Gittin — Daf 24b

יתר מיכן היו לו שתי נשים ושמותיהן שוות כתב לגרש את הגדולה לא יגרש בו את הקטנה

יתר מיכן אמר ללבלר כתוב לאיזו שארצה אגרש פסול לגרש בו:

גמ׳ כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך וכו' ואלא רישא במאי

אמר רב פפא בסופרין העשויין להתלמד עסקינן אמר רב אשי דיקא נמי דקתני סופרין מקרין ולא קתני סופרין קוראין ש"מ

מאי יתר מיכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל לא זה שנכתב שלא לשום גירושין אלא אף זה שנכתב לשום גירושין פסול

ולא זה שנכתב שלא לשום גירושין דידיה אלא אף זה שנכתב לשום גירושין דידיה פסול ולא זה שלא נכתב לשום גירושין הא אלא אף זה שנכתב לשום גירושין הא פסול

מאי טעמא אי כתב ונתן ספר כריתות בידה הוה אמינא למעוטי האיך קמא דלא עביד לשום כריתות אבל כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך דעביד לשום כריתות אימא כשר כתב רחמנא (דברים כד, א) וכתב

אי כתב רחמנא וכתב הוה אמינא למעוטי האי דלא איהו קא כתיב לה אבל יש לו שתי נשים דאיהו קא כתיב לה אימא כשר כתב רחמנא (דברים כד, א) לה לשמה

וסיפא למה לי הא קא משמע לן דאין ברירה:

כתב לגרש את הגדולה לא יגרש בו את הקטנה: קטנה הוא דלא מצי מגרש ביה הא גדולה מצי מגרש ביה

אמר רבא זאת אומרת שני יוסף בן שמעון הדרין בעיר אחת מוציאין שטר חוב על אחרים

א"ל אביי אלא מעתה רישא דקתני שמי כשמך פסול לגרש בו שני הוא דלא מצי מגרש ביה הא ראשון מצי מגרש ביה והא אמרינן ולא אחר יכול להוציא עליהן שטר חוב

אלא מאי אית לך למימר בעדי מסירה ור' אלעזר היא

הכא נמי בעדי מסירה ור' אלעזר היא

אמר רב כולן פוסלין בכהונה חוץ מן הראשון ושמואל אמר אף ראשון נמי פוסל

ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל כל מקום ששנו חכמים גט פסול פסול ופוסל חליצה פסולה פסולה ופוסלתה מן האחין

במערבא אמרי משמיה דר' אלעזר שמאל ולילה פסולות ופוסלות

MOREOVER: IF HE HAD TWO WIVES WITH THE SAME NAME AND WROTE A GET WITH WHICH TO DIVORCE THE ELDER, HE MUST NOT USE IT TO DIVORCE THE YOUNGER. MOREOVER: IF HE SAID TO THE SCRIBE,  WRITE AND I WILL DIVORCE WHICHEVER I CHOOSE,' IT IS NOT VALID TO DIVORCE THEREWITH EITHER. GEMARA. [The second clause of the Mishnah puts the case where] HE WROTE [A GET] TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND CHANGED HIS MIND. What then is the case put in the first clause? — R. Papa said: We are dealing there with scribes practising [to write bills of divorce]. R. Ashi said: The language of the Mishnah bears this out, since it says 'DICTATING' and not 'reading', which shows that R. Papa is right. What is the point of the word MOREOVER? — The school of R. Ishmael taught: 'Not only is a Get invalid that has not been written for purposes of divorce [but for practice]. but also one that has been written for purposes of divorce [but not of this man's wife]; and not only is this [one invalid] that has not been written for the purposes of his divorce, but even the other one that has been written for the purposes of his divorce is invalid; and not only is this [one invalid] which has not been written for divorcing this [wife], but even the other one which has been written for divorcing this [wife] is invalid'. What is the reason? — If [the Scripture] had written, 'he shall give a writ of divorce into her hand,' I should say that this excludes the first case [mentioned above] where [the Get is not written] for the purpose of effecting a divorce, but that if a husband writes [a Get] to divorce his wife and then changes his mind, seeing that the document is meant to effect a divorce I should say it is valid; therefore the Divine Law says, 'and he write'.  And if it had merely said and he write, I should have said that this excludes the case where he does not write [the Get] for her,  but if he has two wives [and writes for one or other of them] in which case he does [in a way] write for her, I should say that it is valid: therefore the text says, for her, that is to say. for her name. Why then is the last case specified?  — To show that there is no [such thing as] a retrospective decision. IF HE WROTE A GET WITH WHICH TO DIVORCE THE ELDER, HE MUST NOT USE IT TO DIVORCE THE YOUNGER. It is the younger only whom he must not divorce with it, but he may divorce with it the elder.  Raba said: This means to say that if there are two men named Joseph b. Simeon living in a town, either can claim from a third party on the strength of a bond [written in his name].  Said Abaye to him: On your reasoning, from the first clause of the Mishnah which says that if a man says to another MY NAME IS THE SAME AS YOURS [and takes a Get from him]. HE MAY NOT USE IT TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE, I understand that it is the second only who may not use it but the first may; but how can this be seeing that it is laid down  [in reference to the case of two men named Joseph b. Simeon] that a third party cannot claim against either of them on the strength of the bond?  The truth is that [in regard to the latter kind of Get written by one man and used by another] we say it is valid [if used by the first] only if there are witnesses to the delivery,  [the Mishnah] following R. Eleazar. So too [in regard to the former kind of Get where the two wives have the same name the Get is valid if given to the one for whom it was written] only if there are witnesses to the delivery, [the Mishnah following] R. Eleazar. Raba said: All the kinds [of Get mentioned in our Mishnah] disqualify [the woman named in them from living with her husband] if he is a priest,  except the first,  Samuel said that the first also disqualifies. Samuel applies here the principle which he had elsewhere laid down, that wherever the Rabbis have declared a Get invalid, it does not effect divorce but it does disqualify [the wife of a priest from living with him], and wherever they have declared a halizah  invalid it does not release  [the sister-in-law] but it does disqualify her from [marrying] any of the brothers-in-law. In the West  they said in the name of R. Eleazar: [If the halizah was performed with] the left hand or by night, it does not release [the woman] but it does disqualify her;