We begin this daf by continuing our deep dive into the sugya of a get (bill of divorce) signed by a Kuthi (Samaritan). The Gemara explores the delicate mechanics of how witnesses sign a get, explaining why a Jewish witness would only sign alongside a Kuthi if he was absolutely certain of the Kuthi's reliability. We will see how our Sages established specific safeguards for the signing process of gittin and bills of manumission to prevent any halachic mishaps.
Following this, we will learn a new Mishnah that introduces a major halachic principle regarding documents processed in non-Jewish courts. The Gemara will analyze the validity of these documents, distinguishing between sales and gifts, which leads us into one of the most famous and fundamental rules in all of Shas: Dina d'Malchusa Dina—the law of the land is the law.
דְּאִי לָאו דְּכוּתִי חָבֵר הֲוָה, לָא מַחְתֵּים לֵיהּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ.
For if not that this Samaritan was a trustworthy chaver, the Jewish witness would not have allowed him to sign before him on the document.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the reason, then even other documents where a Jew signed after a Samaritan should also be valid!
אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן רַוְוחָא שְׁבַק לְמַאן דְּקַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ;
Rather, we must say that for other documents we do not assume the Samaritan is a chaver, because we say that perhaps the Jew left space for someone who was older than him to sign first out of respect, and then the Samaritan came and signed in that space without the Jew's knowledge.
הָכָא נָמֵי, רַוְוחָא שְׁבַק לְמַאן דְּקַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ!
The Gemara objects: But here too, in the case of a get, why not say that the Jew left space for someone who was older than him, and the Samaritan signed there later?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, עֵדֵי הַגֵּט אֵין חוֹתְמִין זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה.
Rav Pappa said: That is to say, we must conclude that the witnesses of a get do not sign one without the other being present; they must sign together, so the Jew would have known exactly who was signing with him.
מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this rule?
אָמַר רב אָשֵׁי: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם ״כּוּלְּכֶם״.
Rav Ashi said: It is a Rabbinic decree because of a case where a husband says to a group, "All of you" write and sign this get, where all must sign together for it to be valid.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד כּוּתִי בִּלְבַד.
The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Rabbi Elazar said: They did not validate in a get except only one Samaritan witness.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי – פָּסוּל כּוּ׳!
The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? We already learned in our Mishnah: Any document that has a Samaritan witness on it is invalid, except for gittin and bills of manumission, which implies only one Samaritan witness is valid!
אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי נָמֵי;
The Gemara answers: If we only learned it from the Mishnah, I would have said that even two Samaritan witnesses are also valid on a get;
וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי חַד, מִשּׁוּם דְּבִשְׁטָרוֹת אֲפִילּוּ חַד נָמֵי לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
and that which it teaches using the singular language of "one" witness is because in other documents even one Samaritan witness is also not valid. Therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that only one Samaritan witness is valid on a get, but not two.
וּתְרֵי לָא?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה, וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר!
The Gemara asks: And are two Samaritan witnesses not valid? But surely it teaches in the Mishnah: An incident occurred and they brought before Rabban Gamliel to the village of Otnai a get of a woman, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he validated it!
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּנִי: ״עֵדוֹ״.
Abaye said: Teach and correct the text of the Mishnah to read: "its witness" in the singular, meaning there was only one Samaritan witness.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם תְּרֵי, וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִיפְלָג פְּלִיג;
Rava said: Actually, it means two Samaritan witnesses, and Rabban Gamliel argues with the first Tanna and holds that two are valid.
וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַכְשִׁיר בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה, וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר.
And the Mishnah is missing words, and this is what it is teaching: And Rabban Gamliel validates with two Samaritan witnesses, and an incident also occurred where they brought before Rabban Gamliel to the village of Otnai a get of a woman, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he validated it.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִים בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶם גּוֹיִם – כְּשֵׁירִים; חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים.
MISHNAH: All documents that come up in the courts of non-Jews, even though their signers are non-Jews, are valid; except for bills of divorce of women and bills of release of slaves.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין, לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט.
Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid; they were not mentioned as invalid except when they were made by a commoner who is a non-Jew, but in their courts they are valid.
