לאיזו שארצה אגרש בו פסול—I will divorce with it whichever one I want, it is invalid

OVERVIEW The משנה states if a person (who has two wives with the same name) says to a scribe ‘write a גט for me, and I will use it to divorce whichever one of my wives that I will decide’; the גט is פסול. Our תוספות broadens this ruling.

בגמרא מפרש¹ משום דאין ברירה² – The גמרא explains the reason for this ruling because there is no concept of ברירה – ואומר רבינו יצחק דאפילו מאן דסבר בעלמא³ יש ברירה הכא מודה – And the ר"י states that even according to the one who maintains elsewhere that יש ברירה, nevertheless here he will admit that אין ברירה by a גט. תוספות explains – משום דוכתב לה לשמה משמע⁴ שיהא מבורר בשעת כתיבה – Because the פסוק of וכתב לה, from which we derive that a גט needs to be written לשמה, indicates that it needs to be specified at the time of writing, who is being divorced – וכן משמע בגמרא⁵ דקאמר אי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן דאין ברירה – And so it seems from the גמרא where it states, ‘if it would be taught (that ר"י maintains אין ברירה) in this case (of גט), we could think that only in this case does ר"י maintain אין ברירה, but not in other cases (inheritance), for this case is different – משום דבעינן לה לשמה – Because we require לה לשמה’, therefore ברירה is ineffective (however in other cases he could maintain יש ברירה). This concludes the citation from the גמרא –

Indicating that even if we maintains generally יש ברירה, nevertheless here by גט it would be פסול (in a ברירה case) since the תורה wrote 'וכתב לה'.

SUMMARY Even those who maintain יש ברירה will agree that by גט it is אין ברירה since the תורה writes וכתב לה.

THINKING IT OVER זעירי and רב אסי argue on ר"י (who maintains אין ברירה) and maintain⁷ that in the last case (of האומר ללבלר) she is פסול לכהונה, indicating they hold יש ברירה (regarding פסול כהונה), but nevertheless the גט is פסול and she is still married; proving that even though זעירי ורב אסי maintains אין ברירה, but regarding the כשרות of a גט we say אין ברירה. Why did not תוספות use⁸ this proof?!⁹

footnotes: ¹ כה,א. ² ברירה (or choice) refers to a situation where presently the factors are not delineated as of now (like in this case where at the time the גט is being written it is not clear which wife he will divorce); however at a later date, a choice (ברירה) will be made (he will divorce wife # 1). The question is do we say that this choice is effective retroactively (so we consider that at the time of the writing of the גט it is לשמה; it is for the woman he ultimately chose); יש ברירה, or do we say that the later choice cannot be effective retroactively; אין ברירה, so the גט (in this case) is ineffective since it was not written לשמה specifically for this wife. ³ See later on דף כה the various שיטות in varying cases regarding ברירה. ⁴ The word לה in וכתב לה is to be understood to mean לשמה; meaning that when he writes the גט (the וכתב) it needs to be לה – לשמה. ⁵ כה,א. ר"י ruled there that even in the last case of האומר ללבלר וכו' (which we are discussing here) the woman is not considered divorced at all (regarding marrying a כהן, etc.) since אין ברירה. ר"י also ruled that brothers who divided an estate are considered not like heirs but rather that they bartered with each other and must return the properties to each other on יובל and make a new division since אין ברירה. The cited גמרא is explaining why the need to state the rule of אין ברירה regarding an inheritance, once we have the rule of אין ברירה regarding a גט ⁶ The reason this is merely a 'משמע', and not a solid proof, because in actuality ר"י maintains אין ברירה by ירושה as well; the גמרא is merely making a צריכותא that ר"י needed to say both laws so we should not be mistaken, but that does not necessarily prove that one who actually maintains יש ברירה would be מודה that by גט it is אין ברירה. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ כה,א. ⁸ See footnote # 6; this seems to be a stronger proof! ⁹ See תוספות הרא"ש and זיו הים.

בעדי מסירה ורבי אלעזר היא—With the transferring witnesses and it is according to Rabi Elozor

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded, based on the inference from our משנה that if a man has two wives with the same name, he may be מגרש one of them (even though that from the גט, it is not evident which wife he is מגרש), that our משנה follows the view of ר"א that ע"מ כרתי, and therefore since the ע"מ see which wife he is divorcing, it is a proper גט.

