Torah Community Connections

Week 87 - Thursday - 26 July 2001

GITTIN: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 8

If a scribe wrote a get for the man and a receipt for the woman, and he erred and gave the get to the woman and the receipt to the man, and they gave each other, and after some time, the get emerged from the hand of the man, and the receipt by the woman - she must leave this one and this one, and all these conditions apply to her. Rabbi Eliezer says, If it emerges immediately - it is not a get, if it was produced after some time - then it is a get. It is not in the power of the first to render void the right of the second. If he wrote to divorce his wife and he changed his mind - Bet Shammai say, he has disqualified her from the priesthood. But Bet Hillel say, Even if he gave it to her conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, he has not disqualified her from the priesthood.

Kehati

If a scribe wrote a get for the man - with which to divorce his wife, and a receipt for the woman - to give to her husband when she collects her ketubah, and he - the scribe, erred and gave the get - instead of the receipt, to the woman and the receipt - instead of the get, to the man, and - afterwards, they gave each other - the husband gave the receipt to his wife thinking that it was a get, and the wife gave her husband the get, instead of the receipt, and after some time - after she had remarried, because she thought she had received the get from her husband, the get emerged from the hand of the man, and the receipt by the woman - and it turned out that she had not received her get from the first husband, and that she had entered into a forbidden marriage - she must leave this one and this one, - and all these conditions apply to her - as taught in mishnah 5, above.

Rabbi Eliezer says, If it - the get, - emerges immediately - i.e., before she remarried, it is not a get - and he can give her the get now and she is divorced from the time he gave it to her (Rambam; Hameiri). According to Bartenura, "this is not a get" - and she requires another get, If it was produced after some time - i.e., after she remarried it- the get, emerged from the hand of the first husband, and the receipt from the hand of the wife, and they say that the scribe erred and gave the receipt to the husband and the get to the wife, and that afterwards they exchanged the documents as explained above, then it is a get - and she does not have to leave her second husband because it is not in the power of the first - we do not believe the first husband to render void the right of the second - second husband, to whom she is married now, for we fear that the first husband conspired with the wife, exchanging the documents to release her from her second husband.

If he wrote - a get, to divorce his wife and he changed his mind - and did not divorce her, Bet Shammai say, he disqualified her from the priesthood - because we are stringent in the observance of the law which forbids the marriage of a divorced woman to a priest, and even though the husband changed his mind and did not give her the get, she is, in regard to priesthood, considered a divorced woman, and if the husband dies, she is prohibited from marrying a priest, and if the husband is a priest, she must not remain married to him. But Bet Hillel say - if he changed his mind and did not give her the get, she is not disqualified from the priesthood, and - even if he gave it to her - he gave her the get - conditionally - e.g., he was mortally ill and he said to her, "This is your get from today if I die from this illness," or he was healthy and said to her, "This is your get if I do not come within thirty days," and the condition was not fulfilled - and the get is invalid, even in such a case - he has not disqualified her from the priesthood - because she does have the status of a divorced woman.

GITTIN: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 9

If one divorces his wife and she spent the night with him in an inn - Bet Shammai say, She does not need from him a second get. But Bet Hillel say, She needs from him a second get. When is this so? When she was divorced after marriage, but they agree that if divorced after betrothal, she does not need from him a second get, since he is not overly familiar with her. If he wed her with a get kere'ah she must leave this one and this one, and all these conditions apply to her.

Kehati

Our mishnah deals with two topics: (1) if a person divorces his wife and is alone with her after the divorce - Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel differ as to whether she needs a second get from him; (2) if a woman is divorced with a get kere'ah, (lit, a "bald" get) i.e., a get mekushar (a "tied" get) tied whose folds exceed the number of witnesses, as will be explained (in the next mishnah). The Sages instituted a get mekushar - a tied get - because of short-tempered priests, who, easily angered, divorced their wives and when they calmed down, they could not remarry their divorced wives, since a priest may not marry a divorced woman. A tied get was instituted because it cannot be written quickly, thus affording time for their anger to subside and be reconciled with their wives (Gemara, B. B. 160b).

The get mekushar was written in the following manner: the scribe wrote one or two lines, and then folded the written part over the blank part underneath it and sewed it together, repeating this procedure several times. Each fold is called a kesher (a "tie") - hence the name, get mekushar - a tied get. The Sages instituted that a witness had to sign on the back of each fold of a get mekushar. If there were folds not signed by witnesses, i.e., there were more folds than signatures on the get, it was called a get kere'ah (a "bald" get), and was invalid because we fear that the husband initially instructed a number of witnesses to sign each fold, and one of them did sign, and since the law is that if the husband says to the witnesses, "All of you sign," and one of them did not sign, the get is invalid.

If one divorces his wife and she spent the night with him - afterwards - in an inn - and there are witnesses who saw her alone with him, Bet Shammai say, She does not need from him a second get. But Bet Hillel say, She needs from him a second get - Bet Hillel hold that since there are witnesses who saw her alone with him, we say, "the witnesses who saw them being together are witnesses to their marital union," i.e., since they are intimate with each other, we presume with certainty that they engaged in sexual relations and since "an Israelite does not engage in wanton sexual relations, the union undoubtedly took place with the aim of effecting kiddushin and he thus married her before witnesses and she requires a second get from him. Bet Shammai, however, do not consider the witnesses to being together as witnesses of marital union, and even though they saw her alone with him, unless they witnesses the act, it is no proof that a union had taken place and therefore she does not require a second get from him.

When is this so - that Bet Hillel hold that she requires a second get from him? When she was divorced after marriage - from marriage, since he is intimate with her, as explained above, but they - Bet Hillel agree with Bet Shammai, that if divorced after betrothal - and she spent the night with him in an inn, that she does not need from him a second get, since he is not overly familiar with her - and we do not fear that he had sexual relations with her.

If he wed her with a get kere'ah - if a person marries a woman who was divorced by her first husband with a get kere'ah, i.e., a get mekushar with more folds than witnesses, which is an invalid get, as explained in the introduction to this mishnah, she must leave this one and this one, and all these conditions apply to her - all the laws which were listed in mishnah 5, above apply to her. This mishnah is according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that "the offspring of whoever changes the standard format of the get as determined by the Sages, is a mamzer (illegitimate)." Another opinion, however, holds that the offspring is not a mamzer, and she need only go out from her husband. The halakhah follows the latter opinion.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives