משנה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נִתְחַתֵּם. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף הַמֵּבִיא מִן הָרְקַם וּמִן הַחֶגֶר. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ מִכְּפַר לוּדִים לְלוּד. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נִתְחַתֵּם אֶלָּא הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ וְהַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נִתְחַתֵּם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ מֵהֵגֶּמוֹנֵייָא לְהֵגֶּמוֹנֵייָא. MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas1“Overseas” stands for all places who do not have a rabbinic authority ordained by the Patriarchate in the Land of Israel or the two Academies acting on the authority of the Prince of the Diaspora in Babylonia. If one cannot be sure that all fine points of the rules of bills of divorce were followed, the court must have the possibility of examining the messenger about the details of the writing and signing of the document. must be able to say: “It was written and signed before me.” Rabban Gamliel says, even somebody who brings from Reqam2Two places “Reqam” are mentioned as border towns in Transjordan in the description of the borders of the Land of Israel; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1, Notes 47, 51. and Ḥeger3This place has not been identified; it is conjectured to be on the Southern border of the Land of Israel.; Rebbi Eliezer says, even from Kefar Ludim to Lydda4Which were close to one another but in different court districts.; but the Sages say that the only one who has to be able to say that it was written and signed before him is one who brings from overseas or to overseas. One who brings from one province5While in Biblical Hebrew מדינה means “province”, in Talmudic usage the word often has the late hieroglyphic, and Arabic, meaning of “capital”. to another overseas has to say that it was written and signed before him; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even from one district to the next.
הלכה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ הַמֵּבִיא שְׁטָר מַתָּנָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם שֶׁמָּא חָשׁ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִיטִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קַל הֵיקִלוּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. וְהַייְנוֹ קַל. אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹמֶר. שֶׁאִילּוּ לֹא אָמַר לָהּ. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אַף אַתְּ אֵין מַתִּירָהּ לְהִינָּשֵׂא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חוֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱמַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ מִתְּחִילָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. הֵיקַלְתָּה עָלֶיהָ בְסוֹף שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִירְעֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. רִבִּי מָנָא סְבַר מֵימַר. בְּעֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ. אֲבָל בְּעֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ כְּעֶרֶר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. אֲפִילוּ כְּעֶרֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתֵימַר דְּטַעֲמָא חוֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱמַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ מִתְּחִילָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. הֵיקַלְתָּה עָלֶיהָ בְסוֹף שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִרֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. הֲװֵי לֹא שַׁנְייָא. הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ. הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא חֲתָמוֹ בְעֵדִים פְּסוּלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד לְקַלְקְלָהּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. בְּבֵית דִּין הוּא חָשׁוּד לְקַלְקלָהּ. שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם בָא וְעִרֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אַף הוּא מַחְתִּמוֹ בְּעֵדִים כְּשֵׁירִין. HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed7The form נחתם is that of most Mishnah mss. and of the Babli. The form נתחתם in the Mishnah is that of several Palestinian Mishnah mss. before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce8In the Babli, 2a/2b, it is pointed out that a bill of divorce has to be written for the woman to be divorced since the verse says (Deut. 24:1): “He shall write for her”. While the text of the bill must mention the names of husband and wife, it cannot be ascertained from the text whether the scribe was instructed to write the text specifically for that woman; there must be a live witness available who can be examined about this point. A second opinion notes that the signatures of the witnesses themselves would need confirmation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned9In the Babli, 3a, this is an anonymous (unanimous) opinion. As explained in the sequel, if the husband could come later and claim the the bill of divorce was fake, no woman could ever remarry on a bill of divorce written far away for fear that her children from a second husband could retroactively be declared to be bastards; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 10:1.. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill10E. g., if the husband claims that he had attached a condition to the bill not provided for in the bill and that the condition was not satisfied. Since the condition was not presented to the court which oversaw the delivery of the document, it cannot be considered.. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity11He claims that the entire bill is fake or that there is an intrinsic defect which makes the entire document invalid.? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity12Since there was a witness who was cross-examined about the validity of the bill, the husband cannot be admitted to testify since when he claims to be still the husband of his divorcee he declares himself a relative by marriage who is barred from acting as a witness for or against his wife.! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign13The messenger who delivers the bill might not know that the witnesses either were relatives of one of the parties or convicted felons; their signatures would invalidate the document.? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven14For if both the local court and the wife act in good faith, Heaven will absolve her but he has sinned. Cf. Yebamot 15:4, Notes 92–93.. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.
