Talmud - Gittin 81b גיטין פ״א ב׳

as Beit Shammai hold: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Although they were seen engaging in sexual intercourse, one cannot assume that he intended to betroth her, since they were recently divorced. The assumption is that they were simply engaging in licentious sexual intercourse. Consequently, he is not required to give her a second bill of divorce.

And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Therefore, he had the intention to betroth her, and he must give her another bill of divorce. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at an inn, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, as there is no concern that perhaps they engaged in sexual intercourse.

The Gemara challenges this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him because he is not accustomed to her. And if the mishna is referring to a case in which they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, what is the difference to me if it was following the state of betrothal and what is the difference to me if it was following the state of marriage? In either case, they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse.

Rather it can be explained that the mishna is actually speaking about a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai did not disagree about a case where they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Everyone agrees that in such a scenario, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him.

With regard to what case did they disagree? They disagreed about a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse. As Beit Shammai say: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel say: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with the mishna.

The Gemara asks: And as for the mishna, which we established as discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree about a case in which there are witnesses to their seclusion, but there are no witnesses to an act of sexual intercourse.

With regard to such a case, Beit Shammai hold: We do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in sexual intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him.

And Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, even if they were alone together. For since he is not accustomed to her, we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion; these are the witnesses of intercourse.

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this, that Beit Hillel require a second bill of divorce only when witnesses saw that they engaged in sexual intercourse? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The halakha in all cases is like an unattributed mishna. And we established the mishna to be discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. How then does Rabbi Yoḥanan rule contrary to the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Some of them hold that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not always rule in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

MISHNA: If a woman was married by her second husband on the basis of receiving a bare bill of divorce, i.e., a folded and tied bill of divorce that is missing signatures, she must leave both this, the first husband, and that, the second husband. And all of those previously mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier mishna (79b) apply to her in this case as well.

With regard to a bare bill of divorce; anyone, even those who are disqualified from bearing witness, can complete it, i.e., sign it in addition to the primary witnesses, so that it will not remain bare. This is the statement of ben Nannas. Rabbi Akiva says: Not all who are disqualified from bearing witness can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. Rabbi Akiva permits only the inclusion of witnesses who would ordinarily be valid witnesses, but who are invalid here because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

And what is a bare bill of divorce? It is any bill of divorce where the number of its folds is more than the number of its witnesses. In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is folded and the folds are then tied. Instead of having two witnesses sign at the bottom of the document, witnesses would sign on each tied fold. A bare bill of divorce has more folds than signatures, i.e., some folds lack signatures.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a bare bill of divorce is not valid, considering that there are more than two witnesses signed on it? The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree that was issued due to one who says: All of you should sign. Since it can be assumed that one who writes a folded and tied bill of divorce wants to have each tied fold signed, there is concern that he may have instructed that all of them sign. If they do not sign, the condition is not fulfilled, and the bill of divorce is not valid.

§ It was stated in the mishna that ben Nannas holds, with regard to a bare bill of divorce, that anyone can complete it. Rabbi Akiva, however, permits disqualified witnesses to sign only if they are invalid because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the reason that a slave cannot sign? The Gemara answers: The Sages were concerned that people will mistakenly come to say that since the slave served as a witness in this case, the slave is fit to bear witness in all cases. They will use a slave as a witness in situations that demand testimony accepted only from qualified witnesses. The Gemara challenges this: If so, with regard to a relative, too, they will come to say that a relative is fit to bear witness in all cases.

Rather, one could explain that with regard to a slave, this is the reason why he is disqualified: There is concern that perhaps they will come to elevate his status with regard to lineage. If a slave signs the bill of divorce, they might say that if he signed a bill of divorce, he must be an Israelite.

The Gemara asks: If this is the reason why a slave cannot sign, then a robber, who is of unflawed lineage, should be fit to complete the signatures of a folded and tied bill of divorce, according to Rabbi Akiva. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: Not all can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. The Gemara deduces from this: A relative, yes; but a robber, no.

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is the reason why a slave is disqualified: They will come to say that his master emancipated him and he signed because he is now like any other Israelite. Similarly, with regard to a robber, they will also come to say that he repented and will allow him to testify in other cases, as well. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva declared him to be unfit as well. With regard to a relative, what can be said to disallow him to sign this bill of divorce? With regard to a relative, everyone knows that he is a relative, and there is no concern that they will allow him to testify in other cases involving his relatives.

§ Rabbi Zeira says that Rabba bar She’eilta says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three. But if its ties total three and its witnesses total two, everyone, even ben Nannas, agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, only a relative can complete it.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba bar She’eilta: After all, all three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce are like the two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce, since the Sages said that a folded and tied bill of divorce requires at least three witnesses. Therefore, just as there, in the case of an ordinary bill of divorce, a relative cannot serve as one of the two witnesses, so too here, a relative should not serve as one of the primary witnesses.

Rabba bar She’eilta said to him: To me as well this was difficult, and I asked that question to Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Hamnuna asked it to Rav Adda bar Ahava, who had transmitted this statement, and he said to him: Leave the case of three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce, as the requirement is not by Torah law. While the requirement to have a minimum of two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce is by Torah law, the requirement to have a minimum of three witnesses for a folded and tied bill of divorce is by rabbinic law. Consequently, it is of no concern if the third witness is not fit to bear witness.

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:9): The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three.

The baraita continues: If a slave completed it with his signature, and the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, ben Nannas says: The offspring of a subsequent marriage is unflawed. And Rabbi Akiva says: The offspring is a mamzer. But if its ties total three, and its witnesses total two, everyone agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, it can be completed only by a relative of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

Rav Yosef taught: Only a valid witness can complete it. The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: A relative? Rav Pappa said: Correct the language of the baraita, and teach: Valid.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the Sages validated only the use of one witness who is a relative, to complete the number of signatures as per the number of knotted folds. But two such witnesses, no, they did not validate them. The reason for this is that perhaps they will come to ratify a bill of divorce with two witnesses who are relatives and one witness who is valid. If the bill of divorce will be challenged, it will be necessary to ratify the document. While this bill of divorce has more than three witnesses signed to it, the court needs to authenticate the signatures of only three of the witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, provided that two of them are not relatives. If there are more than two relatives signed on the bill of divorce, a court may unintentionally authenticate the signatures of two relatives and only one valid witness.

Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, in accordance with this opinion,

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

Gittin 81b explores Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel's dispute over whether a divorced couple's later intimacy implies intent to remarry, requiring a second bill of divorce.