אבל לרבי מאיר בעינן שיהא מוכח מתוך החתימה שנכתב¹ לשם זה האיש ואשה זו – However according to ר"מ (who maintains עדי חתימה כרתי) he cannot divorce either wife, because we require that it should be evident from the signature that this גט was written for the sake of this man and this woman, and it is not evident from the signed גט for which wife it was written – ולא מהני עדי מסירה² – And the ע"מ will not help to establish the לשמה, because we need it to be מוכח מתוך הגט, which was signed by the ע"ח. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: וההיא דהמגרש (לקמן פו,ב) שנים ששלחו ב' גיטין ושמותיהן שוין³ – And regarding that משנה in פרק המגרש where two people sent two גיטין, each to his respective wife, where all the names were the same [and the גיטין became mixed up], the משנה rules – נותן שניהם לזו ושניהם לזו⁴ וקאמר רבי ירמיה בגמרא הא דלא כרבי אלעזר⁵ – He gives both גיטין to this woman and both גיטין to the other woman, and ר"י stated in the גמרא there, ‘this משנה is not according to ר"א’ – משמע⁶ דכרבי מאיר ניחא – implying that according to ר"מ the משנה is understood; however תוס' just said that we require that it be מוכח מתוכו, and here since the names are the same it is not מוכח מתוכו?! תוספות responds התם מיירי כדפרישית לעיל⁷ כשכתבו דורות⁸ או סימן⁹ או כהן שניכר מתוך החתימה – There we are discussing a case, as I previously explained, where they wrote the previous generations, or some identifying sign, or one of them was a כהן, so it is evident from the signed גט who the parties are – ועדי מסירה אין מכירין באבותיהן או בסימן הכתוב¹⁰ – However the ע"מ did not recognize their forefathers or the sign indicated in the גט. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר למאן¹¹ דחייש לקמן בפרקין¹² (דף כז,א) לשני שוירי ולשני יוסף בן שמעון – And if you will say; according to the one who, later in this פרק, is concerned for two cities called שוירי and for two people called יוסף בן שמעון; this concern is – אף על גב דלא הוחזקו אם כן לרבי מאיר יפסלו כל הגיטין – Even if it was not established that there are two שוירי or two יב"ש; according to this מ"ד all גיטין should be פסול according to ר"מ who requires מוכח מתוכו – דלא משכחת תו שום גט שיהא מוכח מתוכו¹³ – Since you can no longer find any גט that it should be מוכח מתוכו that this man from this city is divorcing his wife because perhaps there is another man with the same name from the same city (or another city with the same name) who is divorcing his own wife! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דדוקא בגט הנמצא הוא דחייש שמא מאחר נפל¹⁴ – And the ר"י says that only by a גט which was lost an found are we concerned that perhaps it fell from another יב"ש (even though לא הוחזקו) – אבל חשיב שפיר מוכח מתוכו¹⁵ כיון דלא הוחזקו אלא שוירי אחד ויוסף בן שמעון אחד – However by a regular גט it is indeed considered מוכח מתוכו since we know of only one שוירי and one יב"ש – תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דתנן בפרק גט פשוט (בבא בתרא דף קסז,א) כותבין גט לאיש אף על פי שאין אשתו עמו – And if you will say; for the משנה in פרק גט פשוט teaches, ‘we write a גט for a man even though his wife is not with him’ – ופריך בגמרא¹⁶ וליחוש לשני יוסף בן שמעון הדרים בעיר אחת – And the גמרא there asks, ‘but let us be concerned for two יב"ש who live in the same city, and their wives also have the same names – דלמא ממטי לה גיטא לאיתתיה דהאיך – Perhaps he will bring the גט to the other sיב"ש' wife’, and she will be divorced illegally – ומשני הכי אמר רב שני יוסף בן שמעון הדרים בעיר אחת אין מגרשין אלא זה בפני זה¹⁷ – And the גמרא there answered, ‘this is what רב taught; two יב"ש who live in one city, cannot divorce their wives only in the presence of each other’. This concludes the citation of the