Gittin

[Rab tells us that in this case the child is legitimate only] if [the Get is] written with his own hand, but if the scribe has written it and there is only one witness, the child is not [legitimate]. Samuel, however, said that even if the scribe had written it and there was [the signature of only] one witness, [the child is] legitimate, since we have learnt, If the scribe wrote and there was the signature of a witness, the Get is valid.  And Rab? — [He might rejoin:] Is there any comparison? There her marriage is permitted in the first instance,  but here only retrospectively.  And Samuel? — [He can rejoin:] There is no difficulty;  there we assume that the scribe is fully competent,  here that he is not so competent.  So too R. Johanan said: The Mishnah definitely stated, WITH HIS OWN HAND. Said R. Eleazar to him, But it is attested by the signature of witnesses?  — He replied: [I refer] to the last clause. Rab sometimes ruled [in such cases] that [the woman] should leave [the second husband] and sometimes that she need not leave him. How was this? If she had children [he ruled that] she need not leave,  if she had no children she must leave. Mar Zutra b. Tobia raised an objection [from the following]: 'If any of these  had been doubtfully betrothed or doubtfully divorced, they must give halizah but cannot marry the brother-in-law'. What is meant by 'doubtfully' betrothed? If, for instance, he had thrown to her the betrothal token, and it was doubtful whether it landed nearer to him or nearer to her, this is a doubtful betrothal. A doubtful divorce is where he wrote [the Get] with his own hand but it was not attested with the signature of witnesses, or if it was attested but had no date, or if it had a date but the signature of only one witness; this is a doubtful divorce. Now if you say that [a woman so divorced] should not leave [her second husband],  then her co-wife  on the strength of such a one might come to marry the brother-in-law?  — [He replied]: Let her marry him; it is of no consequence, since the only danger is of breaking a rule of the Rabbis.  Levi said: In neither case need she leave [the second husband]. So too said R. Johanan: In neither case need she leave the second husband. So too R. Johanan said to the sons of R. Halafta of Huna:  Thus said your father, In neither case need she leave, and the karzith in the stacked corn does not spoil the water of purification.  What is a karzith? — Abaye explained: The large fly found among the stacks,  R. Daniel the son of R. Kattina raised an objection against this [from the following]: 'All birds spoil the water of purification [by drinking of it] except the pigeon, because it swallows the water completely.'  Now if what has been said is correct, it should say, 'except the pigeon and the karzith?' — The authority could not speak definitely, as the big one does not spoil but the small one does spoil. Up to what size [is it reckoned small]? — R. Jeremiah (or it may have been R. Ammi) said, Up to the size of an olive. R. ELEAZAR SAYS THAT EVEN THOUGH etc. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce.  When [he continued] I stated this in the presence of Samuel, he said, In the matter of [commercial] documents also. Rab however, said, Not in the matter of documents. But it is stated [in the Mishnah]: SHE MAY RECOVER HER KETHUBAH FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY?  — R. Eleazar gave two rulings. and Rab concurred with him in one but differed from him in regard to the other. So too R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah follows R. Eleazar in bills of divorce. R. Jannai, however, said that such a document has not even a tincture of a Get in it.  Does not R. Jannai accept the ruling of R. Eleazar? — What he meant was, According to the Rabbis, such a document has not even a tincture of a Get. So too R. Jose son of R. Haninah said in the name of Resh Lakish: The halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. R. Johanan, however, said that such a document has not even a tincture of a Get. Are we to say that R. Johanan does not accept the ruling of R. Eleazar? — What he meant was, According to the Rabbis such a document has not even the tincture of a Get. R. Abba b. Zabda sent to Mari b. Mar saying, Inquire of R. Huna whether the halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce or not. Before he could do so, R. Huna died, but Rabbah his son said to him, Thus said my father in the name of Rab: The halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. Moreover our teachers who are well versed in the halachah said in the name of our Master,  The halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce, since R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rab, The halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. According to another version: And our Colleagues  that are well versed in the halachah and the disciples of our Teacher [Rab] said that the halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. For R. Hisda said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria in the name of Rab that the halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. So too when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said, R. Eleazar  says that the halachah follows R. Eleazar in the matter of bills of divorce. MISHNAH. IF TWO MEN SENT [TO THEIR WIVES] TWO BILLS OF DIVORCE WITH THE SAME NAMES AND THEY BECAME MIXED UP [THE BEARER] MUST GIVE BOTH OF THEM TO EACH OF THE WOMEN. CONSEQUENTLY, IF ONE OF THEM WAS LOST THE OTHER BECOMES VOID.  IF FIVE MEN WROTE JOINTLY IN THE SAME DOCUMENT, SO-AND-SO DIVORCES SO-AND-SO AND SO-AND-SO SO-AND-SO, AND IF THE WITNESSES DULY SIGNED BELOW, ALL ARE VALID AND THE GET IS TO BE GIVEN TO EACH OF THE WOMEN. IF THE SCRIBE WROTE OUT THE FORMULA  FOR EACH ONE AND THE WITNESSES SIGNED BELOW, THE ONE TO WHICH THE SIGNATURES ARE ATTACHED  IS [ALONE] VALID. GEMARA. Who is the authority [for this rule]?  — R. Jeremiah said: It is not R. Eleazar. For if we were to follow R. Eleazar, since he holds that it is the witnesses to delivery  that make [the Get] effective, [they could not do so in this case] since they do not know with which [Get] either of the women is divorced. Abaye said: It is possible to ascribe this ruling to R. Eleazar also, since I may say, Granting that R. Eleazar requires the Get to be written in the name of that particular woman, does he also require it to be given in the name of that particular woman? IF FIVE WROTE JOINTLY etc, What is meant by JOINTLY and what is meant by FORMULA? — R. Johanan said: If there is one date for all it is a 'joint' [Get], if there is a separate date for each it is a formula [Get]. Resh Lakish, however, said