הָיָה כָתוּב בּוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְאָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַגֵּט עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַגֵּט עֱרָרוֹ קַייָם אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה. תַּנִּינָן דְּבַתֲרָהּ. אֶחָד גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים שָׁוִין בְּמוֹלִיךְ וּבְמֵבִיא. הָיָה כָתוּב בּוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְאָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אֶצֶל הַגֵּט עֱרָרוֹ קַייָם אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֱרָרוֹ קַייָם אֶצֶל הַמַּתָּנָה עֱרָרוֹ קַייָם אֶצֶל הַגֵּט. כָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לְעַבְדּוֹ. אַתְּ אָמַר. הוּא גִיטּוֹ הוּא מַתָּנָתוֹ. מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. בְּגֵט הוּא וְעֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל אוֹ בַמַּתָּנָה הוּא וְעֱרָרוֹ קַייָם. וְייָבֹא כְהָדָא. כָּתַב כָּל־נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת וְהָיוּ עֵדִים כְּשֵׁירִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִמִּי. אִתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵן פְסוּלִין לָזֶה פְּסוּלִין לָזֶה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי אָבִין מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵן פְסוּלִין לָזֶה פְּסוּלִין לָזֶה. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כְּשֵׁרִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָה הַשְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה אַף הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי חְנַנְיָה חֲבֵרִין דְּרַבָּנִין וְרַבָּנִין. חַד אָמַר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. נַעֲשֵׂית עֵדוּת אַחַת וּבְאִישׁ אֶחָד כְּעֵדוּת שֶׁבָּֽטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּֽטְלָה כוּלָּהּ. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר יְאוּת. נַעֲשֶׂה כִּשְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִין לָזֶה וּפְסוּלִין לָזֶה. If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce15The question presupposes that one follows R. Joḥanan’s opinion in the preceding paragraph. The messenger who delivers the bill of divorce is a single witness who cannot validate a monetary claim. But since by tradition he has the power to validate a bill of divorce and the delivery of the bill implies authorization of the divorcee to collect her ketubah, it follows that in matters of bills of divorce the single messenger has the power to validate money claims as long as they are included in or dependent upon the bill of divorce.? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift16Since annulment of the special gift from the husband to his divorcee will not hinder her from remarrying, there seems to be no special reason why a single witness should make a money claim definitive.? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift17If the document of manumission was accepted by the local court at the point of delivery, the slave upon immersion in a miqweh became a full Jew. A Jew cannot be enslaved by a fellow Jew (Lev. 25:42). The reason why the master’s protest is void has nothing to do with monetary claims; there seems to be no reason why the master cannot disclaim the gift.? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave18This seems to have been a common occurrence in Roman society., you say that the gift is the document of manumission19The essence of freedom is that a person is master of himself; the gift document transfers mastership of the slave to himself.. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: 20The following is from Ketubot 11:5, explained in Notes 97–102, and Makkot 1:16. The variant readings are given in Ketubot. The messenger who delivers the document of manumission, which in this case is a document about money matters, is believed as if he were a group of two in regard of the manumission but is disqualified for the money part. All the questions asked up to this point can be answered if one decides whether to follow R. Joḥanan or R. Simeon ben Laqish. If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi21In Ketubot: R. Yasa. Since rabbis Yasa (Assi) and Immi (Ammi) form a permanent pair in the Babli, there is no real difference in the attributions.: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.
עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ וְנֶחְתַּם לִשְׁמָהּ. בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל עֵדִים בִּשְׁעַת חֲתִימָתָן. אָמַר לוֹן. גּוֹיִם לוּקְיָן חֲתוּמִין עָלָיו. וְאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִין אָכֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־הַגִיטִּין הַבָּאִין מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתָן כְּשֵׁם גּוֹיִם הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כְשֵׁירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שְׁמוֹתָן כִּשְׁמוֹת הַגּוֹיִם. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. הָא שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא. מַאי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי בֵּבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִסִּי. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב. בְּמָקוֹם יְהוּדָאִיקֵי. אִם אֵין שָׁם יְהוּדָאִיקֵי. בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. אִם אֵין שָׁם בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת מְצָרֵף עֲשָׂרָה בְנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. נוֹחַ לִי לְקַייְמוֹ בְּחוֹתְמָיו וְלֹא לְצָרֵף עֲשָׂרָה בְנֵי אָדָם. מָאי כְדוֹן. אֲפִילוּ בַחֲנוּתָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. Only if he says, it was written before me during the day and signed during the day22“The day” means the day written as date in the document. Mishnah 2:2 notes that a pre-dated bill of divorce is invalid like all pre-dated documents. The bill may have been written in the night and signed the following day since the rabbinic day is counted from sundown to sundown; it cannot have been written during daytime and signed the following night since that would make it pre-dated.; only if he says, it was written before me especially for her and signed expressly for her23The messenger must have heard the husband tell the scribe to write a bill of divorce for his wife, mentioning her by name. The Babli agrees, 3a.. It was asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does he have to know the names of the witnesses at the moment of their signing? He said to them, did the Gentiles Luciani sign it24If the names sound Roman, it does not mean anything. In the Babli, 11b, R. Joḥanan notes that if a Gentile name is known to be used by Jews, the matter does not have to be investigated. Examples given in the Babli are Λύκος “wolf”, a frequent substitute for Benjamin (Gen. 49:27), and Λίς “lion” (in epic poetry, cf. Semitic ליש), a substitute for Jehudah (Gen. 49:9). Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins: An Etymological Dictionary (Ktav, 1992; German edition Etymologisches Wörterbuch der jüdischen Familiennamen, Saur 1996), Introduction: Sobriquets, Animal Names.? And you say so? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “All bills of divorce coming from overseas are valid even if their names sound Gentile since Jews outside the Land of Israel bear Gentile names.25Babli 11b, Tosephta 6:4.” He said only, outside the Land; therefore not in the Land of Israel26It should not be assumed that Jewish people with Gentile names cannot sign a bill of divorce in the Land of Israel; there are a number of rabbis with Gentile names such as Eudaimon, Pappos, Antigonos. But in case such a name appears, an inquiry has to be made about the identity of the witness, wheras in documents coming from outside the Land, all names are accepted without inquiry.. What about this? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Issi: unless he writes, at a Jewish place27Greek Ὶουδαϊκός, -ή, -όν “Jewish”. If the names of the witnesses are Gentile, some indication of this being a purely Jewish document is needed since all documents executed in a Gentile court are valid except bills of divorce.. If there is no Jewish place, in the synagogue. If there is no synagogue, he assembles there ten people28All of whom have to sign as witnesses even if most of them are related to the couple, if only two of the witnesses are acceptable in law; it is to be assumed that not all of their names will be characteristically Gentile. Cf. Tosephta 7:11; M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, Vol. 1, p. 489.. Rebbi Abun said, it would be better to certify the signatures29After the document was duly signed, the local court could append a certification that the witnesses were known to the court and in good standing. Such a certification would have to be accepted by every rabbinic court anywhere (Mishnah 1:3). than to assemble there ten people. What about this? Even in a Jewish store30The document must mention the place where it was written. One might add that it was written in a Jewish store to emphasize the Jewish character of the document, implicitly validating the Gentile-sounding signatures..
וְלֹא אָמַר. נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ וְנֶחְתַּם לִשְׁמָהּ. נֵימַר מַה דִשְׁאִיל אֲמוֹרָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְיֵידָא דְאָמַר רָבִין בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא. אַייתֵי גִיטָא וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. טְלֵיהוּ מִמֶּנָּה וֶאֱמוֹר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶיֹּאמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. שֶׁהוּא גִיטֵּיךְ. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן ייָבֹא מִן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. וְלֹא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁאִם אָמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. שֶׁהוּא גִיטֵּיךְ. שֶׁאֵינוֹ גֵט. וְהָכָא אֲפִילוּ אִם אָמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. שֶׁהוּא גִיטֵּיךְ. אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶיֹּאמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אֶלָּא מִיסְבּוֹר סְבַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר. הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי גִיטִּי מִשְּׁלוּחֵי בַעֲלִי. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מֵבִיאָה גִטָּהּ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא מִשְּׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל קִבְּלָה. מַאי כְדוֹן טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדֵי לְהַחֲזִיקָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. If he did not say: “it was written and signed before me”? Should not an Amora have asked this question? He said to him31It is unclear to whom this refers; the text seems defective., that is what Rabin ben Rav said: If he brought a bill of divorce, gave it to her, but did not tell her: “It was written and signed before me”32Is the bill of divorce invalid in this case? In the Babli, 5b, Rabin bar Rav Ḥisda brought a bill of divorce before R. Joḥanan, who instructed him to deliver the bill in the presence of two witnesses and to make the required declaration. The question here can be interpreted to mean that Rabin asked whether the formality was really necessary in view of the fact, reported in the next paragraph, that R. Joshua ben Levi, of the generation of R. Joḥanan’s teachers, did not require the declaration. In the Babli, which is edited according to strict historical principles, R. Joshua ben Levi is mentioned before R. Joḥanan.? There came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him33The messenger who had delivered the bill of divorce without making the required declaration., take it from her and say in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.34It is understood that the Mishnah requires the declaration to be made either in the presence of two witnesses or at the local court. Tosephta 2:1 permits the declaration to be made “even after three years” if the bill of divorce can be returned to the messenger.” Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said35Tosephta 6:1; a different version Babli 78a, 84b. The statement refers to Mishnah 8:2: “If he said to her, take this bond, or she took it out from his belt, and when she read it she realized that it was her bill of divorce, it is not a bill of divorce unless he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.” The reason is that Deut. 24:1 requires that in a divorce the husband deliver the bill into the wife’s hand. The question arises whether the required declaration is valid after the bill is already in the wife’s hand. In the Babli 78a, Rebbi is quoted as holding that the bill is invalid unless given as a bill of divorce; R. Simeon ben Eleazar permits the husband to reclaim the bill from his wife and deliver it a second time accompanied by the required declaration. In the Tosephta, Rebbi is reported not to require the declaration, R. Simeon ben Eleazar requires that the declaration accompany the delivery. The language of the Tosephta is that of the Yerushalmi; it is not clear whether R. Simeon ben Eleazar permits taking the document back., it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce? Can the position of Rebbi Joḥanan be derived from Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? Would Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that if he told her at the moment of delivery that it was her bill of divorce it would not be a bill of divorce36The answer to this rhetorical question clearly is no; the only condition imposed by R. Simeon ben Eleazar is that the wife be informed of the nature of the document at the moment of delivery.? But here, even if he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” But Rebbi Joḥanan might hold that a woman cannot be believed if she says, I received a bill of divorce from my husband’s agents37Therefore, the delivery of the document characterized as a bill of divorce must be made before two witnesses in good standing. It seems that in his case, the document was delivered in private; the main reason of R. Joḥanan was not the recitation of the formula but the delivery in front of witnesses.. But we did state38Mishnah 2:7. If the husband delivers the document to her on condition that it should not become effective until she presents it to the court which has to preside over the payment of her ketubah, she can bring it herself and declare before the court that “it was written and signed before me.”: “The wife herself can bring her bill of divorce.” Would you not have to be afraid that she might have received the bill from a representative of the husband39Why should she be believed if she brings the document from abroad when she is not believed if the document is delivered to her in private? It is implied here that the act which makes the document valid is its signing by two reliable witnesses, not its delivery.? How is it? The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is to make her known as divorcee in front of two [witnesses]40He holds that the requirement of the declaration mentioned in the Mishnah is prescriptive but its omission does not invalidate the divorce..
אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית צָרִיךְ. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִיטִּין. וְהָכָא אָמַר אָכֵן. חֲבֵרַייָא בְשֵׁם דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ חֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁחֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בְּקִיאִין הֵן. וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. אֵין חֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲנָן מְצוּיִין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בְּגִיטִּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. מֵעַתָּה הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם לֹא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בְּגִיטֵּי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַאי כְדוֹן. מַחְמִירִין בַּקַּל מִפְּנֵי הֶחָמוּר וְאֵין מַקִּילִין בֶּחָמוּר מִפְּנֵי הַקַּל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שֶׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא. מֵהָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֲבָל בִּתְחִילָּה אוֹף רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מוֹדֶה. A case came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi41In the Babli, 5b, it was R. Simeon bar Abba, a recognized scholar, who brought the document.. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce8In the Babli, 2a/2b, it is pointed out that a bill of divorce has to be written for the woman to be divorced since the verse says (Deut. 24:1): “He shall write for her”. While the text of the bill must mention the names of husband and wife, it cannot be ascertained from the text whether the scribe was instructed to write the text specifically for that woman; there must be a live witness available who can be examined about this point. A second opinion notes that the signatures of the witnesses themselves would need confirmation., but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no Fellows42Here, “Fellow” does not have the technical meaning of “person who observes the rules of food purity” but means “person learned in the law.” were found outside the Land, but now that there are Fellows found outside the Land, they are competent43In the Babli, this is R. Joshua ben Levi’s explanation given to R. Simeon bar Abba the Babylonian.. But did we not state, “and one who brings there44In the Mishnah, the duty to declare that the document was written in the presence of the messenger is extended to bills of divorce written in the Land and delivered abroad.”? And even if you say that no Fellows are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land45There otherwise would be no reason to require a declaration for bills originating in the Land.. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One is restrictive in a simple case because of the complicated one and one is not permissive in the complicated because of the easy one46It is preferable to require a declaration for documents originating in Palestine (the easy case) rather than to eliminate the declaration for documents originating outside the Land (the complicated case).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: This47The statement that the declaration was unnecessary. of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, if it was done. But from the start even Rebbi Joshua ben Levi agrees48In that, R. Joshua ben Levi agrees with R. Joḥanan. The Babli, 5b, disagrees since in its version R. Simeon bar Abba asked R. Joshua ben Levi whether he had to make the declaration when delivering the bill of divorce..
רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר חָנָה. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ אֶת הַגֵּט אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. צָרִיךְ. הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיתְּנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם כְּדֵי לְהַחֲזִיקָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. נָתַן לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ. נְטָלוֹ מִמֶּנָּהּ וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ לַיָּם אוֹ לְנָהָר. לְאַחַר זְמָן אָמַר לָהּ. נַייָר חָלָק הָיָה וּשְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ הָיָה. לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְפוֹסְלָהּ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הוּא אֵינוֹ פוֹסְלָהּ מִי פוֹסְלָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּחְזַק גְּרוּשָׁה בִפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְפוֹסְלָהּ. נָתַן לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ. אַשְׁכְּחוּנֵיהּ גֵּט בְּפָסוּל. כְּפוּנֵיהּ וִיהַב לָהּ חוֹרָן. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין וְאַכְשְׁרוּן. וְלֹא כֵן אִיתֲמַר. לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְפוֹסְלָהּ. תַּמָן לֹא הוּכַח פְּסוּל. הָכָא הוּכַח פְּסוּל. כְּהָדָא חִינְנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֲסִי הֲוָה מֵיסַן וְזָרַק גִּיטָָּא לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָמַר לָהּ. הֲרֵי גִיטֵּיךְ. צְװָחַת. וַעֲלוֹן מְגֵירָתָהּ חַטְּפֵיהּ מִינָהּ. וִיהַב לָהּ נַייָר חָלָק. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִין וְחָשׁוּן. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִבְדַּק הַשֵּׁם וְנִמְצָא מִפִּי נָשִׁים וּמִפִּי קְטָנִים בָּטֵל הַשֵּׁם. תַּמָּן לֹא הוּזְכַּר הַשֵּׁם. בְּרַם הָכָא הוּזְכַּר שֵׁם הַגֵּט. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אִם אָמַר. גֵּט כָּשֵׁר הָיָה. וְכֵיוָן דְּצְװָחַת וַעֲלוֹן מְגֵירָתָהּ חַטְּפֵיהּ מִינָהּ. וִיהַב לָהּ נַייָר חָלָק. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Ḥana: Two who brought a bill of divorce do not have to declare: It was written before us and signed before us49In the Babli, 5a, this opinion is attributed to Rav Huna, Rav’s student.. Rebbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They have to50In the Babli, 16a/b, he is quoted in the opposite sense.. He himself who brought the bill of divorce does not have to deliver the bill in the presence of two [witnesses]51In the Babli, a fundamental question is whether a bill of divorce is validated by the signatories of the bill or the witnesses to the delivery. The first opinion is attributed in the Babli to R. Meïr; it is generally accepted in the Yerushalmi. The second opinion is R. Eleazar’s in both Talmudim (Mishnah 9:4). The Babli considers R. Eleazar the dominant author in matters of divorce; the Yerushalmi considers his a minority opinion. Accordingly, the Yerushalmi permits private delivery from husband to wife. Nevertheless, since marriage is a public affair, the divorcee cannot remarry unless her divorce is made public. The husband therefore has to publicly declare her a divorcee after his private delivery. in order to declare her a divorcee in the presence of two. “If he gave her the bill52In the presence of witnesses., took it from her, and threw it into the sea or into a river53Where it cannot be retrieved.. If later he says to her that it was an empty papyrus or a paid bond, he cannot be believed to disqualify her.”54Tosephta 6:2, quoted in Babli 19b. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he55Since the preceding sentence deals with the husband, the question is whether it extends to everybody else. cannot disqualify her, who can? He said to him, since she was declared a divorcee in the presence of two [witnesses], he cannot be believed to disqualify her56Since there are two witnesses to the delivery, the divorce could be put in doubt only by a proof that the witnesses are false. In the interpretation of the Babli, 55a, the divorce is valid if the witnesses knew that the document was a bill of divorce, but the wife did not. It is possible to read the Yerushalmi 5:5 in the same sense.. If he gave her a bill of divorce which was found to be invalid, they57The court supervising the divorce. A forced divorce is valid if forced and executed by a rabbinic court, Mishnah 9:10. However, the power of a court to force divorces is severely circumscribed, Halakhah 9:10. In a case of forced divorce, it has to be ascertained whether the court remained within the limits of his authority. It seems clear that the court has the authority to force a divorce if the giver of the invalid bill was a Cohen since even an invalid divorce forbids the wife to return to her priestly husband; but without a valid divorce she cannot marry any other man or collect the sums due her. forced him to give her a replacement. This case came before the rabbis and they declared it valid. Did