משנה and גמרא. תוספות continues with his question – והשתא היכי מיירי אי בלא הוחזקו הא מסקינן לקמן¹⁸ (כז,א( דלא חיישינן – But now, what case are we discussing; if it not established that there are two יב"ש, there is no concern, since the גמרא concluded later that we are not concerned for two יב"ש, if it is לא הוחזקו, so there is no need for any תקנה and no concern – ואי בהוחזקו אם כן לרבי מאיר אפילו זה בפני זה אין מגרשין – And if it is הוחזקו, so according to ר"מ, they cannot divorce even in the presence of each other, for we require מוכח מתוכו (which it is not), so the תקנה is useless – עד שיכתבו כהן או דורות או שום סימן ואז ליכא למיחש למידי – Unless they write כהן or previous generations or some sign, and in that case there is no concern at all, since we will notice the distinction in the גט – ואי לרבי אלעזר הא עדי מסירה ידעי שפיר אם זו היא אשתו או לאו כדאמר הכא¹⁹ – And if it is according to ר"א, so the ע"מ properly know if this is his wife or not as the גמרא states here?! How can we understand that גמרא in ב"ב?! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק²⁰ דאין עדי מסירה מדקדקים לראות אם זו אשתו²¹ – And the ר"י says that the עדי מסירה are not that careful to see if this is his wife – כיון שמכירים שמו ושמה וכתוב בגט שמו ושמה – Since they recognize his name and her name and his and her names are written in the גט, so they assume that the woman receiving the גט is his wife – ולא חיישינן²² שמא יתננו לאשת חבירו ששמו כשמו ושמה כשמה – And the ע"מ are not concerned that perhaps the husband will give the גט to his friend’s wife whose name is like his name and her name is like his wife’s name – וגם לא מסקי אדעתייהו להבחין אם יש יוסף בן שמעון אחר בעיר²³ – And also it does not enter in the minds of the ע"מ to verify whether there is another יב"ש in the city – וכשבאה לבית דין להתירה להנשא מעידים עדי מסירה בפני בית דין – So when the woman comes to בי"ד with her גט, so that בי"ד should permit her to remarry, the ע"מ will testify before the בי"ד – שראו שבעלה נתן לה גט אף על פי שלא דקדקו אם היא היתה אשתו – That they saw that her husband gave her a גט, even though they were not meticulous to verify whether she was actually his wife – ולהכי²⁴ פריך ניחוש דלמא ממטי לה גיטא לאיתתיה דהאי – So therefore the גמרא asked (how can you לכתחלה write a גט for the husband without the wife), ‘let us always be concerned that perhaps he will bring this גט to his friend’s wife – דאפילו אין יודעין הכותבין אם הוחזקו אין להם לכתוב דזימנין דהוחזקו ולא ידעי²⁵ – For even if those who are writing the גט are unaware whether הוחזקו or not (so seemingly there is no concern), nevertheless they should not write a גט (without the wife present) for occasionally it may be הוחזקו and the scribes and the ע"מ are unaware – ומשני שני יוסף כולי אין מגרשין אלא זה בפני זה – And the גמרא answers two יב"ש, etc. do not divorce except in the presence of each other – וכשבאה לבית דין להתירה²⁶ שיילי בית דין לעדי מסירה אם היו שם שני יוסף בן שמעון²⁷ – So when she comes to בי"ד to be permitted to remarry, בי"ד ask the ע"מ, (in a case where it was הוחזקו) whether there were there two יב"ש, by the מסירת הגט – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: **ולא רצה לתרץ דאין מגרשין אלא אם כן מכירין עדים שזו היא אשתו²⁸ – And the גמרא did not want to answer that (**if there are two יב"ש in a city) they can’t divorce unless the ע"מ recognize that this is his wife, so there will no longer be the concern perhaps he is divorcing is friend’s wife – דאין זו תקנה טובה דאם כן בטורח ימצאו עדי מסירה: For this is not a good enactment, for if indeed this will be the resolution, it will be difficult to find ע"מ; most people are not that familiar with knowing who are the respective wives of the husbands.

