Gittin

Beth Shammai holding that a man [in such a case] will not scruple to commit fornication, whereas Beth Hillel hold that a man will scruple to commit fornication.  Where, however, she was not seen to have intercourse, both agree that she does not require a second Get from him. We learn: [BETH HILLEL] AGREE THAT IF THE DIVORCE IS ONE AFTER BETROTHAL, SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND GET FROM HIM, BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT TAKE LIBERTIES WITH HER. Now [if a second Get is required] where she was seen to have intercourse, what difference does it make whether it was after betrothal or after marriage?  — We must suppose therefore that the Mishnah speaks of a case where she was not seen to have intercourse, and that R. Johanan was giving the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel were of accord that where she was not seen to have intercourse she does not require from him a second Get. Where they differed was when she was seen to have intercourse, Beth Shammai holding that a man would not scruple [in such a case] to commit fornication, and Beth Hillel holding that a man would scruple to commit fornication'. But according to the Mishnah, which we have explained to refer to the case where she was not seen to have intercourse, what are we to say is the [ground of] difference [between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel]? — We must suppose there were witnesses to their being alone together but no witnesses to the intercourse, in which case Beth Shammai hold that we do not regard the witnesses to their being alone together as being ipso facto witnesses to their intercourse, whereas Beth Hillel hold that we do regard the witnesses to their being alone together as being ipso facto witnesses to their intercourse.  Beth Hillel admit, however, that if the divorce is one after betrothal she does not require a second Get from him, because since he would not take liberties with her we do not regard them as being ipso facto witnesses to intercourse.  But did R. Johanan say this?  Did not R. Johanan say that the halachah follows the anonymous Mishnah,  and we have explained the Mishnah to be referring to the case where she was not seen to have intercourse? — Different Amoraim report R. Johanan's opinion differently. MISHNAH. IF A MAN MARRIES A [DIVORCED] WOMAN ON THE STRENGTH OF A 'BALD' GET,  SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. A 'BALD' GET MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANYONE'S SIGNATURE.  THIS IS THE VIEW OF BEN NANNOS, BUT R. AKIBA SAYS THAT IT MAY BE COMPLETED ONLY BY RELATIVES WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ELSEWHERE.  WHAT IS A 'BALD' GET? ONE WHICH HAS MORE FOLDS THAN SIGNATURES. GEMARA. What is the reason for [invalidating] A 'BALD' GET? — As a precaution, in case he said 'All of you [write]'. A 'BALD' GET MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANYONE'S SIGNATURE. Why does R. Akiba not permit a slave [to sign]? — Because this might lead people to say that he is competent to bear witness [in general]. But in the same way they might be led to say that a near relative is competent to bear witness? — The fact is that the reason why he does not allow a slave is because people might be led to think him of Israelite parentage.  According to this a robber who could prove his Israelitish descent  should be competent. Why then do we learn here: R. AKIBA SAYS, IT MAY BE COMPLETED ONLY BY RELATIVES WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ELSEWHERE, which would imply that a relative may testify but not a robber? — We must say therefore that the reason in the case of a slave is that people might be led to say that he has been emancipated; and similarly in the case of a robber people might be led to say that he has reformed himself. But as to a relative what objections can be raised? Everyone knows that a relative is a relative. R. Zera said in the name of Rabbah b. She'ilta who had it from R. Hamnuna the elder who had it from R. Adda b. Ahabah: If a 'bald' Get has seven folds and six witnesses, or six folds and five witnesses, or five folds and four witnesses, or four folds and three witnesses, then Ben Nannos and R. Akiba differ [as to how it is to be completed]. But if it has three folds and two witnesses both agree that only a relative may complete it. Said R. Zera to Rabbah b. She'ilta: Let us see now. Three in a folded Get correspond to two in a plain Get.  Seeing then that a relative is forbidden to sign the latter, should he not be forbidden to sign the former also? — He replied: I was also perplexed by this, and I asked R. Hamnuna, who in turn asked R. Adda b. Ahabah, who replied, Don't bother about three on a folded Get, since these are not required by the Torah.  It has been taught to the same effect: A 'bald' Get which has seven folds but six witnesses, six folds and five witnesses, five folds and four witnesses, or four folds and three witnesses is judged differently by Ben Nannos and R. Akiba, to the extent that if it was completed by a slave Ben Nannos says that the child [born from a marriage contracted on the strength of such a Get] is legitimate while R. Akiba says that it is a mamzer. If, however, it has three folds and two witnesses, both agree that only a relative may complete it. R. Joseph read [in the statement of R. Zera] 'a competent witness' [instead of 'relative']. But in the Baraitha it says 'relative'? — R. Papa said: Read, 'a competent witness'. R. Johanan said: Only one relative has been declared eligible to sign as witness on it but not two, for fear lest it should be confirmed on the strength of the signatures of two relatives and one competent witness.  Said R. Ashi: This is indicated in the Baraitha also