we not say, he cannot be believed to disqualify her? There, the flaw was not proved; here the flaw was proved58The husband cannot invalidate a bill of divorce which is not available for inspection; the court can invalidate a document in its possession.. As the following: Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Asi, was a medical doctor and threw a bill of divorce to his wife59Under certain circumstances, a bill of divorce can be delivered by depositing it in the wife’s domain, Chapter 8.. She cried. Her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus. The case came before the rabbis and they took it into account60She was “divorced and not divorced.” Since the document is not available for inspection, it cannot be declared invalid. Since the delivery was irregular, it cannot be declared valid. The husband has to be forced to deliver a second bill.. But did not Rebbi Yasa say in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If the designation was checked and found to be based on [the testimony of] women or children, the designation is invalid61Halakhah 9:11. The Mishnah states that if a woman is generally said to have received a bill of divorce, one can accept the divorce as a fact. R. Joḥanan notes that if an investigation reveals that nobody who might appear as a formal witness in criminal cases is the source of the opinion, one has to disregard the “general knowledge” of the population. If it is known that she received a document from her husband, it does not necessarily mean that it was a bill of divorce.
In the Babli, 89a, it is a matter of dispute between Babylonian authorities whether a “general opinion” must be traced to a person who might appear as witness in good standing before a criminal court.? There, the designation was not mentioned. But here the name “bill of divorce” was mentioned. And some want to say, if he asserted that it was a valid bill of divorce62The husband himself is the source of the rumor. If he is a person of good standing, Mishnah 9:11 requires that his information be trusted. According to this interpretation, the wife is divorced and does not need a second bill in order to collect her ketubah and remarry., but she cried, her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus.
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. כְּתָבוֹ בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְהָלַךְ לִיתְּנוֹ לָהּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְלֹא מְצָאָהּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְְּתָבוֹ לָאָרֶץ וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל נִכְתַּב בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנֶחְתַּם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָלַךְ לִיתְּנוֹ לָהּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְלֹא מְצָאָהּ. וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. נָתַן לָהּ אֶת גִּיטָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָֽמְרָה. תִּזְכֶּה לִי חֲצֵירִי שֶׁבְּעַכּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָה. נַעֲשֵׂית כְּמִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה יָדָהּ אֲרוּכָּה. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה יָדָהּ אֲרוּכָּה וְהוֹשִׁיטָה אֶת יָדָהּ וּנְטָלָתוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וְנֶחְתַּם. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָאן אָמַר דְּלֹא. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.”63This seems to refer to a tannaïtic statement similar to Tosephta 2:2: “If he wrote it in the Land and had it signed outside the Land, one has to say ‘it was written and signed before me.’ If it was written outside the Land but signed in the Land, one does not have to say ‘it was written and signed before me.’ ” Since a document must be signed on the date indicated in it, writing and signing must take place at a border point. If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco64The border of the Land of Israel passes through Acco, cf. Halakhah 2 and Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 30. The bill of divorce was presented to her in the Israeli part of Acco, but she desired it to be deposited in her courtyard which was outside the Land. A bill of divorce can be legally delivered by being deposited in a house or walled courtyard which is the woman’s property (even if it was part of her dowry, which becomes the husband’s property but reverts to her at the moment of divorce.) shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”65Because the delivery took place outside the Land.? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it66R. Ḥinena’s statement is trivial; the nontrivial part is that a delivery in a courtyard is valid even if the wife is far away at the moment of delivery; cf. Rashba, Novellae to Giṭṭin 77b. In the Babli, 77b, delivery from a distance is a matter of contention and prohibited by Ulla; there nobody accepts the notion of an “extended arm.”?