SUMMARY If there are two יב"ש, according to ר"מ they cannot divorce their wives unless there is a clear distinction between them mentioned in the גט, for we require מוכח מתוכו. The concern of ב' יב"ש is only by נפל and only if הוחזקו. The requirement that by ב' יב"ש they need to divorce in each other’s presence is because the ע"מ may not (recognize the wives and not) be aware that there are ב' יב"ש (even if הוחזקו).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes regarding the גמרא of ב' יב"ש הדרים בעיר אחר that אין מגרשין אלא זה בפני זה, that it cannot be in a case where לא הוחזקו, because 'הא מסקינן לקמן דלא חיישינן'.²⁹ Seemingly there is a much simpler proof, for if that גמרא is in a case where לא הוחזקו, what does the גמרא answer that אין מגרשין אלא זב"ז, but we do not know even that there are two יב"ש, so when will we institute this תקנה?! Obviously we are חושש only if הוחזקו, for then we can implement that אין מגרשין אלא זב"ז!³⁰

footnotes: ¹ It should be pointed out that תוס' presumably means that it needs to be signed לשם זה האיש והאשה (but not נכתב) since according to ר"מ we only require חתימה לשמה (but not כתיבה לשמה). See גרש ירחים. ² Even if there were עדי מסירה by the transfer of the גט, the גט will not be valid according to ר"מ, since ע"ח כרתי, and the ע"ח cannot make the גט effective since their testimony in the גט does not indicate who is being divorced. See תוספות הרא"ש who writes that according to פרש"י בד"ה בעדי it appears that רש"י is not גורס 'ור"א היא', but rather if there are עדי מסירה it will be כשר even according to ר"מ for according to רש"י the חשש is not because of מוכח מתוכו, but rather שמא נמלך זה וכו'. עיי"ש. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שוין ונתערבו נותן (instead of שוין ונותן). ⁴ Each woman ultimately received her proper גט from her husband for one גט was intended for her. ⁵ Each time a גט is delivered to a woman, the ע"מ do not know that this is the proper גט, they cannot say for certain at each נתינה that this נתינה effected the גירושין. See the גמרא there for sאביי' response to ר' ירמיה. ⁶ ר' ירמיה said that the משנה is not in accordance with ר"א, implying that it is in accordance with ר"מ. Otherwise ר"י should have said this משנה is not in accordance either with ר"א or ר"מ! ⁷ ד,א תוד"ה דקיימא. ⁸ The names and the fathers names of the parties (ראובן בן יעקב) were the same but their grandfathers names (יעקב בן יצחק and יעקב בן אברהם) were different. ⁹ One had an identifying mark which the other did not have, or some other feature which distinguished between them. ¹⁰ Therefore according to ר"א it is not a good גט, since the ע"מ do not know which גט belongs to which couple, while according to ר"מ when the right גט is given, the גט ‘knows’ the truth; it is מוכח מתוכו. ¹¹ This is (seemingly) רב הונא (regarding שני שוירי) and ר' זירא (regarding שני יב"ש). ¹² The גמרא there is discussing if a גט was found can it be returned to the person named in the גט or are we concerned that perhaps there is another person with the same name (or another city with the same name) so it is not her גט. ¹³ The גט is not telling us which יב"ש is divorcing his wife. ¹⁴ There is a concern only by a גט הנמצא, because since it was lost, this indicates that something may not be right with this גט, otherwise a גט is watched carefully and is not lost. ¹⁵ See נחלת משה. ¹⁶ קסז,ב. The question seems to be that if we require the wife to be there when the גט is written, so בי"ד will verify that this is indeed his wife, they will write the גט and have him give it to his wife, then and there. However if we write the גט for the husband without the wife, he may give the גט later to his namesake’s wife (perhaps he wants to marry her) and she will assume that she is divorced when in reality she is still married. ¹⁷ Therefore there is presumably no concern for since we know that there are two יב"ש, we will not allow him to divorce his wife unless the other couple is present. ¹⁸ This may be referring to the proof of רבה there that אי הוחזקו ב' יב"ש אין ואי לא לא. Additionally even according to the לשון there (on כז,ב) that ר' זירא is חושש even if לא הוחזקו that is only if it was lost (see footnote # 14), but not otherwise. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁹ See רש"י here ד"ה בעדי. This is how the גמרא explains how he can be מגרש the גדולה, etc. since the ע"מ know the couple. ²⁰ The ר"י answers that it is in a case of הוחזקו and according to ר"א. ²¹ See מהר"ם who explains that our משנה, from which we infer that the person may give the גט to his wife (even though there is another couple with the same names) is in a case where the ע"מ testify that both couples were present. ²² A marginal note amends this to ולא חיישי שמא (instead of ולא חיישינן שמא). ²³ Had the ע"מ been meticulous they would have verified that indeed there is another יב"ש in the city and would have made sure that he is divorcing his own wife. However the ע"מ were lax in this respect. ²⁴ Since it may be that הוחזקו שני יב"ש and the ע"מ are sometimes lax, therefore there is a concern, ²⁵ There are those who are aware of the two יב"ש and others are not aware. ²⁶ The בי"ד will certainly know (if it was הוחזקו) that there are two יב"ש (even if others are unaware). ²⁷ And if they were not there, בי"ד will invalidate this גט. ²⁸ Seemingly this is a better solution than having the other יב"ש and his wife (who have no interest in this whole matter) to appear for this divorce. Additionally in the current תקנה if the ע"מ were not aware and both couples were not there the גט would be פסול, however according to the proposed תקנה, there would never be a problem, for the ע"מ need to know. ²⁹ See footnote # 18. ³⁰ See תוס' ב"ב קסז,ב ד"ה וליחוש.