Talmud - Gittin 5a גיטין ה׳ א׳

If we say that this is referring to a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to halakha.

And Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent gave the bill of divorce to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute. In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything. This works out well according to the opinion of Rava. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, as he requires testimony that the bill of divorce was written for the woman’s sake.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This does not refer to the main period of the decree. Rather, it is speaking of later generations, after the residents of countries overseas learned that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, so there is no need for the declaration. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, meaning that this is referring to a situation where everyone is assumed to be knowledgeable, even if the agent is able to testify he should also not be required to say: It was written in my presence, as it should be sufficient to confirm the witnesses’ signatures. The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, Rabba maintains that the agent must testify, due to a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state, i.e., they might forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake.

The Gemara asks: If it is so, that the Sages decreed that the statement must be issued even in this case, then one who is unable to speak should also be obligated to state the declaration, and be disqualified from serving as an agent due to his inability to speak. The Gemara answers: This case of a halakhically competent individual who became a deaf-mute is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.

The Gemara asks: But the case of a woman who brings her own bill of divorce is also an uncommon matter, and yet we learned in a mishna (23a): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she too is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this ordinance so that you will not distinguish with regard to different types of agency. To avoid confusion, the Sages decreed that all agents who bring a bill of divorce must state the declaration, even the woman herself.

The Gemara asks: If so, then a husband who brings his wife’s bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. Why then, is it taught in a baraita: In the case of the husband himself who brought his own bill of divorce, he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the agent of a bill of divorce is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The reason for the decree is that perhaps the husband will come to contest and invalidate the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself now holds the document in his hand, and yet you are concerned that he will contest it? If he does not wish to give the bill of divorce to the woman he can simply tear it up. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree to this case.

§ The Gemara attempts to cite an additional proof: Come and hear, as Shmuel raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to state this declaration? Rav Huna said to him: They are not required to say it. Rav Huna explained his ruling: And if these two individuals would say, testifying: She was divorced in our presence, even without bringing a bill of divorce, aren’t they deemed credible and isn’t she considered divorced? Therefore, in this case too, they are deemed credible when they claim that the bill of divorce was written correctly.

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as the matter depends on the availability of witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, and there are two witnesses in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, it is difficult, as he requires the additional testimony that the document was written for the woman’s sake. The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of Rabba, with what are we dealing here? He maintains that this ruling is referring to the period after the people living overseas learned the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one person who brings a bill of divorce should also not be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence. The Gemara explains: One witness is still required to state the declaration for the aforementioned reason: It is a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state.

The Gemara further asks: If so, two who bring a bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in their presence, due to this same decree. The Gemara answers: Two people who bring a bill of divorce is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.

The Gemara asks: But the case of a woman who brings her own bill of divorce is also an uncommon matter, and yet we learned in a mishna (23a): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she too is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Why do the Sages obligate her to state this declaration when it is uncommon for a woman to be the agent of delivery for her own bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The Sages instituted this decree so that you will not distinguish with regard to different types of agency.

The Gemara asks: If so, then a husband who brings his wife’s bill of divorce should also be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence, as the Sages do not differentiate between different agents. Why then, is it taught in a baraita: If the husband himself brings his own bill of divorce he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages said that the agent of a bill of divorce is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence? The reason for the decree is that perhaps the husband will come to contest and invalidate the bill of divorce. However, here the husband himself now holds the document in his hand, and yet you are concerned that he will contest it?

§ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the Tosefta (1:1): With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and gave it to the woman, but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce is ratified through its signatories, i.e., other people testify about the witnesses’ signatures, it is valid, but if not it is invalid. This is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her, to spare the court from having to ratify the bill of divorce.

The Gemara explains the proof: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as according to him the statement of the agent is to avoid the need for the court to ratify the bill of divorce, which is a leniency for her. However, according to the opinion of Rabba it is difficult, as he holds that the agent is required to state the declaration due to the concern that the bill of divorce may not have been written for her sake, which is a stringency for her. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With the period after they learned the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that there is a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state? Why didn’t the Sages enforce their decree in this case? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the woman had already married again after having received the bill of divorce, and the Sages did not want to enforce their decree at the expense of forcing her to get divorced. The Gemara questions this explanation: If so, the explanation provided by the Tosefta for the ruling in the mishna, that the reason is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her, is not accurate. Instead, the true reason for this leniency is because she had already married someone else.

The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the baraita is saying: And if you would say that one should be stringent with her and remove her from her new husband, to counter that claim the tanna adds: This is because the Sages did not require him to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so as to be stringent with her. Rather, they required the agent to state this declaration so as to be lenient with her.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Gittin 5a explores whether a mute agent can validate a bill of divorce, weighing Rava and Rabba’s views on required testimony and rabbinic safeguards.