רִבִּי עֶזְרָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיוּ תְפוּשִׂין בַּגֵּט. הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת. זָכִיתִי. וְהוּא אָמַר. לֹא זָכִיתָה. תַּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרִבִּי וּדְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלֹּוֶה שֶׁהָיוּ תְפוּשִׂין בַּשְּׁטָר. הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי הוּא שֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנִּי. וְהַלֹּוֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי הוּא שֶׁפְּרַעְתִּיו לָךְ. יִתְקַייֵם הַשְּׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יַחֲלוֹקוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתָּפוּשׂ בָּעֵדִים. מַה פְלִיגִין. כְּשֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לְאוֹרֶךְ וּשְׁנֵיהֶן תְּפוּשִׂין בָּעֵדִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. הָכָא אֲפִילוּ כוּלָּהּ בְּיָדָהּ וְחוּט אֶחָד בְּיָדוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵט. דִּכְתִיב וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כוּלּוֹ בְיָדָהּ. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: If a man and his wife held on to a bill of divorce; she says, I acquired it, but he says, you did not acquire67He demands some money from her before he is willing to give her a divorce.. Does this refer to the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? Since they disagreed68Baba Meṣiʻa 1:1, Babli Baba Meṣiʻa 7a.: If creditor and borrower both hold on to the bond; the creditor says it is mine; I had lost it. The borrower says, it is mine because I paid it off. The document should be verified by its signatories, the words of Rebbi69In the interpretation of the Babli, a private bond is valid only if its signatures have been notarized in court. Rebbi permits late notarizing, so the creditor can claim half.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they should split70Following Symmachos that “money in doubt shall be split,” Mishnah Baba Meṣiʻa 1:1; cf. Ketubot 2, Note 9, 10, Note 62.. Rebbi Eleazar said, everything depends on who actually holds the signatures of the witnesses71Since only the signatures validate the document.. Where do they disagree? If it was written lengthwise72In computer printers this is called “landscape format”. The writing parallels the long side of the paper; it is possible for both parties to hold on to part of the lines used for signatures. and both hold part of the signatures of the witnesses. He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion that it is not a bill of divorce if all is in her hand but a thread is in his hand, for it is written: “He shall deliver it into her hand,” not unless all be in her hand73In the Babli, 78b Rav Ḥisda formulates: If the bill is in her hands and a thread is in his hand: if he can draw it back to himself, she is not divorced, otherwise she is divorced. The Babli bases its ruling on the meaning of the word כריתות “divorce” which requires complete physical separation..
מְתִיב רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר לְרַבָּנִן. כְּמָא דְאִית לְכוֹן הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אַף אֲנָא אִית לִי הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט מִלִּמֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּקַיסָרִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וְאֵין לִמֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּקַיסָרִין כְּקַיְסָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. סְפִינָּה מַפְרֶשֶׂת הָֽייְתָה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִן הַסְּפִינָּה כְּמֵבִיא מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Just as you hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another overseas has to say, “it was written and signed before me,” so I hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another in the Land of Israel has to say, “it was written and signed before me.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, it happened that one brought a bill of divorce from the harbor of Caesarea74He delivered it in the city of Caesarea maritima, formerly called Straton’s Tower, which was not part of the Land of Israel; cf. Ševiʻit 6:1, Note 32.. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said yes, he has to say that it was written and signed before him. But is the harbor of Caesarea not part of Caesarea? Rebbi Abin said, it was from a departing ship, and it was stated thus: One who brings a bill of divorce from a ship is like one who brings from outside the Land and has to say that it was written and signed before him75In the Babli, 7b, there are baraitot quoted either that the declaration is needed or not needed, but there the reference is to a person who brings a bill of divorce in a ship connecting places in the Land, rather than from a ship sailing overseas..
הָֽיְתָה הֵגֶמוֹנֵייָא אַחַת וְנַעֲשֵׂית שְׁתַּיִם. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. וְכֵן שְׁתַּיִם וְנַעֲשׁוּ אַחַת. If there was one district which was subdivided into two, one does not have to say it was written and signed before me. Similarly if two were combined to form one.