גְּמָ׳ קָא פָּסֵיק וְתָנֵי – לָא שְׁנָא מֶכֶר לָא שְׁנָא מַתָּנָה.
GEMARA: The Mishnah rules categorically and teaches that all documents are valid, implying it is no different if it is a document of sale, and it is no different if it is a document of gift.
בִּשְׁלָמָא מֶכֶר, מִכִּי יָהֵיב זוּזֵי קַמַּיְיהוּ הוּא דִּקְנָה; וּשְׁטָרָא רְאָיָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – דְּאִי לָא יָהֵיב זוּזֵי קַמַּיְיהוּ, לָא הֲווֹ מַרְעִי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ וְכָתְבִין לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא.
Granted, a document of sale is valid, because from when he gives the money in front of them, he has acquired the property, and the document is merely a proof; for if he did not give the money in front of them, they would not damage their own reputation and write a document for him.
אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה, בְּמַאי קָא קָנֵי – לָאו בְּהַאי שְׁטָרָא? וְהַאי שְׁטָרָא חַסְפָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!
But regarding a gift, through what does he acquire it? Is it not through this document? And this document written by non-Jews is merely a shard of clay and should not be halachically effective!
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא – דִּינָא.
Shmuel said: The law of the kingdom is the law, and therefore the transfer of property via their courts is halachically binding.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, תָּנֵי ״חוּץ מִכְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים״.
And if you wish, say: Teach the Mishnah as saying: "except for those like bills of divorce of women," which includes gifts, where the document itself effects the acquisition.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵלּוּ, כְּשֵׁירִין וְכוּ׳:
The Mishnah taught: Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid, etc.
וְהָא לָאו בְּנֵי כְרִיתוּת נִינְהוּ?
The Gemara asks: But surely non-Jews are not subject to the laws of severance of marriage, so how can they sign a get?
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: יָרַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְשִׁיטָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.
Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Shimon descended to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: The witnesses of delivery effect the severance of the marriage, not the witnesses signed on the get.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּמְזוּיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ, שֶׁפָּסוּל!
The Gemara asks: But did not Rabbi Abba say: Rabbi Elazar admits in a case where a document is forged within itself, that it is invalid? A get signed by non-Jews is invalid on its face!
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן –
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?
The Gemara first clarifies that witnesses to a get must sign in each other's presence, a Rabbinic decree enacted to prevent invalidity in cases where a husband appoints multiple witnesses. This requirement ensures that a Jewish witness signing alongside a Kuthi is fully aware of his co-signatory's status, validating the get when only one witness is a Kuthi. We then learn that while Rabban Gamliel accepts a get even with two Kuthi witnesses, the Sages generally restrict this. Moving to the next Mishnah, the Gemara rules that documents from non-Jewish courts are valid for sales, as the exchange of money constitutes the actual acquisition and the document merely serves as proof. However, for gifts where the document itself must effect the acquisition, the Gemara introduces the guiding principle of Dina d'Malchusa Dina to establish their validity.
The Gemara on Gittin 10b teaches us a profound lesson about the power of our surroundings and the weight of our associations. We see that a Jew would only sign a document alongside a Samaritan if he knew for certain that this individual was a true chaver—someone meticulously dedicated to the service of Hashem. Our sages understood that who we stand next to, and who we partner with in life's major moments, speaks volumes about our own standards. In our daily lives, we must ask ourselves: do the people we associate with, the friends we choose, and the partnerships we form reflect our deepest values of yiras Shamayim and Torah?
Furthermore, the Gemara introduces the famous principle of Dina D'Malchusa Dina—the law of the land is the law. This is not just a legal necessity; it is a fundamental principle of integrity and kiddush Hashem. When we act with absolute honesty in the secular world and respect the laws of the society we live in, we are showing that a Torah Jew is a person of the highest moral caliber. Our honesty in business and our respect for the law are themselves a powerful avodah that sanctifies Hashem's name in the eyes of all.
Today, make a conscious effort to sanctify Hashem's name in your worldly dealings by being meticulously honest in a secular transaction or legal requirement, keeping in mind the principle of Dina D'Malchusa Dina.