָאוֹמֵר ״תְּנוּ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, וּמֵת – לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, ״תְּנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי״, וּמֵת – יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is there nothing else** that can be added to the list of ways in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission are equal? **But isn’t there** a case taught in the mishna (13a): If a person on his deathbed **says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or this bill of manumission to my slave, and he dies, they** should **not give** the bill **after** his **death.** However, if he said: **Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and he dies, they** should **give** it **after** his **death.** Apparently, this is another *halakha* in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission share equal status.


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

כִּי קָתָנֵי, מִילְּתָא דְּלֵיתַיהּ בִּשְׁטָרוֹת, מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתַיהּ בִּשְׁטָרוֹת לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When** the *baraita* **teaches** the ways in which bills of divorce and bills of manumission are equal, it is referring only to **a matter that** does **not** apply **to** typical **documents** and **it does not teach** any **matter that is** equally applicable **to** typical **documents.**


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

דִּשְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין, שֶׁשָּׁלַח רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לַגּוֹלָה מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי״, וּמֵת – אֵין כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **As Ravin sent** from Eretz Yisrael **in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: You should know that Rabbi Elazar sent** this teaching **to the Diaspora,** i.e., Babylonia, **in the name of our teacher,** Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the case of a person **on his deathbed who says: Write** a deed of transfer **and give** with it **one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and** then **dies** before they had the opportunity to write the document, **one does not write and give** the document. Why not?


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

שֶׁמָּא לֹא גָּמַר לְהַקְנוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, וְאֵין שְׁטָר לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Perhaps he resolved to transfer** these one hundred dinars to him **only with a deed** of transfer, **and a deed** of transfer of property **is not** written **after the death** of the owner. This shows that other documents are also not written after one’s death, which means that this *halakha* is not specific to bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Therefore, it is not listed among the ways in which these two documents are similar.


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

וְהָאִיכָּא לִשְׁמָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **But isn’t there** the *halakha* that both bills of divorce and bills of manumission must be written **for her sake,** i.e., for the sake of the particular woman or slave to whom they are given? Why isn’t this *halakha* included in the list?


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה, הַיְינוּ מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא. אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Granted,** according to the opinion of **Rabba, this is** included in the statement: The two documents are similar with regard to the *halakhot* of **delivering and bringing,** as he maintains that this requirement to write the document for the sake of the recipient is the primary reason why the agents must state that it was written and signed in their presence. **However, according to** the opinion of **Rava,** who holds that the reason for this statement is to ratify the bill of divorce, this is **difficult.**


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

וְתוּ: בֵּין לְרַבָּה בֵּין לְרָבָא, הָאִיכָּא מְחוּבָּר! כִּי קָתָנֵי פְּסוּלָא דְרַבָּנַן, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, both according to** the opinion of **Rabba and according to** the opinion of **Rava, there is** the case of bills which were written and signed while they were **attached** to the ground, e.g., on a leaf attached to a tree, which invalidates both bills of divorce and bills of manumission. The Gemara explains: **When** the *baraita* **teaches** its list it is referring solely to issues that cause the documents to be rendered **invalid by rabbinic law.** It **does not teach** cases involving invalidation **by Torah law.** Since these two cases, i.e., documents not written for the recipient’s sake or when they are attached to the ground, are not valid by Torah law, the *baraita* did not mention these cases.


###### Gittin 9b:13
[Gittin 9b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9b:13)

וְהָא עַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, דִּפְסוּלָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי! בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה, וּכְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this response: **But** there is the example of documents written in **gentile courts, which is an invalidation** of documents that applies **by Torah law, and** yet the *baraita* **teaches** this *halakha*. The Gemara answers: This is referring **to** a bill of divorce that was given with valid **witnesses who observe the transmission of a legal document, and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, who says** in a mishna (10b): **Witnesses of the transmission** of a bill of divorce **effect** the divorce. In his opinion, the effectiveness of the document depends on the witnesses who observe its transmission, not those who sign the bill of divorce. Consequently, a bill of divorce that was signed in a gentile court is rendered invalid by rabbinic law.


###### Gittin 9b:14
[Gittin 9b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/9b:14)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין, וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: יָרַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְשִׁיטָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי; מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But from** the fact **that it teaches in the latter clause** of that mishna that **Rabbi Shimon says: Even these,** bills of divorce and bills of manumission, **are valid, and Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Shimon accepted the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said** that **witnesses of the transmission** of the bill of divorce **effect** the divorce, one can learn **by inference that the first *tanna*** does **not hold** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Instead, he holds that the witnesses who sign effect a divorce. Yet even so, this *tanna* listed the cases where bills of divorce from gentile courts are invalidated, despite the fact that they are invalid by Torah law.